practice,py most authorities in the European Union to use the argument of ‘discretion
_fequirement” inforder to deny asylum to LGBTL asylum seaken (Jansen & Spijkerboer,
2011). The argumentation is based on the thought that if the asylum applicant conceals the
LGBT identity inthe country of origin, then the persecution wil be prevented (Jansen &
Spiikerboer, 2011), Offenthe discretion requirements pased onthe argumentation that there
is an internal protection alternative inside the country of origin, that maybe in another place
inside the country the person could start anew ‘sree life Jansen & Sperber, 2011).
‘The theoretical background of the discretion requirement, pitctiog dangerous forthe
LGBTI asylum seeker because there is always a risk of discovery even if they are “discrete”
about their identity. InSrder to protect LGBT asylum seeker, the UNHCR ( uae
States that there i always the risk of voluntary discovery. Even where asyjum seer
copleFGvoid the discovery, the state of living in constant fear of discovery that-may place
‘hem atrisk of harm isnot bearable fra lifetime. As Jansen and Spijkerboer 2011) gues”
reasonably, even if it would be possible to conceal the LGBT] identity, shirwould stil be an a
inhumaresituation in the permanent psychological state of fear.
‘The UNHCR drawgattention to this problematic practice and states in the UNHCR Guidance
‘Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the paras 25-
26