Date: 20081217
Docket: IMM-2360-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1388
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
ALEX
HANIEL MUCKETTE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant is a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (St. Vincent)
whose refugee claim was based upon the persecution he experienced as a gay man
in his home country. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected his claim.
This is the judicial review of that RPD decision.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant’s evidence detailed a long history of stigma and actions against him
because of his sexual orientation. These incidents, commencing when he was approximately
13, included being ejected from his mother’s house, being slapped or beaten by
several family members, routinely being called names, and being threatened with
death. These incidents culminated in being stoned by a group of men from whom
he ran.
[3]
His
testimony that homosexuals are routinely harassed and discriminated against in St. Vincent is supported
by documentary evidence.
[4]
In
2004, at the age of 22, the Applicant began working on a cruise ship, and
returned to St.
Vincent
from time to time.
[5]
St.
Vincent
has on its “books” laws making homosexual acts illegal. It is accepted that the
law is not enforced.
[6]
The
RPD accepted the Applicant’s evidence, but found that the various incidents
were discriminatory and not individually or cumulatively persecutory. The RPD
dismissed the importance of the death threats on the grounds that the threats
were not acted upon.
III. ANALYSIS
[7]
The
central issue in this case is whether the RPD erred in treating the incidents
experienced by the Applicant as mere discrimination.
[8]
I
concur with the Applicant’s submission that the cumulative effect of the
incidents tipped into the area of persecution when death threats, which had
some degree of reality to them, were made.
[9]
The
RPD’s error in this case was to adopt a dismissive attitude towards complaints
which were found to be credible. The RPD failed to address whether the death
threats had a degree of reality to them and in effect dismissed them because no
one had attempted to kill the Applicant.
[10]
There
are a number of issues which the RPD did not address, such as failure to seek
state protection, reavailment, and lengthy delay in departing St. Vincent. These
issues may be considered as part of the redetermination.
[11]
This
judicial review will be granted, the RPD’s decision quashed, and the
Applicant’s claim remitted to a different panel for a fresh determination.
There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is granted, the RPD’s decision is quashed, and
the Applicant’s claim is to be remitted to a different panel for a fresh
determination.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content