The Minister is fighting my win at the RAD in court. His arguments are ridiculous.

[DamnYouDaria]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

 

[canuck78]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

Are you referring to the same case in your previous posts that you are an American citizen? If so, it is not surprising that Minister is intervening. Would create a huge precedent.

 

[DamnYouDaria]

Are you referring to the same case in your previous posts that you are an American citizen? If so, it is not surprising that Minister is intervening. Would create a huge precedent.

My case already cites existing precedents. The Supreme Court of Canada cited Satiacum in Ward stating that "in relation to a democracy like the United States contrary evidence might have to go to the extent of substantially impeaching, for example, the jury selection process in the relevant part of the country, or the independence or fair-mindedness of the judiciary itself". I did that. I submitted judicial decisions from across the American judiciary from state courts to the Federal Appellate Courts that show prejudicial treatments against transgender Americans. And that was the basis of my victory before the RAD. Or in their terms:

I find that the RPD erred by failing to consider critical evidence on the events that took place after Ms. B’s protection order was cancelled. Specifically, I find that the RPD failed to consider that Ms. B was denied police protection or investigation when she reported continued stalking by her ex-roommate near her residence seven separate times. The RPD also failed to consider how Colorado’s open carry gun laws combined with the general climate of anti-trans hatred growing in the US could make Ms. B perpetually vulnerable and at risk to her life. [...] I further find that Ms. B does not have an IFA in the US because relocation for a person with her profile, in her circumstances, would be unreasonable. My reasons are as follows.

Also...

[55] I have already discussed the evidence establishing that trans individuals live in a general climate of insecurity about their physical and psychological safety. It cannot be doubted that the ability of individuals to freely and openly carry guns only heightens the risk and fear of fatal assault faced by trans individuals, who already face elevated risks of both random and targeted violence.
[56] Amnesty International describes gun violence in the US as a human rights crisis. It further states that “[ i ]n the face of clear evidence of persistent firearm violence, high rates of gun ownership, and ease of access to firearms by individuals likely to misuse them, the USA is failing to meet its obligation to protect and promote human rights pursuant to international law.”
[57] The evidence indicates that rates of gun homicides have increased in recent years. Every single state and district in the US allows for some form of concealed carrying of a firearm in public. It must also be noted that in 65 percent of all fatal anti-trans violence occurring between 2013 and 2019, guns were involved.
[58] Considered in this context of violent anti-trans public and political discourse, general harassment and violence towards trans people, the prevalence of firearms, and the right to openly carry firearms in public, I find Ms. B’s fear of her ex-roommate and of general anti-trans violence is logical and supported by the evidence.

 

[canuck78]

My case already cites existing precedents. The Supreme Court of Canada cited Satiacum in Ward stating that "in relation to a democracy like the United States contrary evidence might have to go to the extent of substantially impeaching, for example, the jury selection process in the relevant part of the country, or the independence or fair-mindedness of the judiciary itself". I did that. I submitted judicial decisions from across the American judiciary from state courts to the Federal Appellate Courts that show prejudicial treatments against transgender Americans. And that was the basis of my victory before the RAD. Or in their terms:



Also...

Different precedent that a U.S. citizen can get asylum in Canada.

 

[canuck78]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

Think won it fair and square is a bit of a stretch. The member evaluating your case agreed with your arguments that nowhere in the US is safe for a trans person but I don’t think that it is a general consensus that all the US is unsafe country for trans people and that trans people are in need of protection from the US. Another member could have denied the RAD. Canada also has similar issues to the US when it comes to violence against trans women but we don’t have access to firearms like they do in the US which minimizes crime in general. Stating that nowhere in the US is safe would mean that nowhere in the US is likely unsafe for African Americans, Aboriginal people, likely all members of the LGBTQIA+, let’s add almost any minority to the list, disabled people,etc. if many trans people from around the world are seeking and getting granted protection in the US then how can it also be considered unsafe. Assume that the minimister didn’t intervene earlier because they didn’t think you would win RAD. Given the implications of this case are potentially huge so I assume the government will try to appeal until they get their way or until they reach the highest court possible. If the case drags on you will have a much better chance of applying for H&C or a settlement offer may be made so that you get PR but your asylum case gets withdrawn so no precedent will exist.

 

[Copingwithlife]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

“I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

Seriously?
I wouldn’t get too settled

 

[scylla]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

The only suggestion I have is to make sure you are working with an excellent immigration lawyer. Good luck and let us kow what happens.

