TB1-13927

TB1-13927

Although the claimant is homosexual and experienced some discrimination, the panel found his evidence and documentary record did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or that he met the threshold under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA: country sources show laws are rarely enforced; the claimant lived...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB1-13927
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Persecution, Sexual Orientation, HIV Status, Credibility and Documentary Evidence, Delay and Conduct of Claimant
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Public International Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Persecution Sexual Orientation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the evidence establishes a well-founded fear or serious possibility of persecution for sexual orientation or HIV status

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant is homosexual and experienced some discrimination, the panel found his evidence and documentary record did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or that he met the threshold under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA: country sources show laws are rarely enforced; the claimant lived openly and successfully in Barbados; letters indicate his orientation was known without persecution; unexplained delays, repeated travel without claiming, and failure to produce a central document undermine credibility; accordingly the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's claim for refugee protection
  • No protection order or designation of refugee status granted