Case Law
Decisions that shaped LGBTQ+ protection.
Ten verified landmark judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the UK Supreme Court and the US Board of Immigration Appeals. Every entry links to the official court database. We do not paraphrase to change meaning; consult the primary source before relying on any decision.
X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
7 November 2013Court of Justice of the European Union · Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12 · European Union
Sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to identity that a person cannot be required to renounce it. Concealment demanded to avoid persecution is not a lawful expectation.
A, B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
2 December 2014Court of Justice of the European Union · Joined Cases C-148/13 to C-150/13 · European Union
Dignity and privacy set the outer limits of credibility assessment in SOGI asylum claims.
F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
25 January 2018Court of Justice of the European Union · C-473/16 · European Union
Expert evidence in SOGI cases must respect dignity and private life; it cannot substitute for individual assessment.
HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
7 July 2010United Kingdom Supreme Court · [2010] UKSC 31 · United Kingdom
Requiring an applicant to hide a fundamental characteristic to avoid harm is not a permissible answer to a refugee claim.
Matter of Toboso-Alfonso
Decided 1990; designated as precedent 1994United States Board of Immigration Appeals · 20 I&N Dec. 819 · United States
SOGI as a particular social group under US refugee law.
B and C v Switzerland
17 November 2020European Court of Human Rights · Applications nos. 889/19 and 43987/16 · Council of Europe
Article 3 assessment in SOGI removal cases must engage individually with state AND non-state persecution and with the actual effectiveness of protection.
M.I. v Switzerland
See HUDOC for judgment dateEuropean Court of Human Rights · Application no. 56390/21 · Council of Europe
Risk assessment must engage with the applicant's individual circumstances and current country evidence; reliance on discretion is legally problematic.
M.B. v the Netherlands
Decision 23 November 2017European Court of Human Rights · Application no. 63890/16 · Council of Europe
Article 3 removal cases require careful, individualised country-of-origin and credibility analysis.
M.E. v Sweden
See HUDOC for procedural historyEuropean Court of Human Rights · Application no. 71398/12 · Council of Europe
Illustrates the interaction between Article 3, family situation and changing personal circumstances in SOGI removal cases.
S.A.C. v the United Kingdom
See HUDOC for judgment dateEuropean Court of Human Rights · Application no. 31428/18 · Council of Europe
SOGI removal cases involving South Asian jurisdictions require careful individualised assessment.
General information only. ImmigrationLGBT is not a law firm and this content is not personalised legal advice. Case-law status can change — always verify against the official court source.