Unreasonable conclusions
Published: Monday, February 12, 2007
It's essential that the people who decide the fate of refugee claimants ask the
right questions. The question to ask Alvaro Orozco is not whether he's had
romances with men. The question is whether he'll face persecution as a
homosexual if he returns to Nicaragua.
Yet the member of the Immigration and Refugee Board who decided against Mr.
Alvaro's application focused on the 21-year-old man's love life. Why, she
wondered, hadn't he pursued same-sex relationships as a teenager, when he was
living illegally in the United States? This led her to doubt his word. Because
he couldn't prove he was gay, she decided he was lying.
Nobody but Mr. Orozco knows what's in his heart. However, there's nothing in Mr.
Orozco's story that stretches belief -- unless you're of the ill-informed
opinion that all gay teenagers are sexually active, out of the closet, confident
and mature.
Mr. Orozco was none of those things when he fled Nicaragua as a 12-year-old. He
had always felt different from other boys, he says, and he feared the abuse from
his father would get worse if anyone discovered the truth.
He drifted through Central America and the U.S., relying on his wits and kind
strangers. He ended up in Miami, where he became active in the Seventh Day
Adventist Church. He came to Canada two years ago.
Deborah Lamont, the IRB member, wrote in her decision that it was strange Mr.
Orozco didn't tell U.S. authorities he was gay when he tried to gain legal
status there. But Mr. Orozco's explanations make sense. He grew up in a society
in which violence against gay men was normal; he was conditioned to hide the
truth. He felt the religious community that welcomed him wouldn't have accepted
his orientation. Besides, he didn't know then that being gay would help his
claim. After all, he has very little education and arrived in the U.S. at 14.
It's bizarre to ask why this lost boy didn't go looking for dates. It is also
bizarre for Ms. Lamont to characterize as "inconsistent" two of Mr. Orozco's
claims: that he was confused about his sexuality as a 12-year-old and that he
knew he was gay as a child. It is not strange for a child to know he's different
while being confused about what that means.
Ms. Lamont accepted that Mr. Orozco was abused by his father, but said it wasn't
relevant to his claim. That's true. What is relevant is that homosexuals in
Nicaragua face persecution, according to research compiled by the IRB. Sodomy is
a crime there, so it's reasonable to doubt whether the authorities would provide
protection.
We can't base decisions about refugee claims on what's in a person's heart. We
can, however, come to a reasonable conclusion about how a society might see a
person and what the consequences might be. If you're persecuted for your
religion, it doesn't matter whether you're devout. All that matters is that your
oppressors see you as different. Mr. Orozco says he has been living as an openly
gay man in Toronto. If he returned to Managua now, how would he be seen?
Mr. Orozco still has a few legal options. His new lawyer wants to reopen the
claim, saying the board didn't treat his client as a vulnerable, abused and
uneducated person. That might explain why Mr. Orozco didn't provide letters from
people who believe he's gay.
Like most refugee cases, this one is complicated. There may indeed by valid
reasons for Canada to turn down this application. But it is unreasonable to
demand proof of love life from young people who ask for asylum based on sexual
orientation.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007