You are here:
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blog
  4. How the Home Office is failing LGBT+ applicants

How the Home Office is failing LGBT+ applicants

08 August 2019

This article was sourced by Tom Chapman at CandidSky, a marketing agency in Manchester that works with law firms in the UK.

Editorial credit: 1000 Words /

Earlier this year, sharia-based laws came into effect in the Asian nation of Brunei making homosexual sex punishable by stoning to death. This draconian legislation was met by widespread international condemnation, but it seems unlikely the country will revise the policy.

Unfortunately, Brunei is not the only nation with a backward view of LGTB+ rights. Just covering homosexual sex, many countries around the world still classify this act as illegal, such as Singapore, Jamaica, and the Maldives.

Therefore, it is understandable that LGTB+ individuals strive to live in a location which accepts them as people, not criminals. Sadly, obtaining refugee status in our country is not as easy for these people as it should be.

Why is the Home Office turning away LGBT+ applicants?

Government data shows – over a three-year-period – around 5,300 applications were made to the Home Office for asylum containing a reference to sexual orientation. Of those, approximately 70% were refused.

Troublingly, of those individuals who chose to appeal the Home Office's decision, more than two-thirds had their verdicts overturned. Based on this information, campaigners argued that the Home Office was setting "the bar too high" for LGBT+ individuals seeking protection.

This verdict is hard to disagree with.

Furthermore, statistics suggest the Home Office generally has an excessively complicated immigration system. In a report published by the Guardian, it was claimed the organisation lost almost three-quarters of its final immigration appeals over the course of a year. This led to one solicitor accusing the Home Office of "stopping people getting on with their lives". 

What must LGBT+ individuals prove to gain protection?

Under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, an LGBT+ individual will be recognised as a refugee in the UK if they can establish several things. Successfully doing so will grant them refugee status for five years – giving them the rights to work, study, as well as apply for benefits and housing. Furthermore, the same status will often apply to the applicant's close family members and children.

First, LGBT+ applicants must demonstrate their fears regarding persecution are well-founded. This can be difficult as these must be backed up by evidence. Those concerned for their safety are unlikely to collect proof of this before fleeing to the UK and, as a result, individuals frequently have to demonstrate persecution through oral evidence.

Second, applicants must prove their native countries persecute LGBT+ individuals. In the case of countries where homosexuality is illegal, this should be quite straightforward to prove. However, for many victims, this misses the reality of persecution. For many of these individuals, threats to their safety don't necessarily come from the state but rather from their communities or family members.

Thirdly, LGBT+ applicants must prove their sexual orientation. Demonstrating this can also be difficult as those living in a country which criminalises homosexuality are unlikely to collate evidence of this. Consequently, the Home Office has previously refused claims for asylum after not believing the applicant's sexual orientation.

The problem with evidence

In 2018, the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group published the Still Falling Short report. This document looked into the standards applied by the Home Office when deciding asylum claims based on sexual orientation. Although the study concluded that significant improvements had been made in some areas, the authors felt the organisation's application of the correct standard of proof was "problematic".

Furthermore, the study emphasised that a claimant should just demonstrate their account is "reasonably likely" but stated this standard was often not applied.

On the subject of evidence, the report stated:

"Decision-makers often place very limited or no weight on corroborative evidence of sexual orientation, such as evidence from friends, partners, participation in LGBTQI+ groups, attendance at events, social media exchanges. Such evidence is often labelled 'self-serving'. Failure to produce such evidence, however, is damaging to the claim." 

LGBT+ applicants need compassion – not interrogation

Those seeking refuge in the UK are often extremely vulnerable – especially if they have fled their home nations for fear of persecution. As a result, they need sympathy from our government and those processing their applications.

Proof is something which is obviously important, but the bar for submitting this must not be set excessively high. If the process is not fair, then the consequences could be extreme. Those seeking protection might be deported back to their home nations where, potentially, they could face death.

Therefore, the Home Office must evaluate the process for LGBT+ asylum seekers and ask which is more important – bureaucracy, or human life?


Views expressed in our blogs are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Law Society.

Explore our LGBT+ Lawyers Division we are committed to promoting inclusion in the legal profession, reflecting the diversity of our society

To join the LGBT+ Division, the community for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) lawyers and allies, sign up to My Law Society and tick the LGBT+ lawyers box in Special interests. You will receive regular email updates and tailored content will appear on your My Law Society homepage

Find out about the LGBT+ committee

Join the LGBT+ Lawyers Division LinkedIn group

Follow our diversity and inclusion Twitter account

Our Pastoral care helpline for solicitors experiencing personal, financial, professional, or employment difficulties is open 9 to 5 Monday to Friday on 020 7320 5795 

Our Practice Advice Service offers free and confidential support and advice on legal practice and procedure open 9 to 5 Monday to Friday on 020 7320 5675

LawCare supports good mental health and wellbeing in the legal community

Tags: immigration | LGBT

About the author

Tom Chapman is a publishing specialist at CandidSky, a marketing agency in Manchester that works with law firms in the UK on their digital marketing campaigns.

