Fortress Europe: the new pact on migration and asylum will further deteriorate chances for LGBTQ+ refugees

There are no specific statistics on LGBTQ+ refugees from Russia applying for asylum in the European Union. However, even before the EU’s new set of laws on migration and asylum came into force in June 2026, the rate of acceptance was very low. According to Novaya Gazeta Europe, of the 8,000 asylum claims made by Russian refugees in 2024, Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) granted just 414, rejected 3,652, and put another 4,000 on hold pending the provision of further information, a 19 percent decrease from 2023.
Russia has passed three laws aimed at curtailing the rights of queer people. In 2022, it expanded the 2013 law banning “LGBT propaganda”; publicly speaking about queer people became illegal (the first iteration of the law mentioned prohibiting LGBTQ+ propaganda to children). The very next year, Russian lawmakers banned gender transition, cutting trans people off from medical care. At the time, experts warned that the law would lead to a rise in suicides; support groups have reported a sharp increase in requests for psychological, legal and practical help.
Finally, at the beginning of 2024, the non-existent “international LGBT movement” was recognized as an extremist organization in Russia, making it no longer safe for queer people to live openly in the country. The move effectively puts LGBTQ+ rights work at risk of criminal prosecution. The first criminal case for “LGBT extremism” is currently being heard in Orenburg: several people face up to ten years in prison simply for working at a local gay club. Many activists have been forced to leave Russia, fearing charges that can carry long jail terms.
Now, the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of regulations changing the rules for asylum seekers across Europe, aims to ensure that more cases are handled directly at external borders and airports, before people are admitted into EU territory. It will allow for faster rejections and returns, and tighten controls on movement within the European Union. For human rights defenders, this means that protecting people will become significantly more difficult, as applicants will be confined to border zones.
In addition, the regulations introduce the concept of so-called “safe third countries,” meaning states outside of the EU through which an asylum seeker entered the Union, and where they could have applied for international protection. In other words, if a migrant could have sought asylum in such a country, EU Member States may refuse to examine the application and send the person back to that country. This list of so-called “safe” countries of origin, which includes Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, has already been approved by Parliament. EU accession candidate countries like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine are generally included, subject to some exceptions (e.g. for armed conflict).
However, there is also a provision for EU countries to create safe third country lists that take other criteria, such as bilateral agreements, into account. Such bilateral agreements currently exist with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. A lawyer working with the NGO SK SOS, which helps LGBTQ+ people escape from North Caucasus countries, says that the main risk of the legislation lies in this as-yet-unannounced list of “safe third countries.” If Russian citizens pass through these countries, they may be placed in an accelerated review procedure and could even be denied refugee status.
It will therefore become more difficult for applicants to enter EU countries and apply there for international protection. Accelerated review timelines also imply quicker refusals at an early stage, which are likely to become more frequent. The same lawyer strongly advises asylum seekers to have reliable evidence of persecution in their home country and a clear explanation of why that “third country” through which they entered cannot be considered safe for them.
Stephen Phillips, a postdoctoral researcher at Åbo Akademi University’s Institute for Human Rights in Finland, told Global Voices in an email interview with Global Voices that because Russia is not on the EU safe country of origin list, Russian applicants continue to receive an individual assessment. However, Russia is now subject to the new rule allowing accelerated procedures for asylum applications from countries where the EU-wide protection recognition rate is 20 percent or lower.
“Faster processing and border procedures can make it harder to prepare a case,” he explains, “but this does not mean automatic refusal. A big risk is that vulnerable applicants may find it more difficult to present complex claims. There may not be the opportunity to provide additional arguments and evidence, and the quality of decision making may suffer with faster asylum procedures.” Phillips adds that an important consideration is that EU asylum law has, for many years, recognised persecution based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and membership of a particular social group. Russia has extensively documented anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and persecution, which he says “remains highly relevant in assessing an individual asylum claim.”
While the legal basis on which LGBTQ+ Russians can qualify for asylum remains unchanged Phillips notes that “the quality of evidence, legal representation, and the ability to present a claim effectively may become even more important under the accelerated procedures.”
Even if certain countries make it to the so-called “safe third countries” list, LGBTQ+ refugees might not find them safe. Kazakhstan, for example, adopted anti-LGBTQ+ “propaganda” laws in 2025; Uzbekistan’s article 120 of the Criminal Code criminalises male same-sex sexual conduct. In Georgia, a law from 2024 restricts LGBTQ+ expression, assembly, family recognition, gender-affirming care, and public depictions, and in Armenia, there are records of harassment, threats, family pressure, circulation of intimate videos, and institutional hostility.