- Immigrant Times
- Dec 5, 2025
- 5 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
In search for safety: How countries handle LGBTQ asylum claims
Fleeing criminalisation at home, LGBTQ refugees often encounter hostility at their destinations
By The Immigrant Times
LGBTQ asylum seekers often find having to prove their sexuality a humiliating process, even in ‘gay friendly’ countries (Photo: UNHCR/Tim Mai Tan)
December 2025: Across much of the world, being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex is not simply a matter of identity; it is a matter of survival. In dozens of countries, consensual same‑sex relations remain criminalised, often with severe penalties. In parts of Africa and the Middle East, imprisonment or even the death penalty can be imposed. In Asia, laws inherited from colonial codes continue to police intimacy. Even in Europe, where progress is often assumed, remnants of criminalisation linger in certain jurisdictions.
The criminalisation of millions of people for being who they are forces ‘safe’ countries to respond when LGBTQ individuals seek asylum. The process of guarding applicants’ dignity while adhering to legal frameworks is complicated by the challenging realities of proving persecution based on sexuality.
Global criminalisation
The criminalisation of same‑sex acts is not confined to one region. In Africa, Uganda’s 2023 Anti‑Homosexuality Act intensified penalties, including life imprisonment and, in certain “aggravated” cases, the death penalty. Nigeria enforces a 14-year prison sentence for same‑sex relations, alongside bans on LGBTQ organisations.
In the Middle East, Iran’s penal code prescribes corporal punishment and, in some cases, capital punishment for same‑sex acts. Across Asia, countries such as Malaysia and Singapore retain colonial-era laws criminalising homosexuality, though enforcement varies. Even in parts of Eastern Europe, discriminatory laws and hostile rhetoric create unsafe environments for LGBTQ communities.
Globally, estimates suggest that more than 60 jurisdictions criminalise consensual same‑sex relations. The penalties range from fines and short prison terms to life imprisonment and the death penalty. These laws underpin social hostility, legitimise violence, and drive displacement.
Asylum on SOGI grounds
International refugee law, as codified in the 1951 Refugee Convention, recognises persecution based on ‘membership of a particular social group’. Over time, courts and policymakers have interpreted this category to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Today, at least 37 countries explicitly recognise asylum claims on the grounds of SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). In practice, this means that LGBTQ people fleeing persecution can apply for refugee status if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of harm due to their identity.
In Europe, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) provides a framework for member states. The Qualification Directive affirms that persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity can justify refugee status. The Asylum Procedures Directive sets standards for fair interviews, while the Reception Conditions Directive requires safe and appropriate housing. Yet implementation varies widely. Some countries have developed sensitive interviewing techniques and strong protections; others lag, with inconsistent practices and limited training for caseworkers.
In the United Kingdom, the Home Office (Interior Ministry) guidance acknowledges sexual orientation as a basis for asylum. Caseworkers are instructed to avoid intrusive or stereotyped questioning and to focus on the applicant’s narrative. Canada and the United States similarly recognise LGBTQ claims, though political debates and shifting policies can affect outcomes. In Latin America, countries such as Argentina and Brazil have progressive asylum frameworks, though resources for implementation remain limited.
The question of ‘proof’
One of the most controversial aspects of SOGI asylum claims is the question of evidence. Unlike political affiliation or religious practice, sexuality and gender identity are not easily documented. Applicants often arrive without papers, photographs, or witness statements. Their testimony becomes the primary evidence.
Do host countries demand ‘proof of sexuality’? Officially, most do not. Guidance in the EU and UK explicitly prohibits invasive tests, sexually explicit questioning, or reliance on stereotypes. Caseworkers are instructed to assess credibility through detailed, consistent narratives, supported where possible by corroborating evidence such as community letters or country‑of‑origin reports. Yet in practice, applicants often report feeling pressured to prove their sexuality. Some recount being asked inappropriate questions about intimate behaviour. Others face disbelief if their story does not align with caseworker expectations of how a ‘gay person’ should act.
The issue of false claims complicates the picture. Authorities acknowledge that some applicants may claim LGBTQ identity to strengthen their case. But the risk of false claims does not justify degrading practices. Instead, systems rely on credibility assessments, cross-checking with country information, and, where appropriate, expert testimony. The challenge is to balance rigorous evaluation with respect for dignity.
From criminalisation to safety
Consider Iran, where same‑sex relations can carry the death penalty. Civil society organisations have documented arrests, harassment, and violence against LGBTQ people. For those who flee, Europe and North America offer potential refuge. Yet the path is fraught. Applicants must recount deeply personal experiences to strangers, often in hostile environments. Success depends not only on the strength of their testimony but also on the sensitivity of the interviewer.
Uganda offers another stark example. The 2023 Anti‑Homosexuality Act drew global condemnation, with Western governments pledging to protect those at risk. The Netherlands announced it would not deport failed LGBTQ asylum seekers to Uganda. Yet Ugandan applicants still face hurdles in proving their claims, navigating complex procedures, and overcoming scepticism.
In Canada, LGBTQ asylum seekers have found relative success, supported by community organisations and legal advocates. In Germany, progressive policies coexist with bureaucratic challenges, leaving some applicants in limbo. In the United States, recognition is established, but political debates over immigration can create uncertainty.
Barriers beyond recognition
Recognition alone does not guarantee safety. LGBTQ asylum seekers often face additional barriers:
Detention: In some countries, asylum seekers are detained while their claims are processed. For LGBTQ individuals, detention can mean exposure to harassment or violence.
Safe country lists: Policies that designate certain countries of origin as ‘safe’ can overlook the realities of LGBTQ persecution. Advocacy groups warn that these lists are unsafe for LGBTQ people, yet they continue to shape asylum decisions.
Credibility tests: Applicants may be judged on how convincingly they narrate their sexuality, a process fraught with cultural bias and personal trauma.
Integration challenges: Even when granted protection, LGBTQ refugees may struggle with housing, employment, and community acceptance.
Fazit
Civil society organisations play a crucial role in supporting LGBTQ asylum seekers. Groups such as Rainbow Migration in the UK provide legal advice, campaign against unsafe policies, and highlight the lived experiences of claimants. International bodies like UNHCR issue guidance on SOGI claims, urging countries to adopt sensitive practices. Yet advocacy remains essential, as policies shift and political climates change.
The recognition of asylum claims on SOGI grounds is a test of global solidarity. It asks whether countries will uphold the principle that no one should be persecuted for who they are or whom they love. It demands sensitivity in interviewing, fairness in decision-making, and commitment to protection.
For LGBTQ people fleeing countries like Iran and Uganda, the journey is perilous. For host countries, the responsibility is clear: to provide refuge without demanding impossible proof, and to honour the dignity of those whose lives depend on recognition. Asylum is not about proving who you are; it is about protecting you from harm.
Sources
• UN Women: Global overview of criminalisation and asylum recognition (2023).
• European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA): Fact Sheet on LGBTIQ applicants in the Common European Asylum System.
• Rainbow Migration (UK): Policy critiques and advocacy on ‘safe country’ lists.
• ILGA World Maps
• Human Rights Watch
• NL Times: Dutch government statement on non‑deportation of LGBTQ asylum seekers to Uganda (2023).
• Civil society submissions (e.g. from 6Rang) documenting persecution of LGBTQ people in Iran.
• UNHCR guidance on SOGI asylum claims.
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: LGBTQ migrants who became pioneers ||
BACK TO TOP
COMMENTS
FOLLOW