BY Caitlin Barotz

This paper delves into the complex issue of asylum-seeking by queer individuals escaping persecution. The paper begins by providing a historical context, tracing the evolution of asylum law, particularly focusing on the United States' recognition of sexual orientation as a valid ground for asylum. The landmark cases of Matter of Toboso-Alfonso and Pitcherskaia v. INS are explored, emphasizing the legal strides made in acknowledging the persecution faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. The core of the paper addresses the unique challenges faced by queer refugees and asylum seekers, highlighting the pervasive discrimination, oppression, and violence that LGBTQ+ individuals often experience even before fleeing their home countries. These challenges are exacerbated by logistical, financial, institutional, and psychological barriers that queer refugees encounter during their journey to safety and in the United States. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion of potential improvements to the asylum process for queer refugees. These include the need for better training for immigration officials to reduce bias, increasing diversity among immigration judges to provide a broader perspective, and employing specialized clinicians at the border to support queer refugees' mental health and establish trust. The ultimate aim is to create a more inclusive and equitable asylum system that recognizes and validates the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. This paper calls for systemic changes to ensure that seeking asylum is a more accessible and just process for those fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

I. Introduction

As the United States has become increasingly accepting of queerness, many nations remain highly repressive, criminalize homosexuality, and lack the legal protections to safeguard queer individuals from persecution.[1] 64 countries—one-third of United Nations member states—criminalize homosexuality, and a guilty verdict may result in imprisonment or the death sentence.[2] Some countries have instituted severe punishments for individuals who do not obey conventional gender norms and have barred non-traditional expressions of gender identity, such as cross-dressing.[3] In many of these countries, queer people often face barriers to employment, leading to financial challenges and preventing them from living successful lives.[4] Queer individuals around the world experience an alarming frequency of abuse rising above the level of mere harassment during their daily lives if they dare to express their sexual identity. For instance, there is a Russian criminal gang whose members pose as online romantic interests on gay dating apps and lure their victims in order to film, extort, and punish them for homosexual activity.[5] The group, called “Occupy Paedophilia,” has also seduced gay men over Facebook and has uploaded videos of their victims being attacked and humiliated to VKontakte, an anti-gay website, as well as YouTube and Twitter.[6] In cases like this, individuals seek out queer people in order to torment and abuse them. Even in countries where homosexuality identities are legal, queer people are mistreated by individuals who believe that queerness is wrong. As such, queer individuals are forced to conceal their identities, oftentimes from friends, family, and their larger social sphere.[7]

As this persecution persists, an increasing number of queer people have begun seeking asylum in the United States. However, as the understanding of queer people as a solidly defined social group is still emerging, legal questions are posed when it comes to proving their right to persecution-related asylum or proving that one is queer.

II. Understanding the Asylum Seeking Process

For individuals seeking safety from persecution in their home country, receiving asylum in another nation can mean the difference between life and death. International asylum law evolved following World War II, where over 2.3 million individuals were displaced, and many sought refuge in other countries.[8] As of 2015, there are over 65 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, and this number continues to rise due to armed conflict, human rights abuses, and the global climate crisis.[9] The principle of non-refoulement, which is a key component of international law, states that governments cannot forcibly return anyone to their country of origin if their life or freedom is threatened due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[10] However, although persecuted individuals have a right to non-refoulement, international law does not guarantee anyone the right to asylum.[11] As such, refugees who wish to stay in the country to which they have fled must apply for asylum, which is an extremely complex legal process, and many asylum claims are ultimately denied.

Since the development of asylum law in the 1950s, there have been many advancements to allow individuals to claim asylum on the grounds of being persecuted for their sexual orientation. However, there are countless reports of queer individuals being denied asylum for reasons directly relating to their queer identity. In this paper, “queer” is used to refer to anyone who identifies with the LGBTQ+ community, including homosexual and transgender individuals. The United States has a rigorous legal procedure that refugees must complete in order to prove that they face persecution in their home country and gain asylum status. Since granting asylum is costly for the host country, the United States often denies asylum claims on technicalities even when applicants are able to meet all other criteria. Due to widespread persecution of queerness around the world, queer refugees face many unique challenges at every step of the refugee process, especially in proving their identities when making legal claims for asylum. As such, the asylum process must be improved to support queer refugees, ideally through intentionally decreasing the impact of judicial bias on asylum decisions and creating a support system for queer refugees.

