Challenges to assessing same-sex relationships under refugee law in Canada.

• Author: Hersh, Nicholas

This article suggests that there are reasons to be concerned about the way relationship history impacts credibility assessments for refugee claims based on sexual orientation. Decision makers' written assessments often reveal insufficient consideration of the psychosocial barriers that may impinge on sexual minority refugees' ability to testify on their relationships. The multinational and multicultural setting of refugee-status proceedings poses unique challenges for sexual minority refugee claimants in having their membership in a particular social group established. Understanding and expressing sexual identity spans cultural divides, and therefore, a claimant's expressed identity may not match the decision maker's expectations. Notions of love and intimacy may also be culturally construed, and therefore expectations of how these notions manifest in long-term relationships may be inappropriate in the context of refugee status determination.

This article emphasizes that implausibility findings concerning claimants' relationships should be made cautiously. Decision makers should not assume that sexual minorities in countries in which homosexuality is stigmatized or criminalized are devoid of the volition to have same-sex partners. Nor should they assume that sexual minority refugees are necessarily willing to embrace same-sex relationships soon after arriving in Canada. Evaluating same-sex relationships according to the Cass Staged-Identity model can lead to persistent doubts about claimants' credibility.

In sum, this article attempts to canvass the potential pitfalls of Canadian adjudication methods in cases of sexual minority refugee claimants, and to propose recommendations for evaluating testimony and evidence of these relationships.

Cet article fait valoir qu'il y a des raisons de questionner la facon dont l'historique des relations affecte l'evaluation de credibilite pour les demandes d'asile fondees sur l'orientation sexuelle. Les evaluations ecrites demontrent souvent une prise en consideration insuffisante des obstacles psychosociaux susceptibles de porter atteinte a la capacite des refugies membres de minorites sexuelles a temoigner sur leurs relations. L'environnement multinational et multiculturel des procedures pour la designation du statut de refugie pose des defis uniques pour les demandeurs d'asile de faire reconnaitre leur appartenance a un groupe social particulier. Comprendre et exprimer une identite sexuelle transcendent les divisions culturelles : l'identite exprimee par un demandeur pourrait donc ne pas correspondre aux attentes du decideur. Les notions d'amour et d'intimite peuvent aussi s'exprimer de facon culturelle. Les attentes en ce qui a trait a la manifestation de ces notions peuvent donc etre inappropriees dans le contexte de la determination du statut de refugie.

Cet article souligne que les determinations d'invraisemblance concernant les relations des demandeurs doivent se faire avec prudence. Les decideurs ne doivent pas presmner que les minorites sexuelles dans les pays oU l'homosexualite est criminalisee ou stigmatisee sont depourvues de la volonte d'avoir des partenaires du meme sexe. Ils ne doivent pas non plus presumer que les refugies membres de minorites sexuelles sont necessairement prets a adopter des relations homosexuelles peu apres leur arrivee au Canada. Evaluer les relations homosexuelles selon le modele d'identite Cass peut conduire a des doutes persistants quant a la credibilite des demandeurs d'asile.

En somme, cet article tente de prospecter les pieges potentiels des methodes canadiennes de decisions en matiere de demandes d'asile par des refugies membres de minorites sexuelles et de proposer des recommandations pour l'evaluation de temoignages concernant ces relations et de preuves a leur effet.

Introduction I. Sexual Minority Refugee Claimants and Their Relationships: An Empirical Study A. Overview of Canadian Refugee Law and Claims Based on Sexual Orientation B. The Significance of Same-Sex Relationships in Refugee Claims C. Disclosure Same-Sex Relationships and Establishing Membership in mi LGB Social Group D. No Disclosure of Same-Sex Relationships and Establishing Membership in an LGB Social Group II. Identifying and Addressing Credibility Concerns A. Mental Health Challenges Impacting Testimony on Same-Sex Relationships B. How "Hetero" Are Refugees' Same-Sex Relationships? C. Cross-Cultural Considerations of Same-Sex Relationships D. Implausibility Bindings Regarding Existence or Absence of Same-Sex Relationships 1. Implausibility of Same-Sex Relationships in Countries of origin 2. Implausibility of No Same-Sex Relationships in Canada III. Recommendations Conclusion Introduction

