In January 2025, a transgender man from Wisconsin applied for asylum in Canada with the hope of attaining permanent refugee status. The person, who is biologically female, had visited the country several times prior and had even gotten engaged to a Canadian. But after a year and a half of asylum proceedings, the applicant was met with rejection: just a couple of weeks ago, the Federal Court issued a decision green-lighting the individual’s deportation.

Alexis Aldinger’s reasons for wanting to stay in Canada, as quoted in the Federal Court decision, were as follows: “As a pansexual transgender man, I fear for my safety in my own country due to the Trump administration’s continued attack on immigrants, LGBTIQ2+ members, its own citizens and threats of annexing other countries.

“In addition, I have suffered severe trauma from the emotional and psychological turmoil of growing up in a family home who rejected my identity as a transgender male. I cannot seek state protection from the U.S.A. authorities, as they are the people who I fear persecution from the most. If I return to the U.S.A., I fear that I will be killed or forced to live as something I am not, causing me further traumatization and emotional and psychological damage.”

In general, Aldinger feared the “risk of violence and death and serious discrimination in virtually all aspects of life due to hateful political actions and rhetoric.”

It was the kind of asylum application that would have been scoffed at 15 years ago by just about anyone who read it, from immigration officials to regular citizens. Unheard of back then was the term “pansexual,” which means a person who claims to be attracted to all genders (which also implies the person believes in more than two genders). Even transgenderism wasn’t a widely known concept. It would have been unthinkable to most people that such niche issues could become the basis for an asylum claim.

Even by contemporary understandings, Aldinger’s claim didn’t make any sense. Among the reasons cited was U.S. President Donald Trump’s hostility toward immigrants. And if it were the case that merely this could form the basis of an asylum claim, well, Canada would essentially have an open border to any migrant who settled in the U.S., which would render the country unrecognizable within a generation.

Aldinger also claimed to have personal safety fears in the U.S. due to Trump’s threats to annex other countries. This would have seemed more genuine if this person chose to flee to somewhere other than Canada, which Trump has mused about annexing. If Aldinger actually feared the effects of Trumpian military conquest, Canada would be one of the last places to go.

Overall, Aldinger’s claim seemed to be based on personal anxiety over politics. And while I have no doubt that this individual was unhappy at the thought of living in a country governed by Trump, it was clear that this person’s minor grievances amounted to what is sometimes called a “first-world problem.” This wasn’t a case of running away from starvation, evading flying bullets, escaping camps or fleeing the prospect of being buried in a mass grave.

Justice Sébastien Grammond saw the unserious claim for what it was. He acknowledged that reports of violence against transgender people in the U.S. did exist, but not to the point of establishing a “well-founded fear of persecution.” And while evidence of discrimination against transgender individuals in the U.S. had been put before Grammond’s court, he didn’t see anything that warranted refugee protection. Aldinger’s home state of Wisconsin even offers publicly funded “transgender-related health care,” so that wasn’t a concern in this case.

“The evidence filed by Mr. Aldinger also suggests that many people in the United States have a negative perception of the LGBTQ+ community, and transgender persons in particular, and that politicians have fuelled this negative sentiment in many ways,” continued Grammond. “However, the negative social perception of a group, even encouraged by political discourse, does not necessarily give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.”

Aldinger would have been deported on Aug. 4 if no more legal avenues were left to delay it further. It’s impossible to really know because the Canada Border Services Agency considers the execution of a publicly ordered deportation to be private information. Alas, this decision at least assures the public that some judges can still be trusted to dispose of these bogus claims.

Transgender-related asylum claims by Americans are a recurring problem in Canada. One such case involving a trans individual from Arizona was reported by the Globe and Mail last year. Another individual from Colorado has been fighting since 2019 for the right to live in Canada as a refugee; recent Instagram posts show that this person remains here.

Just like Aldinger’s feeble case, these claims take up capacity in our already overburdened system and impose various other costs upon the public. For example, asylum seekers who haven’t been assessed yet, as well as those who have been rejected and are in the process of appealing, receive health care that is either free or heavily discounted, depending on the specific service in question.

The Federal Court’s firm “no” to Aldinger discourages other Americans from making similar thinly supported asylum claims in Canada. It’s also a small victory for common sense. And so, it’s worth a small celebration.

National Post