Database

The Refugee Convention was not written with the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) people in mind. This article shows the dilemmas this creates for LGBTQI asylum seekers and their advocates when establishing the case for protection. It uses the United Kingdom (UK) experience as an example and brings the literature on this topic up to date with reference to recent cases with implications for LGBTQI applicants. While there has been a welcome shift to recognize that LGBTQI persecution is a legitimate basis for asylum, contradictions and tensions between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, European, and UK guidelines and instruments, as well as between UK policy and practice, have resulted in a lack of consistency and fairness in the treatment of LGBTQI asylum seekers. The article identifies three specific areas of concern and goes on to show what happens when they converge, using a case that exemplifies some of the problems – AR (AP), against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2017] CSIH 52. It concludes by suggesting a shift in the focus of questioning, from the identity of the asylum seeker to the persecution in the country of origin, as a possible basis for fairer treatment of LGBTQI asylum claims.

While the refugee convention was not written to protect women and LGBTI people, subsequent treaties and directives recognise the violence they experience as legitimate grounds for claiming asylum. However, to meet the threshold for persecution, it is expedient for women and LGBTI asylum seekers to present themselves as abject victims of brutal and backward regimes, reinforcing dichotomies between refugee-producing and refugee-receiving countries. Such narratives obscurethe misogyny, homo- and transphobia prevalent in the West, potentially appropriating migrants’ rights for neocolonial agendas.This phenomenon has been identified by theorists within feminism, black feminist theory, queertheory, and post-colonialism. However, move to the field of practice and the surest way to secure refugee status is invariably to tell a story that resonates with decision-makers; one in which anoppressed individual is given sanctuary in the pro-gay and female-friendly West. To tell a morenuanced story would jeopardise the individual’s claim, and women and LGBTI people already struggle to meet the requirements for refugee protection in a system that was not designed forthem. This paper explores this difficulty in bridging theory and practice in relation to gender and sexual orientation based asylum claims.

This article explores the ways in which digital media are used as self-empowering tools by queer refugees in the course of their migration from several Middle Eastern countries via Turkey to Germany. Our discussion expands upon queer migration scholarship and insists on the need to shift attention away from refugees’ vulnerability to the empowering strategies that queer refugees develop for themselves. Based on observation and interviews conducted with queer refugees in Istanbul and Berlin, we argue that not only social media activism and interpersonal message platforms such as social networks, but also dating applications, open up opportunities for refugees to develop new coping strategies and a sense of belonging during migration. This leads us to focus on the emotional and affective value of digital media for queer refugees. While translocal digital media embed refugees within transnational networks that offer interpersonal/emotional support as well as useful tools for activism, our study reveals the restrictive power of such media. We argue that digitally circulated affects can become regulatory forces, which integrate queer refugees into European regimes of racialized and sexualized difference.

The current reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and claims for asylum on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity

• Since the 1990s, the European Union (EU) has slowly developed an increasingly sophisticated body of asylum law and policy, known as the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).

• This framework –both in the shape of legislative instruments and case law –has inevitably also affected those asylum seekers who claim asylum on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI). This has been vividly demonstrated by particular norms in EU asylum instruments and judgments of the Court of Justice of EU (CJEU).

• The current CEAS can be said to have several shortcomings in relation to SOGI claims, including in relation to: country of origin information; the notion of ‘safe country of origin’; the burden of proof and the principle of benefit of the doubt; the concept of a ‘particular social group’; and the definition of persecution.

• A new set of proposals for reform of the CEAS was put forward in 2016 by the European Commission, and these also affect SOGI asylum claims in precise and acute ways.

• This policy brief scrutinises these proposals of reform, and assesses the extent to which these proposals and different institutional positions address, ignore or aggravate the issues that currently affect asylum seekers who identify as LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex).

• The policy brief makes fifteen recommendations for European policymakers in regards to the reform of the CEAS, in order to ensure that the needs of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees are effectively addressed and their rights are respected.

