Originally Posted by crg14624

I highly doubt many homosexual mexicans are granted asylum.

Originally Posted by deng890

Why not? They've granted asylum to a Brazilian based on his sexual orientation. The country doesn't necessarily have to have something like a death penalty for being gay. I lived in Sao Paulo for a few years, and it seemed relatively tolerated there, yet the Brazilian guy got it.

Originally Posted by crg14624

I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely and nearly impossible.

Originally Posted by crg14624

Think of the US immigration system. Now consider that most of the cases involve Mexicans. Think of the mountains of similar applications if they open the door to these kinds of claims.

Originally Posted by crg14624

Also, the Mexican government may be really offended if they are labeled a refugee generating country.

Originally Posted by deng890

Believe it or not, the US government has granted Mexican nationals asylum in the US, based on various grounds.



An asylum applicants nationality is not a dispositive factor in determining their asylum claim. Various factors are involved, and the USCIS evaluate that person's individual situation to determine whether they have been persecuted or fear they have been persecuted based on the 5 grounds outlined by the INA. Case law and USCIS policy has demonstrated that sexual orientation as a "social group" can be a legitimate basis for asylum claim. Now whether an individual can make a successful claim is another question. I sense that you feel that the asylum laws could be a "loop hole" for Mexican homosexuals to enter the United States, and thats just plain wrong. Proving persecution/ fear from persecution is not that easy.




International treaties and US Immigration law prohibit countries from taking into consideration politics and diplomatic ties when assessing a refugee's/ asylee's application. The potential to hurt the feelings of a certain foreign government just doesn't enter the picture. The United States grants asylums to applicants from all over the world, including countries that the US maintains strong diplomatic ties with.

Originally Posted by Olivier Wagner

This article may be interesting to his case :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4149892.stm

"crg14624" <member20421@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
    > > Why not? They've granted asylum to a Brazilian based on his sexual
    > > orientation. The country doesn't necessarily have to have something
    > > like a death penalty for being gay. I lived in Sao Paulo for a few
    > > years, and it seemed relatively tolerated there, yet the Brazilian
    > > guy got it.
    > I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely and nearly
    > impossible. Think of the US immigration system. Now consider that most
    > of the cases involve Mexicans. Think of the mountains of similar
    > applications if they open the door to these kinds of claims. Also, the
    > Mexican government may be really offended if they are labeled a refugee
    > generating country.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally Posted by Folinskyinla

Hi:

Just to be pedantic -- not quite right -- the provisions were not "removed" per se, but the procedure for application of the grounds was modifed as per the statute to bring it into conformity with modern medical/mental health terminology. The 1952 Act used terms such as "insanity", "psychopathic personality" "sexual deviation" and "mental defect."

As a matter of practice, the Department of Justice would rely on "Class A" certificates from Public Health Service to establish these conditions. In 1952, homosexuality was considered by established medical practice to be a "sexual deviation" and/or a "mental defect."

However, by the mid to late 1970's the medical profession no longer tagged homosexuality as a "deviation" or "mental defect." So, INS was now deprived of the established way to bar gay people -- the Class A certificate. There was some last gasp efforts to assert independent authority ["we don't need the Class A certificate"] but that really didn't work very well and INS looked like a bunch of idiots.

What the 1990 Act DID do was to make clear that it was HHS that had the primary repsonsibility to determine what was, and what was not a mental illness forming a ground of inadmissiblity. IMHO, if HHS chose to use 1952 medical practice, they would have the authority under the 1990 provisions to bar gay persons.

Originally Posted by crg14624

I have a copy of the handbook immigration uses to adjudicate refugee claims which relates to asylum. The US has even granted asylum to a Canadian before. However, do you agree that such a claim would be a long shot?

Originally Posted by deng890

Like I said, it depends on the individual's circumstance. As noted in the BBC article, a gay Mexican from Mexico City won his asylum claim, despite the fact that he came from Mexico City, which is relatively tolerant to homosexuality, probably more so then some parts of the United States.

The point you seem to be making, and with which I disagree with, is that "because he's Canadian its almost impossible." I believe that a Canadian individual could have a better claim for asylum then, say, a Cambodian or Chinese individual, depending on their individual circumstances, which is exactly what the adjudicator looks at.

Your question on "such a claim would be a long shot" is too generalized. Would I think it a longshot if a Canadian claims persecution based on political opinion? Not if that individual had a credible story and evidence to back it up. Would I think it a long shot if a Chinese individual claims the same thing? Yes, if his story doesn't make sense and he has little or no evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by crg14624

"I believe that a Canadian individual could have a better claim for asylum then, say, a Cambodian or Chinese individual, depending on their individual circumstances, which is exactly what the adjudicator looks at."

Okay, an asylum officer or IJ makes the decision, not an adjudicator. Also, a Canadian has an miniscule chance at asylum and Chinese get it quite often. I don't know how you could think a Canadian could ever have a *better* chance.

The US even has an agreement called a "safe third country" policy where someone who is claiming asylum across the US/Canadian border will most likely be summarily denied access to the asylum process because they need to process their claim in Canada. Granted, the rule doesn't apply to Canadians or US citizens, but it shows that the US government thinks Canada is a safe and fair place. They don't have forced abortions, sterilizations, Falun Gong, or a one child policy. They have gay marriage and a slew of other liberal policies.

Originally Posted by deng890

Yes I know an asylum officer "adjudicates" the application. Or "makes a determination on the merits" of the application, or "determines the credibility of the application," whichever you prefer. Is there anything else you want to nit pick with? If you want to discuss something innacurate, we could begin with all your wildly innacurate assertions in your original reply to me.

The reason I got into this protracted debate with you in the first place was to regarding my first message to the OP. It was you who declared such an idea as asylum as miniscule because, basically "she's Mexican" "there are too many mexicans here already" and that the "Mexican government would be really offended," despite the facts offered by the original poster. Well, if what the the facts that OP said is taken as true with some evidence, would that person still have a chance of gaining asylum as a Mexican?

Originally Posted by crg14624

She also has a chance at picking the winning numbers in the powerball lottery. However, I think you need to be legal to collect any winnings.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Same sort of chance, they do harp on about how you need to be legal, just wondered what the history was.