 

[Buletruck]

Like, for example, he claims that the RAD was "filling in the blanks" for me. Even though the Tribunal's Record the RAD has recently submitted to the court is 22,344 pages, most of it being my own submissions to the RAD and the RPD. A lot of it is about general country conditions, but there is also sufficient information fighting IFAs too, including most of the IFAs suggested by the RAD (the only one I didn't have data for the RAD eventually conceded they had insufficient data to determine was an IFA, so they didn't have data either) and the one the RAD went deep on (including statistics pertaining very specifically to THAT IFA in particular and caselaw that proves the courts in that IFA would not render better decisions than the ones submitted for the rest of the country).

I am at a loss for words why the Minister's counsel is fighting my win. I won it fair and square and the Minister didn't even bother to intervene in this case until I won at the RAD.

And yet if the IRB had ruled unfavourably for you, you wouldn't hesitate to appeal would you? You wouldn't have accepted loosing fair and square, would you? They system has processes and procedures for all parties involved, not just the claimant.

 

[DamnYouDaria]

And yet if the IRB had ruled unfavourably for you, you wouldn't hesitate to appeal would you? You wouldn't have accepted loosing fair and square, would you? They system has processes and procedures for all parties involved, not just the claimant.

Assuming I could "loose" fair and square ignores the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly supports my claim. I submitted a shitload of evidence to substantiate my claim. Hell, I've already resumed collection of post-hearing evidence to submit to the RAD should this go back to the RAD.

 

[Bornlucky]

Assuming I could "loose" fair and square ignores the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly supports my claim. I submitted a shitload of evidence to substantiate my claim. Hell, I've already resumed collection of post-hearing evidence to submit to the RAD should this go back to the RAD.

Hi, I post here an article about a successful claimant from the United States. I don't know if you're aware of it already, but the Fed's fought tooth and nail to get a negative decision.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/florida-sex-offender-granted-asylum-in-canada-1.2646061

Good luck

 

[DamnYouDaria]

Hi, I post here an article about a successful claimant from the United States. I don't know if you're aware of it already, but the Fed's fought tooth and nail to get a negative decision.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/florida-sex-offender-granted-asylum-in-canada-1.2646061

Good luck

Shit, and I don't even have a criminal record. And honestly, I want to win this thing. Not settle. Win. Because the notion that the United States is a "safe" country is a joke. I want to win so that other transgender Americans also have a refuge from persecution.

 

[canuck78]

Shit, and I don't even have a criminal record. And honestly, I want to win this thing. Not settle. Win. Because the notion that the United States is a "safe" country is a joke. I want to win so that other transgender Americans also have a refuge from persecution.

The government fought this because the majority of Canada thinks the rule is outrageous. Providing sanctuary to a sex offender is not what the asylum system was meant for. Becoming a sanctuary for every transgender person in the US creates a huge liability for Canada. Not defining the US in general as an unsafe country creates huge issues for Canada so I would expect that Canada will fight this as long as they can. Would agree that you should be trying to find a very good lawyer. Would add that unfortunately I don’t think that Canada provides a much safer environment for transgender individuals than every region of the US.

 

[Copingwithlife]

Shit, and I don't even have a criminal record. And honestly, I want to win this thing. Not settle. Win. Because the notion that the United States is a "safe" country is a joke. I want to win so that other transgender Americans also have a refuge from persecution.

…..and because you’d expect Canada to assume all these people and the associated liabilities such as housing , healthcare etc when they haven’t contributed anything to the system .
Once AGAIN it’s Canada’s problem
God this country is getting tedious

Totally makes sense . And I’m gay
Before you jump on the old transphobic , homophobic bandwagon

 

[Simba112]

Shit, and I don't even have a criminal record. And honestly, I want to win this thing. Not settle. Win. Because the notion that the United States is a "safe" country is a joke. I want to win so that other transgender Americans also have a refuge from persecution.

Its a unique case and Feds all hands on deck on this one, they will put good fight to overturn RAD positive decision, to avoid setting precedent case for all future US Citizen refugee claimant with similar situation. If IFA doesn't apply in United States, then that IFA arguement should be scrapped entirely. Your PR Application will definitely be put on hold, expect long processing time..

 

[DamnYouDaria]

I had my hearing back in July... no decision yet, though I'm worried that the judge is going to use the standard of correctness rather than the standard of reasonableness.