New report finds some improvements in LGBTI asylum claims in recent years but a "culture of disbelief" still prevails at the Home Office
The UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) has published a new report looking at decision making in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex (LGBTI) asylum claims.
You can read the report, Missing the Mark, here.
The report finds that there has been some improvement in the quality of initial decisions on LGBTI asylum applications since UKLGIG last examined the situation three and a half years ago.
The report's executive summary states: "Since UKLGIG published its report "Failing the Grade", the Home Office has made substantial efforts to improve the decision making process for lesbian and gay asylum claimants. Sexual identity claims are no longer routinely refused as in 2010, when UKLGIG found that 98% of claims were refused. Following the Supreme Court decision on HJ and HT and the enactment of the asylum policy instructions on sexual orientation issues in asylum claims, there has been an improvement in decision making at the initial stages. Lesbians and gay men with genuine claims are increasingly successful both at the Home Office and appeal levels. Where case workers do follow the policy instructions, they have demonstrated sensitivity and well-reasoned responses to lesbian and gay asylum claims."
However, the report says that the culture of disbelief, which infects all Home Office decisions, has not been eradicated for gays and lesbians. In the overwhelming majority of refusals, the Home Office said they did not believe that the applicant was gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Concerns raised by the report include:
• Inappropriate and sexually explicit questioning by case workers;
• Disbelieving a person is lesbian or gay due to the decision maker's misconceptions about sexual identity. The change in the law in this area means that today case workers overwhelmingly refuse sexual identity claims on the grounds of 'credibility'. In the majority of the decisions analysed, case workers and judges disbelieved that the person is a lesbian or gay man;
• Falsely assuming that internal relocation is a valid option and that it is possible to live as a lesbian or gay man in countries where homophobia is prevalent "as long as someone is not ostentatious about it";
• Stereotyped assumptions about female sexuality and about lesbian and gay relationships;
• Use of out dated Country of Origin Information or ill-informed sources such as the Spartacus Guide;
• The continuing invisibility of lesbian asylum seekers and failure to recognise the intersectional factors based on both gender and sexuality which affect their lives and their claims.