III. Queerness as a Legally Recognized Persecuted Social Group Entitled to Asylum

Asylum is a status of protection that is granted to individuals who meet the technical definition of a “refugee” under international law. In order to gain asylum status, there are three baseline requirements that individuals must meet. First, the asylum-seeking individual must prove that they meet the definition of a refugee. A refugee is someone who is unwilling or unable to return to their home country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”[12] Second, they must prove that they have been persecuted or experienced “conduct rising above the mere level of harassment.”[13] Third, the asylum seeker must prove that they fall within one of the five protected grounds and that their identification with at least one of these groups is a “central reason” for the persecution they faced or of which they have a well-founded fear.[14] Asylum applicants will have vastly different legal processes depending on the grounds on which they claim asylum.

Securing asylum based on membership in a persecuted social group, as opposed to one of the other protected grounds, poses unique challenges in the refugee process due to the ambiguous nature of defining “particular social group” and the criteria required for recognition. Unlike race, religion, nationality, and political opinion, there is no set definition for what constitutes membership in a “particular social group” on the grounds of which someone can claim asylum. To be recognized as a particular social group, the group must be unique, identifiable, and individuals in the group must share a common characteristic that they cannot or should not be expected to change.[15] Most commonly under this category, the United States currently offers asylum to subjugated tribes and ethnic groups, members of persecuted occupations (for example, police officers), influential leaders who are being targeted for assassination, child soldiers, and LGBTQ+ individuals.[16] Seeking asylum on the basis of belonging to a particular social group means that individuals must first prove that they belong to this group, which is sometimes more ambiguous or harder to prove than characteristics like race or nationality. Next, applicants must prove that they have faced, or have a well-founded fear of, persecution. Finally, asylum seekers must substantiate that the persecution is directly due to their membership in this particular social group. In the United States, asylum is a “discretionary” status, meaning that even if individuals meet the definition of a refugee and are able to prove that they face persecution because of the group to which they belong, they can still be denied asylum.[17] These requirements for asylum prove to be uniquely challenging for queer individuals due to the fluidity in representing one’s sexual orientation and gender identity and the difficulty in proving one’s affiliation with the queer community.

The legal precedent set by the court case Matter of Toboso-Alfonso was crucial in acknowledging queerness as a persecuted social group in the United States, providing a foundational basis for queer individuals to seek asylum. In this 1990 court case, a gay man from Cuba was found to be eligible for “withholding of removal,” or a form of relief similar to asylum status, on the basis that he belonged to the particular social group of homosexuals – this case was the first successful “relief-from removal” claim for persecution due to sexual orientation. Further, in order for one to gain asylum on the grounds of being part of a particular social group, the group must share a common characteristic that individuals cannot or should not be required to change.[18] The Matter of Toboso-Alfonso established homosexual identity as an “immutable characteristic” that one cannot or should not be required to change,[19] establishing queer identity as a protected social group from which people could claim asylum. The decision also reflected a change in the political attitude toward queerness from an inherently incorrect and deplorable lifestyle to an identity that deserves protection.

The decision resulting from Pitcherskaia v. INS was also imperative to solidifying that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation can be a valid ground for granting asylum in the United States. This case centered around a lesbian from Russia who fled after being beaten and receiving death threats from police officers because of her sexual identity.[20] At first, her asylum claim was denied, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in 1997, enshrining the precedent that sexual orientation can be a valid reason to grant asylum if the claimant can prove that the oppression they experienced was due to their sexual identity.[21] This case also emphasized that the government cannot use sexual orientation as a reason to deny asylum to an individual because it would violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.[22] Recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that “all alien homosexuals are members of a particular social group,” and other countries have ruled similarly.[23]

