The court considered new evidence indicating Mexico City may not be a safe place for gay men
In a recent ruling, the Federal Court has underscored the importance of considering the most recent country condition information in decisions over applications for refugee protection.
In Guzman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 433, the court allowed the application for judicial review by a 30-year-old Mexican citizen seeking refugee protection in Canada, due to his fear of persecution based on his sexual orientation. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) initially found that the applicant had credible evidence of his sexual orientation and the adverse treatment he experienced in Colima State and Guadalajara. However, the RPD concluded that the applicant has a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico City, leading to the rejection of his protection claim.
The applicant's appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) was dismissed. The RAD affirmed the RPD's decision regarding the IFA in Mexico City. Challenging the RAD's finding as unreasonable, the applicant sought judicial review before the Federal Court, arguing the decision failed to consider updated and significant country condition information.
Most Read
The Federal Court agreed with the applicant, stating that the RAD's decision was unreasonable due to its failure to address new evidence indicating Mexico City may not be a safe and secure place for gay men, as previously concluded. The court highlighted new documents in the updated National Documentation Package (NDP) for Mexico. The court noted that these documents show the persistence of discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Mexico City, contrary to the RAD's findings. The court noted significant issues, including a high percentage of discrimination beliefs, reports of homophobic and transphobic discrimination, and a lack of effective legal redress for rights violations.
In its decision, the court emphasized the importance of considering the most recent country condition information. It criticized the RAD for overlooking pertinent evidence challenging the applicant's safety in Mexico City. The court found the RAD's decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility, rendering it unreasonable.
The court underscored the dynamic nature of country conditions and the critical role of up-to-date evidence in assessing refugee protection claims. Ultimately, the court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the RAD's decision and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different decision maker.
