by Jon Henley
People seeking asylum in the UK and Europe on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are routinely seeing their claims rejected because of a widespread “culture of disbelief” and an “impossible burden of proof”, researchers have said.
Calling for a major overhaul of the way asylum systems treat LGBT+ claimants, the team from the University of Sussex said that across Europe, one in three were refused because officials simply did not believe their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Four in 10 reported being rejected because decision-makers did not consider they were persecuted, or at risk of persecution, in their home country, while more than a third felt interviewers did not listen to their story or ask the right questions.
“These findings of course sit within a broader picture of the ‘hostile environment’ to immigration,” said Moira Dustin, who led the UK part of the university’s four-year SOGICA (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum) project, due to be formally presented at an online conference on Thursday.
“But it’s even easier for officials to turn away people applying for asylum on SOGI grounds, because they are even less likely than other claimants to have evidence to support their claim: what can they produce, when they’re in danger and fleeing? How likely are they to have with them photos or letters proving past relationships?” Read more via the Guardian
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum: A European human rights challenge – SOGICA
QUEERING ASYLUM IN EUROPE: A SURVEY REPORT
Key Findings
All themes explored in this report are analysed in greater detail in the project’s other outputs, especially in the book Queering Asylum in Europe: Legal and Social Experiences of Seeking International Protection on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Danisi, Dustin, Ferreira, Held, Springer 2020). Themes raised by answers to surveys coincide to a great extent with the themes raised by our other methods and analysed in the project’s book and other outputs.
Here is a summary of the key survey findings:
Demographics:
The two European-wide surveys that were filled in by 82 SOGI claimants and 157 supporters reached a diverse sample of respondents in terms of gender identity, sexual orientation, religious identity and educational background.
The majority of SOGI claimants (54%) who participated in the survey were claiming asylum in Germany, Italy and the UK and also the majority of supporters (65%) who filled in the survey worked in these countries. However, the issues addressed in this report relate to 16 other European countries, where respondents claimed asylum, or supporters worked or were based.7 SOGI claimants came from 23 different countries,8 demonstrating the wide-spread nature of persecution on grounds of SOGI.
Legal Process:
Approximately one third of claimants did not know that they could claim asylum because of sexual orientation or gender identity when they arrived in Europe.
More than one third of claimants had had their asylum claims refused; 39% received some form of international protection, but almost one third of them only secured this status by appealing against a negative decision.
According to the claimants, approximately one third of them saw their claims refused because the decision-maker did not believe their sexual orientation or gender identity was as stated. Supporters also believed that credibility was the main problem for SOGI claimants in the countries where they worked. More than half the supporter respondents perceived differences in the way that different SOGI-based asylum claims were treated by decision-makers, and believed that country of origin (62%), cultural background (53%), demeanour (clothes and mannerisms) (49%), educational background (46%), religion (45%), and gender (44%) were the main factors other than SOGI that played a role in decision-making for LGBTIQ+ people claiming asylum.
The quality of country of origin information (COI) was also amongst one of the main concerns raised by our respondents: 40% of claimant respondents reported that the most common reason for refusal was that the decision-maker did not believe they were persecuted or at risk of persecution in their country of origin, connected with the fact that 48% of supporter respondents found that COI is the third most significant problem in SOGI claims.
Almost half the claimants did not have a legal advisor or representative to help them with their asylum application and more than half the supporters believed that adequate and affordable legal services was unavailable for SOGI claimants.
A large proportion – 39% – of claimants had to wait for more than six months for their main interview after the first/screening interview. Amongst the claimants who lodged an appeal against a negative decision, more than half had to wait more than six months for their appeal hearing.
More than a third of claimants felt the asylum interviewer did not listen to their story and ask the right questions and only around one third believed the appeal gave them a fair opportunity to present their case.
Sixty-four per cent of supporters found interpreting services available to SOGI claimants were inappropriate and inadequate.
Approximately one fifth of claimants were detained in the country where they had claimed asylum (of these, 8% were detained for more than six months).
Life Outside the Legal Process:
More than half the claimants said that they had experienced discrimination in the host country and further elaborations suggested that this was on different grounds such as gender identity, sexual orientation or ‘race’ (or a combination of these). Eighty-three per cent of supporters stated that SOGI claimants they knew had experienced discrimination in the country where they claimed asylum.
Despite the fear of experiencing homophobia and transphobia in their surroundings, the majority of claimants were open about their SOGI in their host country most of the time or sometime (only 7% were not open at all).
41% percent did not feel safe in their accommodation, be it in reception and accommodation centres, private rented accommodation, staying with family or friends, or other types of accommodation. The majority of supporters (65%) believed that specific accommodation for LGBTIQ+ claimants was a good idea.
More than half the claimants had physical or mental health problems related to the persecution they experienced or the process of claiming asylum. From the claimants who said they received support, 59% were supported by LGBTIQ+ organisations.
The majority of supporters (76%) were emotionally or physically affected by their work with people who may have experienced torture and persecution, but a third of them did not have counselling or other support available to them.