The Pitcherskaia v. INS ruling also provided additional pathways for queer individuals to prove persecution on the grounds of being LGBTQ+. In most asylum cases, the asylum seeker must prove that the persecutor has harmed or intends to harm the individual because of their identity. The decision resulting from Pitcherskaia v. INS specifically mentioned that “the infliction of harm through methods or devices that cause extreme, cruel, and unusual pain, such as […] electroshock therapy” can be considered persecution.[24] This is significant for individuals seeking asylum on the grounds of sexual identity, because homosexuals are often subject to electroshock or other forms of conversion therapy in order to “cure” their sexual orientation.[25] As a result of this decision, courts have since determined that for queer individuals, persecution can occur even when the persecutor has no apparent intention to harm the individual.[26] This is often the case with electroshock therapy victims, as the objective of the perpetrators is often to “cure” the victim rather than to harm them.[27] As such, queer individuals are able to prove persecution due to sexual identity if they have been subject to or are being threatened with violent forms of conversion therapy, and this provides another way in which queer individuals can substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution in order to gain asylum. Despite all of these landmark court decisions, queer individuals still face significant obstacles when seeking asylum due to persecution based on their sexual identity.

The United States has a legal duty to provide a safe haven for individuals fleeing persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Congress incorporated the definition of a refugee set by the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol into United States immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.[28] As a signatory to both the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, the United States is legally obligated to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees.[29] As long as U.S. law establishes queerness as a persecuted social group and grounds for asylum status, which it has through previously mentioned landmark court cases, the United States must grant asylum to queer refugees who qualify for such protected status.

IV. Challenges Faced by Queer Refugees

The United States asylum presents individuals with a complex web of physical and legal challenges. There are seven standard steps that asylum seekers must complete in order to receive asylum status. Firstly, refugees must arrive in the United States, which requires crossing the United States’ border by land, sea, or air.[30] Asylum seekers must then apply for asylum within one year of their arrival in the country.[31] After one’s application is received by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), they must be fingerprinted and undergo a background check.[32] Next, the asylum seeker will be interviewed by the USCIS, at which point the court or asylum officer will determine whether or not the individual is eligible for asylum under the conditions previously stated.[33] On average, if an asylum seeker is approved at every step of the process, it can take several months to years to be approved for asylum.[34] However, although the asylum process is largely standardized queer individuals face unique barriers at specific stages of this process.

Queer people face unique logistical, financial, institutional, and psychological challenges on their journeys to the United States in order to apply for asylum status. Because many LGBTQ+ individuals cannot publically express their queer identities, they cannot turn to family or friends for assistance when trying to flee.[35] Travel is costly, and people who are barred from the workforce on account of discrimination due to their sexual identities have trouble obtaining the funds needed to get to the United States.[36] Countries that criminalize queerness often invest in widespread surveillance, making it difficult for people to leave without revealing the reason for their departure.[37] For example, in Iran, where queerness is penalized under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, a new repressive “Regulatory System for Cyberspace Services Bill” increases the state’s surveillance power and bans encrypted communication sites, Virtual Private Networks, (VPNs), and many social media platforms.[38] This gives state security and police forces the ability to surveil citizens’ use of certain websites with ease and impunity.[39] Further, the law prevents the queer community from accessing safe online queer spaces, such as Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and Grindr, and hinders the ability for queer people to communicate with individuals outside of the country to plan their escape.[40] While traveling to the United States, queer refugees are often harassed by other refugees in refugee camps and have reported discrimination by immigration officials because of their sexual orientation.[41] For instance, asylum seekers have reported being deported by U.S. immigration officers despite voicing fears about returning to Mexico because of their LGBTQ+ identity, many of whom had previously faced abuse linked to their gender identity, expression, or sexual orientation.[42] These reports by Human Rights Watch also detailed severe abuse by Mexican border agents when queer asylum seekers attempted to enter the United States.[43] The multitude of challenges, from financial constraints to institutional barriers and the pervasive threat of discrimination, exacerbates the difficulties faced by LGBTQ+ individuals seeking asylum in the United States based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Once in the United States, queer refugees also face discrimination upon arrival. There are countless reports of border patrol and other government officials exhibiting bias and prejudice against queer refugees upon their arrival which can be attributed to the inadequate training that these officials receive.[44] For example, in March 2022, the El Paso region’s official Twitter account for U.S. Customs and Border Control promoted homophobic content, liking several tweets containing homophobic slurs and criticizing gay U.S. representatives.[45] This incident clearly exemplifies the bias and prejudice that some U.S. Border Patrol officials hold regarding queerness. These discriminatory attitudes hinder refugees from being open and honest in their interview processes, which can be detrimental in proving an asylum claim.[46] There have also been instances in which queer refugees face abuse while detained in immigration centers in the United States.[47] In 2011 alone, Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) filed 17 reports of abuse of LGBTQ+ individuals in detention centres, including sexual abuse by detention guards and other detainees.[48] Abuse in immigration detention centers can lead to severe emotional and psychological trauma, which may also prevent refugees from recounting their full experiences coherently and confidently during their asylum interviews.