  • Share this page:

Abigail Bright | Adam Johnson | Adele Edwin-Lamerton | Ahmed Aydeed | Alex Barr | Alex Heshmaty | Alexa Lemzy | Alexandra Cardenas | Amanda Adeola | Amanda Carpenter | Amanda Jardine Viner | Amy Bell | Amy Heading | an anonymous sole practitioner | Andrew Kidd | Andrew McWhir | Andy Harris | Anna Drozd | Annaliese Fiehn | Anne Morris | Anne Waldron | anonymous female solicitor | Asif Afridi and Roseanne Russell | Bansi Desai | Barbara Whitehorne | Barry Wilkinson | Becky Baker | Ben Hollom | Bhavisha Mistry | Bob Nightingale | Bridget Garrood | Caroline Marlow | Caroline Roddis | Caroline Sorbier | Carolyn Pepper | Catherine Dixon | Chris Claxton-Shirley | Christina Blacklaws | Ciaran Fenton | Coral Hill | CV Library | Daniel Matchett | Daphne Perry | David Gilroy | David Yeoward | Douglas McPherson | Duncan Wood | Elijah Granet | Elizabeth Rimmer | Eloise Skinner | Emily Miller | Emily Powell | Emma Maule | Floyd Porter | Gary Richards | Gary Rycroft | Graham Murphy | Greg Treverton-Jones | Gustavo Bussmann | Hayley Stewart | Hilda-Georgina Kwafo-Akoto | Ignasi Guardans | James Castro Edwards | Jane Cassell | Jayne Willetts | Jeremy Miles | Jerry Garvey | Jessie Barwick | Joe Egan | Jonathan Andrews | Jonathan Fisher | Jonathan Smithers | Jonathon Bray | Julian Hall | Julie Ashdown | Julie Nicholds | June Venters | Justin Rourke | Karen Jackson | Kate Adam | Katherine Cousins | Kaweh Beheshtizadeh | Kayleigh Leonie | Keiley Ann Broadhead | Kerrie Fuller | Kevin Hood | Kevin Poulter | Larry Cattle | Laura Bee | Laura Devine | Laura Uberoi | Law Gazette Jobs | Leah Glover and Julie Ashdown | Leanne Yendell | Lee Moore | LHS Solicitors | Linden Thomas | Lucy Parker | Maria Shahid | Marjorie Creek | Mark Carver | Mark Leiser | Markus Coleman | Martin Barnes | Mary Doyle | Matt O'Brien | Matt Oliver | Matthew Still | Max Rossiter | Melissa Hardee | Michael Henson-Webb | Neil Ford | Nick Denys | Nick O'Neill | Nick Podd | Nigel West | Nikki Alderson | Oz Alashe | Paris Theodorou | Patrick Wolfe | Paul Rogerson | Pearl Moses | Penny Owston | Peter Wright | Philippa Southwell | Preetha Gopalan | Prof Sylvie Delacroix | Rachel Brushfield | Rafie Faruq | Ranjit Uppal | Ravi Naik | Rebecca Atkinson | Remy Mohamed | Richard Collier | Richard Coulthard | Richard Heinrich | Richard Mabey | Richard Messingham | Richard Miller | Richard Roberts | Rita Gupta | Rob Cope | Robert Bourns | Robert Forman | Robin Charrot | Rosa Coleman | Rosy Rourke | Sachin Nair | Saida Bello | Sally Azarmi | Sally Woolston | Sam De Silva | Sara Chandler | Sarah Austin | Sarah Crowe | Sarah Henchoz | Sarah Smith | Shereen Semnani | Shirin Marker | Siddique Patel | Simon Day | Sofia Olhede | Sonia Aman | Sophia Adams Bhatti | Sophie O'Neill-Hanson | Steve Deutsch | Steve Thompson | Stuart Poole-Robb | Sue James | Susa | Susan Kench | Suzanne Gallagher | The Law Society Digital and Brand team | Tom Chapman | Tom Ellen | Tony Roe | Tracey Calvert | Umar Kankiya | Vanessa Friend | Vicki Butler | Vidisha Joshi | William Li | William McSweeney

Monthly archives

February 2020 | January 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015