Canada recognises refugee claims based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). Persons fleeing persecution because of their being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, or Two-Spirit (2SLGBTQI+) can make refugee claims in Canada under section 96 (Convention refugee) or section 97 (person in need of protection) of IRPA. The IRB's Chairperson's Guideline 9 (revised 2021) provides binding guidance to members on how to conduct proceedings involving SOGIESC, including the principles that claimants should not be required to prove their identity by stereotypical conduct, should not be expected to hide their identity to avoid persecution, and must not be required to produce external corroboration of their sexual orientation or gender identity where their testimony is coherent. Special hearing procedures — including same-gender interpreters, private hearings, and trauma-informed questioning — are available on request. This page explains the framework for SOGIESC refugee claims, the key Guideline 9 principles, and how state protection and internal flight alternative are assessed.

For the current Guideline 9 text and IRB guidance on SOGIESC proceedings, refer to the IRB Guideline 9 page.

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s 96 — Convention refugee definition; persecution based on membership in a particular social group (PSG) covers SOGIESC-based persecution
• IRPA, s 97 — person in need of protection; may apply where the risk is not linked to a Convention ground but the claimant faces torture or cruel treatment
• IRB Chairperson's Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics — binding guidance issued by the IRB Chairperson under s 165 of IRPA; revised 2021 — irb-cisr.gc.ca/guideline-9
• 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 1A(2) — membership in a particular social group (PSG) is a recognised Convention ground; sexual orientation and gender identity have been recognised as PSGs by the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada

Sexual orientation and gender identity as particular social groups

SOGIESC refugee claims are primarily made on the membership in a particular social group (PSG) ground under s96 of IRPA. The following have been consistently recognised as PSGs in Canadian refugee law:

• Gay men, lesbian women, bisexual persons — in many countries, being perceived as or identified as gay/lesbian/bisexual exposes a person to state-sponsored persecution (criminalisation of same-sex conduct), community violence, family honour violence, or severe discrimination
• Transgender and gender-diverse persons — persons who identify with a gender other than the one assigned at birth face persecution in countries that criminalise gender non-conformity or where gender-based violence is directed at transgender persons
• Intersex persons — persons born with sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female may face persecution including forced medical interventions and discrimination

The PSG does not need to be defined broadly — specific formulations such as "gay men in [country]" or "transgender women in [country]" are entirely appropriate. The social distinction requirement for PSG (that the group is recognised as a distinct group by the society) is typically satisfied in countries where LGBTQ+ persons are visibly targeted for persecution.

The discretion principle — no requirement to conceal

One of the most significant principles in Guideline 9 — and in SOGIESC refugee law generally — is the prohibition on requiring claimants to hide their identity. In early refugee law, some decision-makers reasoned that a gay refugee could return to their country safely if they simply concealed their sexual orientation ("lived discreetly"). The Supreme Court of Canada in Appellant v. Minister and subsequent jurisprudence firmly rejected this approach:

• Claimants cannot be expected to conceal their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression to avoid persecution — this is analogous to requiring a religious refugee to conceal their religion
• The question is whether the claimant faces a real risk of persecution as who they are — not whether they could avoid that risk by hiding who they are
• Any IFA assessment that depends on the claimant concealing their SOGIESC at the IFA location is legally flawed — the IFA must be genuinely safe for the claimant to live openly

Credibility assessment — no stereotyping and no corroboration required

Guideline 9 addresses how IRB members must assess the credibility of SOGIESC claims:

• No stereotyping: members must not assess credibility by comparing the claimant's appearance, mannerisms, or demeanour against stereotypes of how LGBTQ+ persons look or act. Persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities present in a wide variety of ways; applying stereotyped expectations to credibility assessments is prohibited
• No requirement for corroboration: a claimant's testimony about their own sexual orientation or gender identity is credible evidence — IRB members cannot require photographs, witness statements, or other external corroboration if the claimant's own account is internally consistent and plausible. The demand for "proof" of sexual orientation is inherently problematic and is prohibited
• Culturally informed assessment: claimants from countries where LGBTQ+ identities are heavily suppressed may not use the same language or frames of reference as claimants from more open societies; members must take cultural context into account when assessing the coherence and consistency of a claim
• Delayed disclosure: claimants may disclose the SOGIESC basis of their claim late in the process — including for the first time at the RPD hearing. Delayed disclosure in the context of deeply personal and socially stigmatised information is not automatically an adverse credibility indicator; members must consider the circumstances of disclosure

State protection in SOGIESC cases

The state protection analysis in SOGIESC cases follows the same framework as other refugee claims — the question is whether the claimant's state of nationality can and will provide adequate protection. In SOGIESC cases, specific considerations include:

• Whether same-sex conduct is criminalised in the country of origin — criminalisation is strong evidence of inadequate state protection
• Whether state actors (police, courts, military) perpetrate or condone violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons
• Whether the state has a formal policy of persecution — including registration requirements, "propaganda" laws, or restrictions on LGBTQ+ expression
• Whether protection is theoretically available on paper but practically inaccessible due to discrimination by individual officers, cultural norms, or lack of enforcement

Country condition evidence is critical in SOGIESC cases — the IRB maintains country condition packages on specific countries that document the legal and social environment for LGBTQ+ persons. For more on state protection analysis, see the state protection page.

Internal flight alternative (IFA) in SOGIESC cases

The IFA analysis in SOGIESC cases must apply the discretion principle described above. An IFA is only viable if the claimant can:

1. Live safely as who they are in the proposed IFA location — without being required to conceal their SOGIESC
2. Be protected by state and community at the IFA location from both state and non-state agents of persecution
3. Relocate without facing unreasonable hardship — including social isolation, economic marginalisation, and the inability to access community support at the IFA location

In many countries where same-sex conduct is criminalised nationally, no city offers a genuine IFA for LGBTQ+ claimants — national law applies throughout the territory. For IFA details, see the internal flight alternative page.

Special hearing procedures

Under Guideline 9, SOGIESC claimants can request the following accommodations before their RPD hearing:

• A same-gender or gender-concordant interpreter
• A hearing panel of a specific gender where the claimant has concerns about discussing their claim with a member of a particular gender
• A private hearing closed to the public
• Adapted questioning procedures to avoid requiring the claimant to repeatedly describe traumatic experiences or to answer highly personal questions in a way that is not necessary for the assessment of the claim

Canada has one of the most developed and progressive SOGIESC refugee protection frameworks in the world — Guideline 9 (first issued 2017, revised 2021) is regularly cited by other countries' refugee adjudication bodies as a model. The prohibition on requiring claimants to prove their SOGIESC by stereotypical behaviour, and the prohibition on the "discretion" argument, are among the most important protections. In practice, credibility assessment remains challenging — SOGIESC claims from countries with low cultural visibility of LGBTQ+ identities can present significant evidentiary challenges, particularly when claimants have never previously disclosed their identity, have experienced significant trauma, or come from communities where the very concept of sexual orientation as an identity (as opposed to same-sex conduct) is unfamiliar. Country condition evidence is essential, and representatives should submit current, country-specific documentation about the legal status and treatment of LGBTQ+ persons in the relevant country. As of March 2025, sex/gender identifiers were removed from refugee protection claimant documents — reflecting evolving understanding of gender identity in the refugee protection context. For the current Guideline 9 text and IRB guidance on SOGIESC hearings, refer to the IRB Guideline 9 page.