Queer refugees also face unique legal barriers in proving their claims for asylum during the interview stage. As mentioned previously, a major requirement of the asylum process is proving that the individual claiming asylum is part of a particular social group that is persecuted. Since most queer people seeking asylum are forced to conceal their sexual and/or gender identities in their home country, there is often little to no evidence that they belong to the LGBTQ+ community. Many homosexual applicants have never been in queer relationships.[49] Others may have been in heterosexual marriages and may even have children from such marriages.[50] This can create substantial doubt in the minds of immigration judges as to the validity of an individual’s claim to a queer identity.[51] Applicants seeking asylum on other grounds may also have to hide aspects of their identities to escape persecution, but there are often other cultural, linguistic, or physical markers that can help prove their belonging in a persecuted community after they have fled, and similar markers do not exist for individuals trying to prove queerness.[52] Immigration judges have been known to resort to extensive interrogation to determine whether an individual is queer and thus deserving of asylum status.[53] However, these questions are often inappropriate and invasive since they deal with the applicant’s sexual history.[54] Asylum seekers have been asked sexually explicit questions such as, “Did you put your penis into X’s backside?”[55] This line of questioning not only creates an extremely uncomfortable environment for the applicants but also may reignite trauma that an applicant has surrounding the discrimination they face for being queer.

The already difficult asylum process is not designed to recognize and accommodate the specificities of the queer experience, as LGBTQ+ asylum seekers are often denied asylum on technical grounds. An applicant’s claim could be denied simply because they failed to file their application within their first year of arrival in the United States.[56] Although this does not appear to relate to queerness on its surface, many queer applicants fail to meet this filing deadline because they are unable to “come out” during their first year in the United States.[57] Other applicants are denied asylum status due to criminal records in their home countries which disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals from countries in which queerness is criminalized.[58] Further, applicants can be denied asylum if they are unable to prove their immigration history through employment records.[59] This is common for individuals from countries in which queer people are denied access to jobs and have been forced to work under the table and are therefore unable to provide proof of employment.[60] It is clear that queer individuals face additional barriers in the asylum process, proving that the unequal nature of the asylum seeking process is further amplified by an individual’s queer identity.

Even if queer applicants are able to meet every qualification necessary to be granted asylum, they can still be denied asylum status due to the personal feelings of the immigration judge or asylum officer. Since United States asylum law operates on discretionary grounds, the adjudicator may use their own discretion to make an “adverse credibility finding.”[61] This means that an applicant can be denied asylum if the immigration judge does not believe that the individual’s story is credible.[62] An adverse credibility finding is largely reliant on the applicant’s physical presentation in relation to their queer identity, as some judges may want the individual to look visibly queer in order to grant them asylum.[63] For example, an immigration judge denied the asylum claim of a lesbian woman from Jamaica because the judge did not believe she was homosexual, stating “you don’t look like a lesbian.”[64] The woman’s credibility was questioned further when she stated that she did not attend a Pride march, and the judge responded, “all lesbians go to Pride.”[65] In this case and countless others, a refugee’s asylum status is heavily reliant on the adjudicator’s attitudes and assumptions about the queer experience, making asylum decisions highly variable from judge to judge. This is an experience unique to queer people, as the judge’s opinion of other marginalized identities often does not influence whether they are granted asylum. Immigration judges and asylum officers cannot make an “adverse credibility finding” against an applicant seeking asylum on the grounds of racial or religious persecution, and it should not be any different for those seeking asylum on the basis of sexual orientation. Whether or not an individual is granted protection from persecution should not be up to an adjudicator’s belief that the individual fits their perceived notions of a queer person.

