Skip to Navigation

New UKLGIG briefing on applying HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) to sexual orientation asylum claims

Date of Publication: 
21 June 2018
Summary: 

Paper summarises the important guidance and framework set out by 2010 Supreme Court judgment

New UKLGIG briefing on applying HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) to sexual orientation asylum claims

21 June 2018
EIN

The UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) last week released a useful new briefing paper on applying the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case of HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) to asylum claims based on sexual orientation.

You can download the 18-page paper here.

UKLGIG says that eight years on from the case, it is still important to go back to the Supreme Court's judgment to ensure that the correct approach is taken to claims based on sexual orientation.

The briefing paper states: "The key conclusion reached by the Supreme Court is that no one can be expected, still less required, to conceal who they are in order to avoid persecution.

"The judgment also gives important broader guidance on how to decide asylum claims based on sexual orientation, and sets out a framework (at paragraph 82 of the judgment) for decision-making. This briefing paper aims to summarise this important judgment as it stands. Where it gives rise to other questions, and the law may be further developing in the 8 years since HJ (Iran) was decided, we have tried to identify this. The issue of potential application of HJ (Iran) to claims relating to gender identity lies outside of the scope of this briefing paper."

The briefing paper looks at the four questions that lie at the core of the Supreme Court's judgment:

1: Is the person gay [or LGBQ]?
2: Would gay [or LGBQ] people who lived openly be liable to persecution in the person's country of nationality?
3: What would the person do if they were returned to that country?
4: Why would X conceal their sexual orientation?

Immigration barrister Allan Briddock said UKLGIG's paper is a "must read for anyone representing (or making decisions) in LGBTIQ asylum cases."