Jamaican bisexual chatrooms
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal SW (lesbians – HJ and HT applied) Jamaica CG  UKUT 00251(IAC)THE IMMIGRATION ACTSHeard at Field House Determination sent to parties On: 7 December 2009 and 30 November 2010 on 24 June 2011Before Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson Senior Immigration Judge Spencer Between SWAppellantand The Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Mr S Chelvan, Counsel instructed by Wilson & Co, Solicitors For the Respondent: Mr J Auburn, Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor (1) Jamaica is a deeply homophobic society.
There is a high level of violence, and where a real risk of persecution or serious harm is established, the Jamaicans state offers lesbians no sufficiency of protection.(2) Lesbianism (actual or perceived) brings a risk of violence, up to and including ‘corrective’ rape and murder. Those who are naturally discreet, have children and/or are willing to present a heterosexual narrative for family or societal reasons may live as discreet lesbians without persecutory risk, provided that they are not doing so out of fear.(4) Single women with no male partner or children risk being perceived as lesbian, whether or not that is the case, unless they present a heterosexual narrative and behave with discretion.
Despite that, Jackson says the event motivated her to help other Jamaican gay women organize.
"The question I asked myself was, 'What have I done to impact anybody's life?
The appeal was identified as a potential country guidance case on the risk on return to lesbians in Jamaica.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the appellant herself, from her current girlfriend, and from Mr O Hilaire Sobers, the appellant’s country expert.
After the attack on her, Jackson says, she had a choice: To turn inward, or to begin efforts that led to her group, Quality of Citizenship Jamaica.
There are likely to be difficulties in finding safety through internal relocation but in this respect no general guidance is given.”The respondent did not seek to argue in DW that there was an internal relocation option for male homosexuals. In AB’s case in 2007, the AIT held that:“The authorities in Jamaica are in general willing and able to provide effective protection.The documents before the Tribunal are listed in Appendix B. The Tribunal’s relevant Jamaica country guidance is to be found in DW (Homosexual Men; Persecution; Sufficiency of Protection) Jamaica CG  UKAIT 00168 and AB (Protection, criminal gangs, internal relocation) Jamaica CG  UKAIT 00018.The AIT’s existing guidance does not deal with lesbianism, nor is there clear guidance on the protection available by internal relocation.Women are expected to become sexually active early and remain so into their sixties, unless there is an obvious reason why they do not currently have a partner, for example, recent widowhood.(8) Members of the social elite may be better protected because they are able to live in gated communities where their activities are not the subject of public scrutiny.Social elite members are usually from known families, wealthy, lighter skinned and better educated; often they are high-ranking professional people. This was the reconsideration before the AIT, with permission granted to the appellant, of the determination of the Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse her refugee recognition, humanitarian protection or leave to remain on human rights grounds on the basis of her sexual orientation (lesbian).