V. Proposals for a More Inclusive Asylum Process

While the process for claiming asylum on the grounds of persecution due to one’s sexual orientation is extremely flawed, the basis for queer asylum law is fairly new, and, as such, there are many opportunities for improvement. Almost all interviews involving LGBTQ+ claims result in positive determinations of fear of persecution; between 2012 and 2017, 96.3% of queer asylum applicants were found to have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution.[66] This indicates that in order to better the asylum process for queer applicants, improvements in the asylum-seeking process should be focused around reducing discrimination and bias directed at queer individuals claiming asylum. The United States has little ability to change other countries’ attitudes and policies regarding queerness and cannot prevent persecution that occurs outside of its jurisdiction. However, the United States can implement domestic policies to improve refugees’ experiences after arriving in the country.

First, there must be better training for immigration officers and border patrol in order to reduce prejudiced and biased attitudes towards queerness and help asylum seekers feel more comfortable discussing their queer identities. This training should be modeled after similar programs to mitigate bias against LGBTQ+ individuals by healthcare workers.[67] Effective strategies include those that increase knowledge about the specific needs of queer individuals, promote positive attitudes towards queerness, and increase comfort working with queer patients, all of which can be translated to a training program for immigration officials.[68] If immigration officials do not display discriminatory attitudes towards queerness, there will be fewer instances in which refugees refrain from expressing their queer identities. A refugee feeling comfortable to demonstrate their queer identity will ultimately be helpful in the asylum process and could be a key element in proving that they are part of the queer community.

Next, since LGBTQ+ refugees are at greater risk of abuse while in detention centers, the United States should end the detention of queer refugees entirely. According to the United States Bureau of Justice statistics, 34% of detained bisexual men and 39% of detained gay men had reported experiencing sexual abuse while in detention, in comparison to only 3.5% of men who identified themselves as heterosexual.[69] Additionally, LGBTQ+ refugees are disproportionately subjected to elevated rates of verbal abuse and threats of sexual and physical violence.[70] As such, many human rights organizations strongly advocate for exploring more humane, safe alternatives to detention centers while queer individuals work to resolve their asylum claims.[71] Such alternatives can manifest as community-based programs, managed by non-governmental and non-profit organizations closely connected to the communities they serve.[72] These programs offer essential services, including legal guidance, representation, and access to social services such as medical care, while still ensuring asylum seekers’ compliance with immigration obligations.[73] Pilot models of community-based programs prioritize the development of trust between asylum seekers and the non-governmental organizations overseeing their asylum claims, aligning services with clients’ compliance with the legal requirements of the asylum process.[74] These programs have been shown to increase compliance with immigration proceedings and reduce obstacles to compliance that are created by detention centers.[75] While these initiatives are in their early stages, the elimination of immigration detention centers offers the promise of a more humane asylum process for queer refugees.

In addition to implicit bias training, the United States must ensure that there is diversity of sexual and gender identity among asylum judges and immigration attorneys. An increased amount of diversity among immigration judges helps bring a wider range of perspectives and understandings about different identities.[76] Further, judges with diverse backgrounds are more likely to be impartial and fair in their decisions.[77] It is largely acknowledged that immigration court appointments strongly affect immigration court decisions; the Trump administration appointed over 350 new immigration judges, constituting two-thirds of the 520 federal immigration judges—and the asylum denial rate decreased from 54.6% in 2016 to 71.6% in 2020.[78] While other factors, such as court policy changes, also account for this decrease in asylum grants, many have attributed this in large to the lack of diversity in Trump’s appointments, revealing the importance of diversity of immigration judges in granting asylum claims.[79] People have since criticized President Joe Biden for failing to commit to racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in his appointment of immigration judges.[80] However, sexual diversity is often left out of this debate. The United States must employ more queer and gender nonconforming asylum judges in the same way diversity is considered for other aspects of identity. Ensuring greater sexual and gender diversity will limit the number of instances in which the decision to grant asylum to a queer individual is based on stereotypes of the community from an outsider’s perspective. A greater number of queer asylum judges would also increase the prevalence of the queer perspective in the asylum seeking process and in spaces where precedents regarding asylum law are set.

