Spain: Stigmatisation and bureaucratic barriers for LGBT migrants trying to exercise their right to health in Madrid.

Translated with Google translate. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down. 

“I have been treated like garbage”: when discrimination against LGTBI migrants also creeps into health.

The COGAM collective denounces the stigmatization and bureaucratic barriers that these people face when trying to exercise their right to health in Madrid. ‘Infobae’ talks to a young Venezuelan who has applied for asylum in Spain.

The LGTBI collective continues to be the subject of harassment and violence around the world, a particularly complicated situation in some Latin American countries, where they live in a reality marked by homicides, attacks and discrimination. This is what happened in Venezuela to K.C., a 33-year-old homosexual man who suffered a rape “perpetrated by a policeman” in 2016 from which he is still trying to recover. Due to that aggression for which he contracted HIV and that caused him a state of tension and permanent fear, he decided to leave and settle in Colombia, where he lived until July last year, when he moved to Spain. The reason why K.C. (fictitious name) left this second country is because he met one of his aggressors and was not willing to live in fear.

“The first shock I had in the consultation is that they spoke to me in a very derogatory way when I just wanted to advise me, because I still didn’t know how things worked here. A doctor asked me what my nationality was, when in reality it was not a relevant fact, but she gave me to understand that we were the foreign people who brought the diseases to Spain,” this young man explains to Infobae. “Being a migrant does not mean that we have no rights,” he criticizes.
K.C. claims to have felt stigmatized both “for being Latino and for his HIV diagnosis.” “The doctors don’t listen to me and make me feel like I’m stealing the medical care that should be for Spaniards. I’ve been treated like trash and I only go to the health center when I have an emergency because I don’t want to feel humiliated,” he says. In addition, he mentions wrong diagnoses and inadequate treatments that, far from improving his condition, have aggravated his health: “I know I accessed health care, but at what cost?” he asks himself.
The only time he has been properly cared for, he says, was when he went to the Sandoval medical center, the only one in Madrid specialized in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. This young man also assures that in Spain is where he has really “been aware of his skin color,” because he lives episodes of racism every day, especially when he goes to the supermarket or when he travels by subway.

COGAM’s complaint

Like K.C., there are many LGTBI+ migrants for whom access to public health continues to be a challenge in the region, as denounced by the Collective of lesbians, gays, transsexuals and bisexuals of Madrid (COGAM), which criticizes “discrimination, stigmatization and bureaucratic barriers that these people face daily when trying to exercise their fundamental right to health.” The difficulties, they assure, not only respond to the lack of administrative regularization, but also “to the dehumanizing treatment and the lack of empathy in primary care centers and hospitals,” as this is reflected in some of the testimonies collected by the organization, which show “stigmatization by nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity and serological status“.

This is the case of Nicolás Henríquez, a 28-year-old Chilean, who denounces the lack of access to preventive treatments such as the pre-exposure prophylaxis pill or PrEP, which is taken to reduce the chances of contracting HIV infection, due to bureaucratic delays: “I wanted to start PrEP, but they didn’t give me an appointment until five months later. I was finally diagnosed with HIV, something that I could perhaps avoid if I had been treated before,” he says.

The situation is also complicated for Vitória Ribeiro, a 27-year-old Brazilian student, because the private insurance required for her visa, she explains, “is very expensive and inefficient,” so that if something happens to her outside of business hours, “she cannot receive help.” “This generates constant concern and anxiety in me.”

For all this, from COGAM they demand that the Madrid health authorities guarantee “real and universal access to public health for all people, regardless of their migratory status or identity,” as well as combating stigma and discrimination through awareness programs and training of medical personnel.

Another of the collective’s claims is the specific training for health personnel in terms of LGTBI+ diversity and care for migrants and they ask that access to preventive and specific treatments, such as PrEP and antiretrovirals, be facilitated, “without bureaucratic obstacles.” The health system, they conclude, “must be a safe space where anyone receives dignified and quality care.”

“Me han tratado como basura”: cuando la discriminación hacia las personas migrantes LGTBI también se cuela en la sanidad.

El colectivo COGAM denuncia la estigmatización y barreras burocráticas a las que se enfrentan estas personas al intentar ejercer su derecho a la salud en Madrid. ‘Infobae’ habla con un joven venezolano que ha solicitado asilo en España.