• Academics from the University of Sussex working on the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum (SOGICA) project, funded by the European Research Council, are calling for policymakers to implement these recommendations in order to render the CEAS fairer for SOGI asylum seekers.

LGBT+ rights have recently gained international attention across the continent and have resulted in expanding tensions surrounding access to both city and state in South Africa. The experiences of LGBT+ asylum seekers, an underexamined group of migrants in South Africa, adds further complexity to the literature that has already challenged common-sense notions of Cape Town as a safe haven for sexual minorities. Increasing xenophobic tensions in South Africa’s major urban centres combined with neoliberal-led cut-backs at municipal and national levels has further hidden and made invisible the struggles of LGBT+ asylum seekers. Accessing shelter and employment are interrelated facets of the right to the city as these aspects determine whether forcibly displaced queer people are allowed to live or are simply abandoned and left to die. Thus, this article asks, ‘What is the interplay between access to the right to the city and the opposing social realities of death?’ Using data from fieldwork conducted in 2014–2015 in Cape Town with NGOs and asylum seekers, I seek to examine the violent processes in which state-structured violence embedded in the heteronormative urban space impedes the survival of forcibly displaced queer people. I argue that LGBT+ asylum seekers in Cape Town navigate a landscape of abandonment and death in their attempts to access the right to the city.

Progress in analyzing and interpreting the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of refugee law has contributed to a rise in individuals seeking asylum in such countries as the United States and Canada. However, few studies have examined the victimization experiences of sexual- and gender-identity forced migrants prior to their arrival in North America. This qualitative study used thematic analysis to explore the premigration adult victimization experiences of 26 lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals who obtained refugee, asylee, or withholding-of-removal status in the United States or Canada based on persecution for their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Participants originated from countries in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Analysis revealed the following themes: living on the edge, adopting concealment strategies, routine victimization, and protectors as perpetrators. Participants described living in a constant state of hypervigilance, and they adopted numerous strategies to protect themselves from victimization. Despite the use of such strategies, participants experienced victimization by community members and state actors, leaving them no choice but to flee to ensure their safety and well-being. Findings are discussed using the ecological framework outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The discussion concludes with implications for international policy and clinical practice.

In dieser Arbeit wird „Heteronormativität“ als deskriptiver Begriff theoretisch fundiert und als jenes Dispositiv gefasst, welches queere Identitäten – äußerlich wie innerlich – verdrängt, und bis hin zur Depersonalisierung entstellt. Der Identitätsbegriff wird sowohl aus poststrukturalistischer als auch sozialkonstruktivistischer Perspektive kritisch hinterfragt und narrativ konzeptualisiert. Im Zentrum dieser qualitativen Studie stehen zehn queere, nach Österreich geflüchtete Personen aus Afrika, Asien und Osteuropa, deren wandlungsfähige, kreative Selbstentwürfe im Spannungsfeld zwischen ‚agency‘ und ‚structure‘ aus intersektionaler Perspektive herausgearbeitet und interpretiert werden.

Discourses relating to gender and sexualities have long been a tool for the perpetuation of racialized “othering”and have contributed to the strengthening of national identities and boundaries as they reproduce binary constructions of “us”and “them.”As the German nation-state reinvents itself as multicultural, tolerant,and sexually liberated, these discourses serve to mark the racialized body as a site of backwardness, sexism, and homophobia, and thus justify its segregation and exclusion exemplified in the restrictive practices of housing, mobility restrictions, and deportation of asylum seekers and migrants. This paper aims to trace the unfolding of discourses in and between some dominant organizational structures in Berlin that advocate for LGBT refugees and asylum seekers. It argues that the claim for citizenship of some formerly excluded sexual others is contingent on the promotion of a very specific notion of sexual identity and participation in the orientalisation/ethnicisation of homophobia.

Asylum seekers making claims relating to their sexual orientation and gender identity often face unfair refusal. New guidance from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada takes admirable steps towards improving claims assessment, and offers a model for practitioners elsewhere.