Finally, the United States should employ more clinicians—including psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers—at the border who are specifically trained to help queer refugees. In cases where refugees are uncomfortable communicating with immigration officers, it is crucial to increase the availability of clinicians and mental health professionals with whom queer refugees may speak with upon their arrival in the United States. These clinicians will offer mental health support,[81] which is necessary for refugees who faced traumatizing experiences in and on their journeys out of their home countries. The clinicians will also be able to build trust with refugees and encourage full disclosure of their experiences.[82] Clinicians could use this evidence to testify in court in favor of the refugees during their asylum claims, which could be integral in granting asylum to an applicant.[83] If clinicians are able to establish a strong relationship with refugees, they may also be able to also assist the refugees in accessing other resources—such as specific healthcare needs, housing, and employment—to make the asylum process easier.[84] This will help create a supportive environment for refugees who may have had to conceal their identities for their entire lives. While it may be idealistic to assume that clinicians can seamlessly assist refugees in accessing various resources beyond their scope, any effort that can be made towards encouraging refugees to express themselves will be beneficial in validating refugees’ asylum claims. If their claims are granted, refugees who feel supported and secure in the United States will have an easier time establishing themselves in the country.

V. Conclusion

While significant strides have been made in recognizing queerness as a basis for asylum, there remains an imperative to bridge the gap between legal standards and the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals seeking refuge. Queer refugees face unique burdens when it comes to claiming asylum in the United States, and these hurdles are exacerbated by the unique forms of persecution queer individuals in their day-to-day lives. Although there have been tremendous advancements made towards granting queer people asylum on the basis of being members of a particular persecuted social group, there are still many reforms that must be instituted in order to make the process more accessible and equitable for queer refugees. The United States, as a signatory to international conventions, bears the responsibility to ensure a more equitable and humane asylum process that genuinely safeguards the rights of queer refugees fleeing persecution. Such efforts demand a commitment to reforming policies, addressing biases, and providing holistic support for LGBTQ+ individuals seeking asylum, ensuring that their right to safety and protection is upheld without prejudice. The ultimate goal is the establishment of sexual identity and gender as a permanent grounds on which individuals can claim asylum; this will not only cement the idea that queer individuals experience persecution due to their identities, but also it will increase the prevalence and legitimacy of queer perspectives in asylum law. Until this becomes a reality, the United States must focus on reducing bias towards queerness among immigration officials, increasing the diversity of immigration judges, and creating a supportive environment for queer asylum seekers, all of which will be significant steps towards inclusivity and equity in asylum law.

Works Cited

________________

[1] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine. "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees." Accessed May 8, 2023. https://med.virginia.edu/family-medicine/wp-content/uploads/sites/285/2021/03/LGBTQasylumseekers.pdf.

[2] Wareham, Jamie. "New Maps Show Where It's Illegal To Be LGBTQ+ In 2023." Forbes, April 7, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2023/04/07/new-maps-show-where-its-illegal-to-be-lgbtq-in-2023/?sh=49e1420c7eaa.

[3] Ibid.

[4] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine, "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees."

[5] "Gay 'Hunters' in Moscow Using Dating Apps to Target LGBT+ People." The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gay-hunters-russia-moscow-apps-gangs-homophobia-a8865376.html (Accessed October 31, 2023).

[6] "Russia's Violent Anti-Gay Groups on VKontakte." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/russia-violent-anti-gay-groups-vkontakte-lgbt-sochi (Accessed October 31, 2023).

[7] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine, "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees."

[8] Hynes, P. (2021). “Who is a ‘refugee’ and who is an ‘asylum seeker’?” In Introducing Forced Migration. essay, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Asylum in the United States.” American Immigration Council, October 18, 2022. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states.

[13] Topel, Kimberly D. “‘So, What Should I Ask Him to Prove That He’s Gay?’: How Sincerity, and Not Stereotype, Should Dictate the Outcome of an LGB Asylum Claim in the United States .” Iowa Law Review 102, no. 5 (2017).

[14] Ibid.

[15] “What Does the Term, ‘Particular Social Group,’ Mean for Asylum?” The Law Office of Yifei He, PLLC, May 18, 2022. https://yifeihelaw.com/2021/03/what-does-the-term-particular-social-group-mean-for-asylum/.

[16] Ibid.

[17] American Immigration Council, “Asylum in the United States.”

[18] Ibid.

[19] Topel, “‘So, What Should I Ask Him to Prove That He’s Gay?’: How Sincerity, and Not Stereotype, Should Dictate the Outcome of an LGB Asylum Claim in the United States .”

[20] “A Brief History.” Immigration Equality, August 7, 2020. https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/asylum-law-basics-2/asylum-law-basics/.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Pitcherskaia v. INS, 118 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 1997).

