Sexual Orientation in the UK Asylum System: A Precarious Situation for Refugees

On 26 September 2023, United Kingdom Home Secretary Suella Braverman claimed in a speech that the United Nations’ definition of refugee is now being applied more liberally, with “an interpretive shift away from persecution, in favor of something more akin to a definition of discrimination”, referring specifically in relation to LGBTQ+ and female refugees. Braverman added “we [the United Kingdom] will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

These comments immediately faced backlash from a swath of refugee and LGBTQ+ support organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which issued a statement noting that such groups have long been protected under the UN’s definition of a refugee. UNHCR further stated that “[t]he need is not for reform, or more restrictive interpretation, but for stronger and more consistent application of the Convention.”

The United Nations’ definition of a refugee is codified under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The latter revised the Convention’s time-designated definition, which restricted the refugee status to those affected by events occurring before 1 January 1951, pertaining specifically to the Second World War. Under the UN’s definition, those considered a refugee must be unwilling to be under the protection of their country and unable to return due to fear of harm. While LGBTQ+ individuals and women are not specifically mentioned in the Convention nor the Protocol, long-held international norms have recognized that these groups can qualify within these parameters as they hold “membership of a particular social group.”

Braverman’s comments bring to the forefront the place of LGBTQ+ persons within the British asylum system, revealing their experiences more broadly. Despite Braverman’s implication that such individuals are more easily moving through the asylum system or are somehow undeserving of refugee status, both prove untrue.

The concern that the British asylum system would be overwhelmed by individuals utilizing their identity simply does not hold against the United Kingdom government’s own statistics. Of all the asylum claims lodged in the UK in 2021, only one percent of such claims were (at least partially) on the basis of sexual orientation. While this percentage was higher in previous years, seeing a marked decrease, between 2015 and 2022 the highest percentage of claims submitted on this basis was in 2016, representing 7 percent of all claims or 2,212 claims.

From this perspective alone, Braverman’s statements appear to be a continuation of the Tory government’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, playing on fears of migrants overrunning the streets and causing societal havoc—an image Braverman began her speech with.

Yet this rhetoric, and even the statistics placing it in critical light, do not reflect the tangible, lived aspect of the British asylum system for LGBTQ+ persons. While “simply being gay” and having “fear of discrimination” were downplayed by Braverman, when discrimination takes the form of a traumatic and life-threatening environment, flight from one’s home country may be the only solution. Those fleeing, especially on the basis of their sexual orientation, often then enter a system which defaults upon non-belief of one’s identity and is particularly confusing for those looking to claim asylum on the basis of sexual orientation.

The organisation Rainbow Migration, providing assistance in applying for asylum and finding resources for LGBTQ+ refugees, has compiled various stories of those they have assisted. Through hearing about these experiences through asylum-seekers’ own words, the picture becomes clearer on the reality of the system.

The first hurdle faced by those seeking asylum on the basis of sexual orientation is the simple fact that many are unaware of the options available to them. Adams, a bisexual man from Ghana, described his experience in which, after struggling with his living situation and mental health, he finally approached the police about the asylum process, not knowing “anything about asylum, or about how to claim asylum.”

Another significant factor complicating the process of asylum for LGBTQ+ persons is the necessity to prove your sexual orientation to the Home Office. In the words of Manono, who has stayed in the UK after leaving her home country of Malawi:

“When you come to the UK as a refugee, you don’t think about bringing ‘evidence’ of being LGBTQ because you are running away from your country where you aren’t safe. When the Home Office tells you you have to get evidence, you don’t know what they mean. I went through a lot and tried to claim asylum many times, but it’s just refusal, refusal, refusal. After my claim was denied because of evidence I put in a fresh claim, but I’m still waiting for a decision after 5 years.”

Other asylum seekers described similar experiences of having a lack of resources and knowledge, and further struggling to prove their sexual orientation—a part of them that was often difficult to come to terms with due to the situation of their home country.

All of these steps happen before any assistance from the Home Office occurs: assistance which often means being subjected to uncomfortable or even traumatic environments for LGBTQ+ refugees. One refugee, Arthur Britney, described the harassment they faced in Home Office accommodation after their HIV-positive status was disclosed, and Manono detailed the fear of others knowing her lesbian identity while in a Home Office detention centre. 

In all these stories, times of darkness and ill mental health were prevalent. While to Suella Braverman, “simply being gay” does not come as a life-threatening existence, for those living in countries where their safety is threatened daily, to come to the United Kingdom without support systems or often at the denial of their identity, also raises new threats to their wellbeing and lives.

By dampening the political noise, and election-motivated plays on fear, the voices of those impacted by the experience of the asylum system can be heard. While LGBTQ+ persons only make up a fraction of those attempting to claim asylum, the failures of the asylum system are made even more noticeable against the vulnerability of their situations.

Image courtesy of VL04 via Wikimedia, ©2015. Some rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.