Home » Special Section on Sexual Minorities and HIV/AIDS

Special Section on Sexual Minorities and HIV/AIDS

Coun­try Con­di­tion Infor­ma­tion | Cases | Law Arti­cles | Links

Please note that LGB asy­lum dif­fers from asy­lum for trans peo­ple.  Suc­cess­ful trans asy­lum cases are few and rely not on gen­der iden­tity as much as per­ceived sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion. Indeed, being trans has not yet been rec­og­nized as a ground for asy­lum.

Coun­try Con­di­tion Information

Cases

  • Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Attor­ney Gen­eral, 500 F.3d1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (granted) (undis­puted evi­dence seems to show that the peti­tioner likely will be sin­gled out for crawl-space con­fine­ment, kalot marassa, and beat­ings with metal rods as a result of AIDS-related men­tal ill­ness).
  • Lavira v. Attor­ney Gen­eral – (3rd Cir. Feb. 2007; remanded for fur­ther pro­ceed­ings) (HIV-positive peti­tioner).

Law Arti­cles

  • Melanie A. Con­roy, Real Bias: How REAL ID’s Cred­i­bil­ity and Cor­rob­o­ra­tion Require­ments Impair Sex­ual Minor­ity Asy­lum Appli­cants, 24 Berke­ley J. Gen­der L. & Just. 1 (2009) (on file).
    • In Re Toboso-Alfonso 20 I. & N. Dec. 819 (B.I.A 1990) was the first sex­ual minority-based claim: it was decided that sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion is a par­tic­u­lar social group.
    • The cor­rob­o­ra­tive evi­dence require­ment cre­ated by case laws and cod­i­fied by the Real ID Pub. L. No. 109–13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005) is that this group is not exter­nally vis­i­ble and ver­i­fi­able. The Real ID Bur­den of Proof (divided into sus­tain­ing bur­den and cred­i­bil­ity deter­mi­na­tion) cre­ates a dis­pro­por­tion­ate empha­sis on the cred­i­bil­ity and cor­rob­o­ra­tion. Such proofs are unavail­able and unrea­son­able to expect.
  • Fatma E. Marouf, The Emerg­ing Impor­tance of “Social Vis­i­bil­ity” in Defin­ing a “Par­tic­u­lar Social Group” and Its Poten­tial Impact on Asy­lum Claims Related to Sex­ual Ori­en­ta­tion and Gen­der, 27 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 47(2008) (on file).
    • The author explains the BIA’s “social vis­i­bil­ity” test, and then she rejects it and qual­i­fies it as hav­ing a pro­found, neg­a­tive impact on asy­lum cases related to sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion and gen­der. On sexual-orientation related asy­lum claims, see in par­tic­u­lar IV.A. The author explains that while homo­sex­u­al­ity is well estab­lished as the basis for par­tic­u­lar social group in the US, the “social vis­i­bil­ity” require­ment is prob­lem­atic because of the social stigma asso­ci­ated with homo­sex­u­al­ity. Invis­i­bil­ity forms part of the expe­ri­ence of oppression.

Links

Coun­try Con­di­tion Infor­ma­tionCasesLaw Arti­clesLinks

Share