[25] Immigration Equality, "A Brief History."

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] American Immigration Council. "Asylum in the United States." https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states (Accessed November 2, 2023).

[29] Ibid.

[30] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "The Affirmative Asylum Process." https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process (Accessed November 1, 2023).

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine, "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees."

[37] Ibid.

[38] "Internet Protection Bill and Its Impact on the Queer Community," Atlantic Council, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/the-internet-protection-bill-will-hurt-all-iranians-but-the-queer-community-will-have-the-most-to-lose/ (Accessed October 31, 2023).

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Human Rights Watch, "US: LGBT Asylum Seekers in Danger at Border," Human Rights Watch, May 31, 2022, accessed [insert date accessed], https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/31/us-lgbt-asylum-seekers-danger-border.

[43] Human Rights Watch, "US: LGBT Asylum Seekers in Danger at Border," Human Rights Watch, May 31, 2022, accessed [insert date accessed], https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/31/us-lgbt-asylum-seekers-danger-border.

[44] "Internet Protection Bill and Its Impact on the Queer Community," Atlantic Council.

[45] "El Paso CBP Twitter Account Promotes Conservative Homophobic Content," El Paso Matters, https://elpasomatters.org/2022/09/10/el-paso-cbp-twitter-account-promotes-conservative-homophobic-content/ (Accessed October 31, 2023).

[46] Ibid.

[47] Nguyen, Mytien, Ryan Handoko, Emmanuella Asabor, and Katherine C McKenzie. “A Gay Nigerian Man’s Journey to Asylum in the USA.” BMJ case reports, April 5, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453367/.

[48] Ibid.

[49] National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Challenges to Lesbian Asylum Claims." San Francisco: National Center for Lesbian Rights, April 2013. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Resources_Challenges_Lesbian_Asylum_Claims.pdf.

[50] National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Challenges to Lesbian Asylum Claims." San Francisco: National Center for Lesbian Rights.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Topel, “‘So, What Should I Ask Him to Prove That He’s Gay?’: How Sincerity, and Not Stereotype, Should Dictate the Outcome of an LGB Asylum Claim in the United States.”

[54] Ibid.

[55] Travis, Alan. "Gay asylum seekers in UK face 'sexually explicit' questions." The Guardian, October 23, 2014. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/23/gay-asylum-seekers-sexual-questions-uk-immigration.

[56] Cory, Connor. “THE LGBTQ ASYLUM SEEKER: PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUPS AND AUTHENTIC QUEER IDENTITIES .” The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 20, no. 3 (2019).

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Topel, “‘So, What Should I Ask Him to Prove That He’s Gay?’: How Sincerity, and Not Stereotype, Should Dictate the Outcome of an LGB Asylum Claim in the United States.”

[65] Ibid.

[66] Flores, Andrew R., Bianca D.M. Wilson, and Kerith J. Conron. "Asylum Seekers and Refugees Who Identify as LGBTQ: Challenges, Realities, and Hopes for the Future." Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, March 2021. Accessed May 8, 2023.

[67] Morris, et al. “Training to Reduce LGBTQ-Related Bias among Medical, Nursing, and Dental Students and Providers: A Systematic Review.” BMC Medical Education, August 30, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716913/.

[68] Ibid.

[69] International Detention Coalition. “LGBTI Persons in Immigration Detention.” Victoria: Australia, June 2016.

[70] Ibid.

[71] International Detention Coalition. “LGBTI Persons in Immigration Detention.” Victoria: Australia, June 2016.

[72] “Alternatives to Immigration Detention: An Overview.” American Immigration Council, July 11, 2023. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/alternatives-immigration-detention-overview.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Kuck, Charles H. "Diversity in Immigration Law Firms." Think Immigration, American Immigration Lawyers Association, 7 Feb. 2020, https://thinkimmigration.org/blog/2020/02/07/diversity-in-immigration-law-firms/.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Wolf, Rebekah. “First Round of Biden Immigration Judges Fails to Increase Diversity.” Immigration Impact, May 13, 2021. https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/05/13/immigration-judges-under-biden/.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Ibid.

[81] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine, "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees."

[82] University of Virginia Department of Family Medicine, "Clinical Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Asylum Seekers and Refugees."

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.