An Iranian man sought asylum on the grounds of his homosexuality. As evidence, he submitted a video showing him having sexual relations with other men. However, the Migration Court in Gothenburg refused to view the film. The court justified its refusal by stating that video evidence could lead to stricter practices in gay asylum cases. Instead, the court required the man to describe how stigmatized he felt.

One may ask to what extent men from certain countries should be granted asylum in Sweden based on claims of homosexuality. Another question is what type of evidence should be required for the alleged homosexuality to be accepted. A current case from the Migration Court in Gothenburg highlights these issues.

The case involves a man from Iran who first applied for asylum in Sweden in 2019. He cited several reasons for his application, including that he is stateless, refused to spy for the Iranian state, is an atheist, and is homosexual.

He has also acquired so-called “sur place” grounds, meaning circumstances arising after he left his home country and which he invokes in support of his asylum application. In his case, this includes demonstrating against the Iranian government while in Sweden.

READ ALSO: Court: All of Egypt’s Homosexuals HAVE THE RIGHT to Asylum in Sweden

After being ordered deported, he chose not to return to Iran. When the statute of limitations expired, he applied for asylum in Sweden again. Since April 1, 2025, a statute of limitations of five years applies, starting from the day the person leaves the country.

However, the man appears to have submitted his new asylum application under the older rules, which allowed one to remain in Sweden for four years before a new asylum application could be made. The case eventually ended up at the Migration Court in Gothenburg.

Talk of Stigma More Important Than Film Evidence

In the Migration Court, the focus was on whether the man’s alleged homosexuality constituted grounds for granting asylum. To prove that he was actually homosexual and that his claim was not made solely to obtain asylum, he submitted a film showing him having sexual relations with other men as evidence.

According to the verdict, he emphasized that:

it should be stressed that he submitted videos showing him having sexual relations with other men. This is not just photographs. These videos must be accepted in view of the principle of free submission of evidence. They are to be considered as strong support for his claims.

– Migration Court

The court initially explained, with reference to a decision from the European Court of Human Rights, that the fact that a homosexual person might be discreet about their sexual orientation is not a valid reason to deny an application for “homosexual asylum.”

READ ALSO: Verdict: All Homosexuals in Jordan HAVE THE RIGHT to Live in Sweden

Regarding evidence of homosexuality, the court refers to established practice that one should focus on “experiences of difference, stigma, and shame, rather than on sexual activities.”

Do Not Want to Raise Evidentiary Requirements for Gay Asylum

The Migration Court refuses to view the man’s video showing him having sexual relations with other men. The reason is that the judges do not want to contribute to a practice that risks making it harder for other asylum seekers to obtain “gay asylum” by creating an expectation for video evidence.

The court writes:

Video recordings showing the person performing intimate acts have no evidentiary value. Allowing such evidence would also create a stimulating effect for other asylum seekers and, in effect, constitute a requirement for that type of evidence.

There are therefore barriers for authorities to accept video recordings of homosexual acts as evidence. Against this background, the Migration Court has not reviewed the images and videos submitted by the appellant to the Migration Agency and does not assign them any significance in the case.

– Migration Court

With reference to the fact that the man submitted certificates regarding his homosexuality from both RFSL and a counselor, as well as answered “correctly” to a number of more or less standardized questions about his sexual orientation, he is nevertheless granted “gay asylum” and receives refugee status.

The court panel included Judge Jennifer Moore Peterson and lay judges Ethel Augustsson (C), Steve Andersson (unknown), and Hjalmar Björk (unknown).

READ ALSO: Lebanese Man Gets Gay Asylum – Powerful “Turban Cousin” Threatens to Punish Him