In 1993, Canada became one of the first countries to accept sexual orientation as aground on which a person could claim refugee protection. This was a commendable and groundbreaking development in Canadian refugee law. However, challenges remain in securing a fair and equitable refugee determination process for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) claimants arriving to Canada. (1) Some scholars have asserted, for instance, that adjudicators sometimes impose burdensome and unfair expectations on claimants to prove their sexual orientation when soliciting refugee status. For example, one consistent criticism has been that adjudicators have a propensity to evaluate the credibility of sexual minority claimants according to Western notions of gay and lesbian appearances or lifestyles. (2) Other adjudicators have concluded that claimants are not sexual minorities based on the fact that they demonstrated hesitancy or an unwillingness to fully embrace their sexual orientation. (3)

This article suggests that relationship history is a significant component of determination hearings because it might greatly affect the credibility findings of refugee decision makers in relation to sexual orientation. In making the case that they are members in a "particular social group" as required under refugee law, sexual minority claimants will be asked to testify about their same-sex intimate and sexual relationship history. Of interest is the way in which relationship evidence is perceived and evaluated by refugee adjudicators when deciding whether a claimant is a member of an LGB social group.

Part I of this article begins with an empirical analysis of adjudication trends gleaned from publicly accessible case law. In spite of methodological limitations, these trends suggest that credible evidence of past or current same-sex relationships may be instrumental in establishing membership in a particular social group. The challenges outlined in this article therefore warrant serious consideration.

Following this empirical analysis, Part II of this article focuses on challenges in properly assessing evidence and testimony of same-sex relationships in refugee-status determination proceedings. Part II is divided into four subparts. First, sexual minority claimants may face mental health barriers in delivering testimony on their relationships. For instance, decision makers sometimes fail to adequately consider that claimants may be struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder and internalized homophobia. However, such considerations could be essential to understanding why a claimant may struggle to effectively articulate experiences related to same-sex partners during a refugee status determination hearing.

Second, decision makers might rely on a heteronormative framework to conceptualize sexuality, which can also prove detrimental to the evaluation of refugees' sexual and intimate relationships. This issue has arisen in the Canadian and Australian immigration contexts more generally, where the definition of conjugality does not always extend to the type of relationships developed and sustained by same-sex couples. In the refugee context, adjudicators have emphasized the longevity of claimants' partnerships as a key reason to expect testimony and evidence demonstrating bona fide same-sex relationships.

Third, decision makers might also have a restrictive cross-cultural understanding of sexuality. The importance of claimants' cultural back ground in understanding their same-sex experiences is therefore examined. Through research and jurisprudence, this subpart questions whether commonly defined values related to relationships such as love, intimacy, and sexuality are culturally construed. If such is the case, then determining the credibility of a refugee's testimony based on Western assumptions of relationship development is an inappropriate adjudicative practice, which may yield unjust results.

Directing attention to these three key challenges in assessing claimants supports the argument that there are reasons to be concerned about the way decision makers approach narratives involving same-sex relationships. The fourth section of Part II of this article refers to the Cass Staged-Identity model (the Cass model) of sexual identity development to illustrate the potential challenges in determining credibility of claimants who speak of volition to engage in same-sex relationships in their countries of origin yet appear reticent to enter into same-sex relationships in Canada. Adjudicators who view relationships similarly to the stages of the Cass model may overlook considerations of mental health, culture, and heteronormativity, resulting in a flawed and biased assessment of claimants' relationships.

The article concludes by setting out practical recommendations for not only decision makers who are handling evidence and testimony of same-sex relationships in refugee claims based on sexual orientation, but also legal practitioners who represent sexual minority refugees in refugee status- determination proceedings. While the recommendations provided are based on published case law and academic research, this article will hopefully serve as a base for further examining the interconnection of law and...