Academics are cautioning that reforms in refugee law will affect sexually diverse claimants more than others. A study conducted by the University of Exeter suggests that the Nationality and Borders Act misses a chance to address the challenge of accurately assessing people’s sexual orientations. This oversight may result in incorrect decisions.
The research emphasizes the need for the UK government to promptly outline the procedures for individual assessments, particularly concerning those who might be transferred to Rwanda as part of the agreement between the UK and Rwanda. Clarifying these assessment processes is crucial.
“Given the lack of any framework of secondary legislation, it is not clear how the question of whether or not a country is safe for a given claimant will be addressed,” the researchers explain.
Fresh barriers
The Nationality and Borders Act has set up fresh obstacles to seeking asylum, potentially reducing the chances for many claimants to secure refugee protection in the UK.
Given the well-known impact of trauma on memory, the difficulties many claimants encounter in obtaining solid proof from their home country, and the obstacles they face when trying to gather evidence in the UK, the process of navigating asylum claims becomes exceedingly challenging for individuals.
“The nature of sexual diversity claims means that claimants often have very limited access to ‘objective’ tangible evidence expected by the Home Office, this results in their claim heavily relying on their oral testimony and narrative during their substantive asylum interview,” the authors continue.
Harming LGBTQ+ claimants
Lately, there has been a shift from “discretion” to “doubt” as the primary hurdle for asylum seekers trying to establish their LGBTQ+ status as a basis for refuge. Given the changes in the burden of proof and the heightened scrutiny on the routes taken by those seeking safety in the UK, there are numerous areas where this skepticism may intensify.
The Home Office’s asylum policy guidelines direct decision-makers to look for conventional and straightforward stories from LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. This approach is problematic because it overlooks the wide array of cultures and experiences that claimants come from. These worries about how the Home Office makes decisions have persisted over time, and the legal changes are unlikely to lead to better decision-making.
“We are concerned the changes will contribute to the wider masculine way in which Refugee Status is understood, able to comprehend the claims of those who are engaged in public actions which are self-evidently political, but largely unable to comprehend those whose persecution or nexus grounds occur in private or outside of public view,” the authors conclude.
