Expert view: There is something wrong with the asylum process for LGBTQ+ people – but it’s not fake claimants

Dr Calogero Giametta from the School of Criminology, Sociology and Social Policy, and colleagues at the universities of Exeter and Warwick respond to a BBC investigation into asylum process, in this article published by The Conversation:

An undercover investigation by BBC News has found evidence of people falsely claiming to be gay to gain asylum in the UK. The findings are concerning. But rather than assume this means all asylum applicants are lying, it’s worth asking why people might be drawn to this route.

There is good reason for the UK and other countries to offer refuge to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Extensive evidence from organisations such as Human Rights Watch and UNHCR shows that LGBTQ+ people in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh face imprisonment, family and community violence, police harassment and so-called honour-based abuse. This is precisely why sexual orientation is recognised as a basis for protection in international refugee law.

Sexual orientation claims make up a very small proportion of overall asylum applications. Only 2% of all asylum claims made in 2023 included sexual orientation as part of the reasoning.

Proving to the Home Office that someone is LGBTQ+ isn’t an easy feat. The BBC investigation repeats an adviser’s claim that “there is no check-up”. In reality, the Home Office conducts an intensive refugee status determination process. This involves two interviews, and places the burden of proof on the claimant to show that they require protection from persecution.

In recent years, sexuality in asylum claims has come to be about identity, rather than behaviour. This view – which is often about how people see themselves or what protests or nightclubs they attend – isn’t necessarily consistent with how applicants understand their own sexuality.

Research suggests that decision-makers often rely on narrow, formulaic expectations of how an LGBTQ+ person “should” behave, rather than properly assessing the risk of persecution. For example, one of our research participants, a Ugandan refugee, said that her having been previously married to a man (in a forced marriage), was taken as evidence that she was not a lesbian.

The asylum process makes stereotypical performances of credibility easier to read for decision-makers, compared to the ambivalent and fluid reality of LGBTQ+ lived experience. It privileges linear emotional journeys and open and visible participation in LGBTQ+ spaces. This is often through a western lens of what sexual orientation as an identity means.

For example, research has shown that perceptions of homosexuality being at odds with religion means religious LGBTQ+ asylum seekers face additional suspicion.

This creates incentives for legal experts, charity workers and advisers to package LGBTQ+ claimants into institutionally recognisable categories. In other words, it is the assessment process itself that produces the conditions in which “coached” identities are viewed as a way through the asylum system.

Fabricating a claim is not easy, however: it is risky, expensive and often unsuccessful. One of the BBC’s core examples, “Ali”, was ultimately not successful in securing refugee status in the UK. Since the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, an even higher standard of proof has applied to all asylum claims.

A culture of disbelief

Research in refugee and migration studies has consistently shown evidence of a widespread culture of disbelief by authorities towards people seeking asylum. This is particularly true in the case of those basing their claims on their sexual orientation.

Asylum systems are sceptical by design. Applicants undergo long, detailed interviews. They must demonstrate consistency and plausibility, and face significant rejection rates. In the UK, the initial grant rate for the year ending December 2025 was 42%, meaning most claims were rejected (many of these are later granted on appeal).

At the same time, a lack of accessible information about the asylum system as well as affordable legal advice and representation mean that applicants are easily misled or exploited by bad faith actors.

The BBC investigation exposes a handful of cases, but there is no credible evidence that fraudulent claims in this category are widespread. When similar allegations were made by former home secretary Suella Braverman in 2023, the Home Office was unable to provide evidence of systemic abuse.

More than anything, the BBC’s report is evidence of a regulatory issue in the legal system that should be addressed. But it is likely to cast suspicion over LGBTQ+ asylum claims more broadly, reinforcing the idea that people seeking asylum are trying to “game the system”. It says little about the structural conditions that shape these claims in the first place. These include an underfunded legal aid sector, and the lack of safe and managed routes for refugees, forcing people into precarious and informal systems in the first place.

Rather than leading to better decision-making by the Home Office, panic over fake claimants could create a harsher atmosphere where those with well-founded fear of persecution may find it even harder to be protected.

Raawiyah Rifath
Lecturer in Law, University of Exeter

Alex Powell
Associate Professor in Law, University of Warwick

Calogero Giametta
Lecturer in Criminology, University of Leicester