2024 RLLR 95
Citation: 2024 RLLR 95
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 29, 2024
Panel: Nicole Sangha
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Yailin Alonso Mederos
Country: Mexico
RPD Number: VC4-20814
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00611
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for the Refugee Protection Division in the claim for protection for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, who claims to be a citizen of Mexico seeking protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] In deciding the claim today, I have considered and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 9 on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics, also known as SOGIESC Guidelines. During the hearing, the claimant stated that she prefers to go by Ms. XXXX and by the pronouns of she/her. These pronouns are used throughout the hearing and the decision today.
[3] The allegations are as follows. The claimant’s full allegations can be found in her Basis of Claim form and detailed narrative in Exhibit 2. Summarized very briefly, the claimant fears persecution in Mexico, based on her gender and membership in a particular social group, namely the LGBTQ2I+ community. The claimant is a transgender woman, and the determination is that I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee because she has established that she faces a serious possibility of persecution in Mexico as a member of a particular social group, namely as a transgender woman.
[4] The analysis is as follows. I note that the claimant has provided two passports on file in Exhibit 4. I note that one of the passports is old and has the original name of the claimant, and the other passport is a newly issued passport reflecting the claimant’s name change. I find that the passports and legal name change documents in Exhibit 4 support that the claimant is the same person in both passports on file, on a balance of probabilities. And so, I find that the claimant’s personal identity and Mexican — identity as a Mexican national — as a Mexican national, sorry, has been established by her passport and by her legal name change and birth certificate that are found in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 4.
[5] So, in terms of credibility, the claimant benefits from the presumption of truthfulness. In this case, I have no reason to doubt the claimant’s truthfulness. The claimant provided a Basis of Claim and narrative that is detailed and consistent with other evidence before me.
[6] The claimant testified in a straightforward and detailed manner. She provided details on her own experiences that she faced herself. She testified how she was able to navigate her gender identity and sexual orientation in Mexico. She testified to her experiences as a gay person in Mexico and as a transgendered woman in Mexico. She testified to her experiences in transitioning from male to female, and the discrimination she faced from society and from the police.
[7] For example, she testified about discrimination faced at her place of employment, and she also testified on being assaulted and the inaction of the police in her case. The claimant also provided corroborated documentary evidence which includes, but is not limited to, a detailed supporting letter from friends and family, membership letters, photographs of her life, a copy of the claimant’s official gender correction from male to female, and corrected identity documents from Mexico.
[8] The supporting letters on file from the claimant’s family and friends corroborate the claimant’s transition from male to female, and corroborates that the claimant underwent hormone treatment in Mexico. The letters also corroborate the discrimination and threats that the claimant received on account of her gender identity. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these documents, and I assign them full weight, as they corroborate the claimant’s central allegation that she is a transgendered female.
[9] I find that the claimant has established her subjective fear on a balance of probabilities and I will now look at the objective evidence that is on file in the National Documentation Package for Mexico. So, I will turn to Item 2.8 of the National Documentation Package, and it notes that LGBTQ2I+ people have strong legal protections, but they are unevenly enforced and transgendered women in particular face discrimination and violence.
[10] I will turn to Item 6.1, which is Human Rights Report in the year of 2016, and I note that more recent information is very consistent from 2017 and forward. The US DOS report writes that the laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but only in Mexico City does it prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. The US DOS report states further that in Mexico City, the law criminalizes hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
[11] Item 6.1 and 6.2 of the National Documentation Package also indicate that there continues to be conservative attitudes that prevail in Mexico.
[12] Item 2.1 notes that in 2020, there is significant human rights issues, including violence targeting transgendered people.
[13] Item 6.2 goes on to state that Mexico is second only to Brazil in the number of known homicides against transgender people worldwide.
[14] Item 6.4 is a Response to Information Request, and it goes on to state that there is extrajudicial and arbitrary executions noted at an alarming pattern of grotesque homicides, including against transgender individuals, and broad impunity for those crimes, sometimes with the suspect complicitly — complicity of the investigation — of the investigative authorities. So, for example, some Mexican authorities and — sorry, for example, some Mexican communities have explicitly targeted transgendered women by enacting morality laws that criminalize cross-dressing. This is indicated in Item 6.1.
[15] And finally, in Item 6.3, it is also reported that despite the government’s efforts in trying to change things in Mexico, the — that transphobic attitudes continue to promote — to continue to be promoted and a context in which transgender people are murdered, harassed, and attacked.
[16] The same — sorry. The next section is Item 6.4, that states that legislation protecting LGBTQ2I+ individuals is only partially effective, and discrimination and violence continues to be constant and prevalent throughout the country.
[17] These are also — there are also reports of police abuse, violence, insults, and delays, or refuse — refusals to provide services, and state authorities have also reportedly used their own power to intimidate, threaten, and inflict violence against LGBTQ2I+ persons throughout Mexico.
[18] So, overall, this demonstrates to me that LGBTQ2I+ persons are — and notably, transgendered individuals in the country continue to face systemic discrimination that leaves them at risk of violence, homelessness, lack of access to public spaces and services, and means to support themselves.
[19] I find that the claimant’s subjective fears are objectively confirmed and corroborated by the objective evidence, and as such, I find that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
[20] So, I will now move over to state protection. With respect to whether the claimant could avail themselves of state protection, I find that state protection has been rebutted in this case, and my reasons are as follows. The claimant testified that she went to the police to make a denunciation after she was assaulted. She stated that the police refused to investigate because they perceived the assault to be an argument.
[21] In terms of the objective evidence, I note on Item 6.4 that there is suspected complicity and broad impunity of investigative authorities in relation to crimes against transgender persons. There is repeated — this is repeated in Item 2.1 as well, where it is reported that Mexican authorities did not always investigate or punish those complicit in abuses against sexual minorities.
[22] In Item 6.1, it notes that transgender individuals are often noted to face brutal violence from state officials and that they are subject to arbitrary arrest, extortion, and physical abuse. This is — cis-normativity is well documented.
[23] In addition, the stigma and discrimination that are rampant in Mexico are highlighted in Tab 6.1. There have been several instances with which police officers have been accused of kidnapping, torturing, and killing LGBTQ2I+ individuals.
[24] 6.2 again, is very consistent with regards to police being involved in threatening and intimidating people who are in the LGBTQ2I+ communities. And police have often been known to verbally harass the community, to use homophobic slurs, and to also arbitrarily detain LGBTQ2I+ individuals.
[25] And then again, in 6.1 of the NDP, it notes that transgendered individuals are noted to face brutal violence from state officials that are subject to arbitrary arrests, extortion, and physical abuse, and that the judicial system itself has also been identified as ineffective in investigating crimes against the LGBTQ2I+ persons. And there has been ineffective — ineffectiveness in implementing special procedures and policies to protect LGBTQ2I+ people within Mexico. So, I find that the claimant would not be provided with state protection, and I find that she has successfully rebutted the presumption of state protection.
[26] So, in terms of internal flight alternative. With respect to the internal flight alternative, I must be satisfied that the claimant would be safe in another location in Mexico, and that it would be reasonable for her, in all circumstances related to her, to live there. After considering the testimony of the claimants and having regard to the objective country documentation, which include the references above and include references of the LGBTQ2I+ community being frequent targets in Mexico City by state and non-state agents of harm. I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would face persecution throughout Mexico, and that she could not live openly in Mexico. I find that the IFA analysis fails on the first prong, and that there is no viable IFA for the claimant in Mexico.
[27] So, in conclusion, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee and I accept her claim for protection today.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———