El colectivo LGTBI sigue siendo objeto de acoso y violencia en todo el mundo, una situación especialmente complicada en algunos países de América Latina, donde viven una realidad marcada por homicidios, ataques y discriminación. Así le ocurrió en Venezuela a K.C., un hombre homosexual de 33 años que sufrió una violación “perpetrada por un policía” en 2016 de la que aún trata de recuperarse. Debido a esa agresión por la que contrajo VIH y que le provocó un estado de tensión y miedo permanente, decidió marcharse e instalarse en Colombia, donde vivió hasta julio del año pasado, cuando se trasladó a España. El motivo por el que K.C. (nombre ficticio) se marchó de este segundo país es porque se encontró con uno de sus agresores y no estaba dispuesto a vivir atemorizado.

En Madrid, donde reside desde hace ocho meses y ha solicitado asilo por razones humanitarias, se encuentra más seguro, pero también ha atravesado enormes dificultades para acceder a la sanidad pública, barreras que acaban afectando a su bienestar físico y emocional, perpetuando situaciones de desigualdad y vulnerabilidad.

“El primer choque que tuve en la consulta es que me hablaron de forma muy despectiva cuando solo quería asesorarme, porque aún no sabía cómo funcionaban las cosas acá. Una doctora me preguntó cuál era mi nacionalidad, cuando en realidad no era un dato relevante, pero me dio a entender que éramos las personas extranjeras quienes traíamos las enfermedades a España”, explica a Infobae este joven. “Ser migrante no significa que no tengamos derechos”, critica.

K.C. asegura haberse sentido estigmatizado tanto “por ser latino como por su diagnóstico de VIH”. “Los médicos no me escuchan y me hacen sentir como si estuviera robando la atención médica que debería ser para españoles. Me han tratado como una basura y ya solo acudo al centro de salud cuando tengo una urgencia porque no quiero sentirme humillado”, relata. Además, menciona diagnósticos erróneos y tratamientos inadecuados que, lejos de mejorar su estado, han agravado su salud: “Sé que accedí a la sanidad, pero ¿a qué costo?”, se pregunta.

La única vez que le han atendido adecuadamente, sostiene, fue cuando acudió al centro médico Sandoval, el único en Madrid especializado en la prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento de las infecciones de transmisión sexual. Este joven también asegura que en España es donde realmente “ha sido consciente de su color de piel”, porque vive a diario episodios de racismo, especialmente cuando va al supermercado o cuando viaja en metro.

Denuncia de COGAM

Al igual que K.C., son muchas las personas migrantes LGTBI+ para las que el acceso a la sanidad pública continúa siendo un desafío en la región, tal y como ha denunciado el Colectivo de lesbianas, gais, transexuales y bisexuales de Madrid (COGAM), que critica “la discriminación, estigmatización y barreras burocráticasque enfrentan estas personas a diario al intentar ejercer su derecho fundamental a la salud”. Las dificultades, aseguran, no solo responden a la falta de regularización administrativa, sino también “al trato deshumanizante y la falta de empatía en centros de atención primaria y hospitales”, pues así lo reflejan algunos de los testimonios que ha recogido la organización, que evidencian “estigmatización por nacionalidad, orientación sexual, identidad de género y estado serológico“.

Es el caso de Nicolás Henríquez, chileno de 28 años, denuncia la falta de acceso a tratamientos preventivos como la pastilla de profilaxis preexposición o PrEP, que se toma para reducir las posibilidades de contraer la infección por VIH, debido a retrasos burocráticos: “Quise iniciar la PrEP, pero no me dieron cita hasta cinco meses después. Finalmente fui diagnosticado con VIH, algo que quizá pude evitar si me hubieran atendido antes”, relata.

La situación también es complicada para Vitória Ribeiro, estudiante brasileña de 27 años, pues el seguro privado exigido para su visado, explica, “es muy caro y poco eficiente”, de forma que si le ocurre algo fuera del horario de atención, “no puede recibir ayuda”. “Esto me genera una constante preocupación y ansiedad”.

Por todo ello, desde COGAM reclaman a las autoridades sanitarias madrileñas que garanticen “un acceso real y universal a la sanidad pública para todas las personas, independientemente de su estatus migratorio o identidad”, así como combatir el estigma y la discriminación a través de programas de sensibilización y formación del personal médico.

Otro de los reclamos del colectivo es la formación específica para el personal sanitario en materia de diversidad LGTBI+ y atención a personas migrantes y piden que se facilite el acceso a tratamientos preventivos y específicos, como la PrEP y los antirretrovirales, “sin trabas burocráticas”. El sistema sanitario, concluyen, “debe ser un espacio seguro donde cualquier persona reciba atención digna y de calidad”.

Ireland: Four guest speakers discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV at community event

Queer migrants living with HIV in Ireland platformed in World AIDS Day event

Four guest speakers joined Poz Vibe hosts Robbie Lawlor and Veda to discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV.

To mark World AIDS Day, GCN and Poz Vibe teamed up to present ‘Poz World Panel’, a live podcast event aimed at platforming the voices of people living with HIV in Ireland. To showcase the diversity of the community and push back against the rising far-right and racist rhetoric, four guest speakers joined Poz Vibe hosts Robbie Lawlor and Veda to discuss their journey as LGBTQ+ migrants living with HIV.

Taking place at Edmund Burke Theatre on December 1, ‘Poz World Panel’ was the biggest World AIDS Day event to ever happen at Trinity College Dublin. To mark the occasion, TCD lit up the front of its historic buildings in red for the first time in a powerful display of solidarity and support.

The event kicked off at 6pm with a special set by queer DJ Manwelli, who welcomed people in and set the mood ahead of the live podcast. Before the discussion with the guests began, Poz Vibe co-host Veda invited a fifth speaker, who chose to remain anonymous, to address the audience.

The speaker told participants about their journey as an asylum seeker and what migrants in Direct Provision still face nowadays. They appealed to the audience to show up for people who are stuck waiting for a work permit and don’t know where to start to build a new life in a foreign country.

Taking the mic after them, Veda spoke about how the stigma against HIV impacted her life and pushed her to remain 10 years in the closet. The activist also talked about the Irish Names Quilt, which was created to honour those who died in Ireland from AIDS and HIV-related illnesses.

The Quilt was created by the Quilt Group, a group of women whom Veda visited recently, saying that when she went there she found the “communtity she’s been trying to build”, a community where HIV Positive people can live free of stigma and shame.

Joining Veda, Robbie Lawlor talked about Ireland’s history of emigration, highlighting the hypocrisy of people who today employ racist rhetoric against immigrants. Robbie also shared his own story of being denied visas to move abroad when he was 21 due to his HIV status.

The two hosts then invited their four guest speakers to share their stories. The first to take the mic was Prateek Bhardwaj, who spoke about living with HIV publicly for the very first time at the World AIDS Day event. He discussed the difficulties of accessing HIV medication in India and how this pushed him to move to Ireland, where everyone can access treatment for free.

After his account, the audience was treated to a short film created by Venezuelan actor and activist Luis Noguera Benitez. Through mixed media videos, Luis narrated his story of finding out his HIV status while he was still in Venezuela and coming out to his mother only one day before moving to Ireland.

The third speaker was Christopher Freibott, who moved to Ireland from a small town in Bavaria, Germany, in 2014. He spoke about how finding out he was living with HIV impacted his private and sexual life and the difficulty of opening up to the ones close to him.

Finally, Phellipe Lutterbeck opened up about living with HIV for the first time in public, sharing his experience of coming out and losing some friends due to their own prejudice. He also spoke about finding a community in Ireland and the massive impact that the Poz Vibe Tribe had on his life.

The World AIDS event concluded with a Q&A, when the audience asked questions about how to make Ireland a more welcoming space for people living with HIV.

Proudly supported by Trinity LGBTQ+ Staff Network, the ‘Poz World Panel: A World AIDS Day live Podcast’ event was a fundraiser for GCN, with some of the proceeds going to Poz Vibe.

Follwoing the event, GCN’s Manager Stefano Pappalardo said: “We were thrilled to have hosted this important community event to mark World AIDS Day in conjunction with Poz Vibe.

“Despite the progress made over the years, stigma remains a persistent barrier to open conversations, equal treatment, and support for those living with HIV.
Events like these are crucial in uniting our community, challenging harmful narratives, empowering individuals, and breaking down the stigma that still surrounds HIV.

“A massive thank you to our gorgeous hosts Veda and Robbie Lawlor, everyone at Trinity LGBTQ+ Staff Network for all their support, the wonderful speakers for sharing their stories and everyone who came along. Your presence made this event truly meaningful.”

US: Queer asylum seekers face uphill battle in U.S. immigration system

Think Immigration: Breaking Down Barriers – Improving Asylum Laws for Queer Migrants

AILA welcomes this blog post from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee Law Student Scholarship recipient Abby Leigh, part of a series intended to highlight the important ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion inform immigration law and policy. More information about AILA’s DEI Committee and its important work is available on AILA’s website.

In more than 70 countries, some aspect of being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQIA+) is a crime. Many LGBTQIA+ people face harassment, discrimination, and violence that force them to flee. As U.S. immigration law evolved, sexual orientation and gender identity became a valid basis for an asylum claim. However, these asylum laws were still developed through the lens of straight relationships and cisgender perspectives.  As a result, asylum laws in the United States significantly disadvantage queer migrants, particularly transgender and non-binary individuals.

To start, a lack of an explicit acknowledgement that LGBTQIA+ is a protected ground within asylum means otherwise valid claims can fall through the cracks.  Sexual orientation and gender identity are not specifically enumerated as protected grounds for asylum, though they do often qualify as members of a Protected Social Group. Due to the lack of explicit inclusion, LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers often do not realize their sexual orientation/gender identity are grounds for asylum and are hesitant to speak up for fear they will experience the same persecution from which they fled. The one-year filing restriction on asylum claims and other expedited procedural constraints only make matters worse, as applicants with valid claims may not have sufficient time to file after learning they have a valid claim. To help remedy this problem, sexual orientation and gender identity should be explicitly adopted into the definition of refugee, and asylum officers should have an obligation to communicate this to applicants.

Beyond definitional limitations, the lack of culturally sensitive “credibility” determinations for asylum leaves the door open to improper judgment and mischaracterization. Because asylum is discretionary, adjudicators heavily rely on their own biases to determine whether an applicant’s described persecution is credible, often discounting queer identities that fall outside of what would be familiar to mainstream – often white – Americans.  The expectation of white Western gender and sexuality performance is not only demeaning, but it also narrows the likelihood of eliciting valid asylum claims.

Furthermore, studies demonstrate that immigration adjudicators conflate sex with sexuality, routinely discrediting applicants without sexual or romantic histories. As a result, asylum practitioners are often forced to limit and contextualize their description of persecution to fit within the confines of white Western culture. Adverse credibility findings are further exacerbated by applicants’ hesitancy to discuss their sexual orientation/gender identity with an asylum officer, especially if they are unaware that their identity forms the basis of a valid asylum claim. Thus, additional leeway should be granted for minor inconsistencies between asylum applications and an applicant’s testimony. The evidentiary standard of corroboration should also be relaxed, particularly for applicants who were forced to conceal their identities in their country of origin and may be hesitant to reveal their true identities once in the United States. Furthermore, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex assigned at birth data, and HIV status should be integrated into U.S. registration and data management systems that process asylum claims. Demographic questions should be subject to change throughout the asylum process without negative repercussions for the applicant.

Decision-makers are hesitant to grant asylum claims that allege violence similar to what is experienced domestically because it disrupts the illusion that the United States is the “good guy.” This leaves applicants walking a strategic tightrope, forced to perform their gender/sexuality in a manner satisfactory to the American adjudicator. Similarly, the theory of the case requires casting the applicant as a “good” or “deserving” gay, a narrative that juxtaposes the unspoken converse of a “bad” or “less-deserving” gay.

There is a need for more research and publicly available data, as federal agencies do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status. As U.S. State Department country conditions reports are heavily considered in determining asylum (and often contain no information about the LGBTQIA+ community or those living with HIV), decision-makers should examine country-specific laws, policies, and cultural attitudes towards each subpopulation of the LGBTQIA+ community as well as those living with HIV when relevant. Immigration judges should also proactively submit evidence from credible sources sua sponte, especially for pro se litigants or when U.S. State Department reports lack proper evidence. Finally, because most immigration officers and immigration judge’s ideas about LGBTQIA+ identity are based on U.S. norms and stereotypes, all immigration officials must receive queer-sensitive interview training.

Research shows that the process of applying for asylum can by itself have “deleterious effects on LGBTQI+ persons, and immigration policies harm them based on the compounding effects of their intersectional identities.” It is important to address the challenges faced by queer migrants in the asylum process, including the need to “come out” in a way that is “credible” and “legible” to asylum adjudicators, as well as harmful stereotypes that question the validity and realness of these identities. Until our laws move beyond the existing cis-heteronormative legal structure, they cannot offer LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers a meaningful chance to claim protection and live up to America’s promise of safety for those fleeing persecution.

Sweden: 96% of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in Sweden rejected, violating legal protections

Asylum-seeking LGBTQI+ individuals deported on illegal grounds

Migration authorities are rejecting and deporting LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in violation of Swedish and international law. This is revealed by an extensive report by RFSL. “A legal scandal that continues in silence, behind confidentiality and secrecy,” says Aino Gröndahl, asylum law specialist at RFSL.

Despite the Swedish Migration Agency having taken several actions since RFSL’s last legal investigation in 2020, the situation for LGBTQI+ individuals seeking asylum in Sweden has not improved. A staggering 96 percent of the decisions and judgments reviewed in the new investigation were rejections, a higher percentage than the data RFSL’s asylum law specialist reviewed in 2020. The latest report also shows that illegal demands in SOGIESC asylum cases persist. This results in LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, who are entitled to protection in Sweden, being deported to countries where they risk persecution, torture, and the death penalty.

“Sweden continues to deport LGBTQI+ individuals on illegal grounds. It is a legal scandal that occurs in silence, behind confidentiality and secrecy. A shame for a country that claims to be a rule-of-law state,” says Aino Gröndahl, asylum lawyer at RFSL.

Stop the deportations of asylum-seeking LGBTQI+ individuals if safe and fair assessments cannot be guaranteed

RFSL is now calling for a decision and enforcement halt until safe and fair investigations, reviews, and assessments consistent with current law are guaranteed in SOGIESC asylum cases.

“The government must now ensure that the asylum process for LGBTQI+ individuals follows Swedish and international law. Until then, RFSL wants all illegal rejections and deportations of LGBTQI+ individuals to be stopped,” says Peter Sidlund Ponkala, Chairman of RFSL.

Summary of the Report

In the report “Rejection motivations in SOGIESC asylum cases in Sweden” RFSL has reviewed the Migration Agency’s assessments. This involves 1,360 decisions and judgments in SOGIESC asylum cases between November 2020 and May 2023. The report is authored by Aino Gröndahl, asylum lawyer at RFSL.

The report shows that:

  • The Migration Agency assessments of SOGIESC asylum cases violate Swedish and international law.
  • The Migration Agency continues to reject and deport asylum seekers on illegal grounds to countries that persecute and also apply the death penalty to LGBTQI+ individuals.
  • A full 96 percent of the decisions and judgments reviewed in the new report were rejections. This is a higher percentage than in the data RFSL’s asylum law specialist reviewed in 2020.
  • The right to an individual review and objective assessment is not met in SOGIESC asylum cases.
  • Discretionary requirements still occur, meaning that asylum seekers are required to have hidden their SOGIESC status in their home country to avoid persecution. This is despite discretion requirements having been prohibited in Swedish law for nearly two decades and in international law for over a decade.
  • Requirements for internal emotional processes and risk considerations in credibility and reliability assessments are solely based on stereotypes and prejudices about SOGIESC individuals. This violates, among other things, EU law and UNHCR guidelines.
  • The Migration Agency often demands that SOGIESC asylum seekers display negative emotions such as shame. This means that Swedish authorities condition the right to protection on LGBTQI+ individuals showing self-hatred to appear credible.

RFSL’s recommendations to the government

  • Halt decision-making and deportations until safe and fair investigations, reviews, and assessments consistent with current law are guaranteed in SOGIESC asylum cases.
  • Promptly appoint the investigation promised in the Tidö Agreement to review the legal safety in SOGIESC asylum cases.
  • Provide clear instructions and requirements to the Migration Agency for quality assurance in the investigation, review, and assessment of SOGIESC asylum cases.
  • Task the Migration Agency with continuously training all operational staff in the investigation, review, and assessment of protection needs based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
  • Task the Migration Agency with compiling statistics on SOGIESC asylum cases and the grounds on which an asylum case should be granted or rejected.

EU’s directive for people vulnerable to sexual discrimination is not always implemented

As countries tighten anti-gay laws, more and more LGBTQ+ migrants seek safety and asylum in Europe

RIETI, Italy (AP) — Ella Anthony knew it was time to leave her native Nigeria when she escaped an abusive, forced marriage only to face angry relatives who threatened to turn her in to police because she was gay.

Since Nigeria criminalizes same-sex relationships, Anthony fled a possible prison term and headed with her partner to Libya in 2014 and then Italy, where they both won asylum. Their claim? That they had a well-founded fear of anti-LGBTQ+ persecution back home.

While many of the hundreds of thousands of migrants who arrive in Italy from Africa and the Mideast are escaping war, conflict and poverty, an increasing number are fleeing possible prison terms and death sentences in their home countries because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, advocates say.

And despite huge obstacles to win asylum on LGBTQ+ grounds, Anthony and her partner, Doris Ezuruike Chinonso. are proof that it can be done, even if the challenges remain significant for so-called “rainbow refugees” like them.

“Certainly life here in Italy isn’t 100% what we want. But let’s say it’s 80% better than in my country,” Chinonso, 34, said with Anthony by her side at their home in Rieti, north of Rome. In Nigeria, “if you’re lucky you end up prison. If you’re not lucky, they kill you,” she said.

“Here you can live as you like,” she said.

Most European countries don’t keep statistics on the number of migrants who claim anti-LGBTQ+ persecution as a reason for seeking refugee protection under international law. But non-governmental organizations that track the phenomenon say the numbers are rising as countries pass or toughen anti-homosexuality laws — a trend being highlighted on Friday’s observance of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.

To date, more than 60 countries have anti-LGBTQ+ laws on the books, most of them in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

“The ultimate result is people trying to flee these countries to find safe haven elsewhere,” said Kimahli Powell, chief executive of Rainbow Railroad, which provides financial, legal and logistical support to LGBTQ+ people needing asylum assistance.

In an interview, Powell said his organization had received about 15,000 requests for assistance last year, up from some 9,500 the year before. One-tenth of those 2023 requests, or about 1,500, came from Uganda, which passed an anti-homosexuality lawthat year that allows the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” and up to 14 years in prison for “attempted aggravated homosexuality.”

Nigeria also criminalizes consensual same-sex relations between adults and the public display of affection between same-sex couples, as well as restricting the work of groups that advocate for gay people and their rights, according to Human Rights Watch. In regions of Nigeria where Sharia law is in force, LGBTQ+ people can face up to 14 years in prison or the death penalty.

Anthony, 37, said it was precisely the threat of prison that compelled her to leave. She said her family had sold her into marriage, but that she left the relationship because her husband repeatedly abused her. When she returned home, her brother and uncles threatened to turn her into police because she was gay. The fear and alienation drove her first to attempt suicide, and then take up a trafficker’s offer to pay for passage to Europe.

“At a certain point, I couldn’t take all these sufferings,” Anthony said through tears. “When this man told me that I should abandon the village, I immediately accepted.”

After arriving in Libya, Anthony and Chinonso paid traffickers for the risky boat trip across the Mediterranean Sea to Italy, where they both claimed asylum as a member of a group – LGBTQ+ people – who faced persecution in Nigeria. According to refugee norms, applicants for asylum can be granted international protection based on being a “member of a particular social group.”

But the process is by no means easy, straightforward or guaranteed. Privacy concerns limit the types of questions about sexual orientation that migrants can be asked during the asylum interview process. Social taboos and a reluctance to openly identify as gay or transgender mean some migrants might not volunteer the information immediately. Ignorance on the part of asylum interviewers about anti-gay laws in countries of origin can result in unsuccessful claims, according to the EU Agency for Asylum, which helps EU countries implement asylum norms.

As a result, no comprehensive data exists about how many migrants seek or win asylum in the EU on LGBTQ+ grounds. Based on estimates reported by NGOs working with would-be refugees, the numbers in individual EU countries ranged from two to three in Poland in 2016 to 500 in Finland from 2015-2017 and 80 in Italy from 2012-2017, according to a 2017 report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.