TA5-16378

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Brazil can protect its nationals with clear and convincing evidence; documentary country evidence showed state measures addressing homophobia and thus adequate protection would be available, so the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Citation: TA5-16378
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Minister's Counsel: Canada Border Services Agency
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 28 June 2006
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.170(b) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA.
Legal Topics: State Protection, Sexual Orientation, Particular Social Group, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Risk of Torture, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language: English

Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Sexual Orientation Particular Social Group Credibility Internal Flight Alternative +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Canada Border Services Agency

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.170(b) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant is credible
2 Whether Brazil is unwilling or unable to protect homosexuals (state protection)
3 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA.