HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC is the leading authority on LGBTQ+ asylum claims. The Court rejected the discretion argument: LGBTQ+ individuals cannot be expected to conceal their identity to avoid persecution on return.
The tribunal must apply a three-part test: (i) is the appellant gay or belongs to the relevant LGBTQ+ group?; (ii) would they be open about their sexuality in the UK?; (iii) if they returned and lived openly, would they face a real risk of persecution?
Persecution experts provide country-specific analysis of conditions for openly LGBTQ+ individuals, including criminalisation, state enforcement, societal attitudes, non-state actor risks, and internal relocation feasibility within the HJ (Iran) framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the discretion argument still raised in LGBTQ+ cases?
Following HJ (Iran) [2010], the discretion argument is rejected in law. However, Home Office decisions may still implicitly expect discretion. Persecution expert reports should explicitly address the HJ (Iran) standard and assess risk on open living, not concealed living.
What evidence should I gather for an LGBTQ+ asylum claim?
Evidence of sexual orientation or gender identity, openness in the UK, country conditions for LGBTQ+ individuals, and any past targeting. Persecution experts supplement this with independent country conditions analysis focused on the HJ (Iran) framework.