An Indian national applied for asylum in 2018. Her application was rejected in October 2019. Her transsexuality was not stated in her application due to her fear and uncertainty in the hearing in the initial proceedings.

Subsequently, on 23 July 2019, the applicant submitted a new application for asylum and stated that, while she was in India, she was abused repeatedly leading to numerous traumas. Therefore, at the age of 20, the applicant was sold by her brother and mother to a Hijra community, intersex people or transgender people who are living in communities. She lived in this community for few years, trying to make money by begging and prostituting herself. With the help of her cousin, she fled India in 2018 for Germany.

Her new application has been rejected by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Federal Office) on 6 April 2020. The Federal Office concluded that, in her application, the fact that transsexuals and members of the Hijras group suffer severe discrimination in India, has not reached the degree of severity which leads to the granting of refugee or subsidiary protection. It was also considered that the violence she experienced could not be a sufficient reason to obtain refugee protection either.

On 28 May 2020, the applicant contested the decision. In support of her statement, she argued that if she returned to India, she would be obliged to live again in a Hijra community where she was mistreated and had to beg and prostitute herself. Moreover, the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses because of her experiences in India. She argued that a return to India would lead to a new trauma. She finally put forward the fact that she cannot have access to medical treatment for her transsexuality.

The proceedings had to be terminated in so far as the applicant withdrew the appeal. Nevertheless, the Regional Administrative Court of Cologne (Köln) concluded that the contested decision of 6 April 2020 was unlawful in so far as the finding of a deportation was rejected and the applicant was threatened with deportation to India. The applicant was entitled to a finding that there was a prohibition on deportation with regard to India. The Regional Administrative Court of Cologne considered that a concrete risk for her health arises only in cases of life threatening or serious illnesses which would worsen because of deportation and that those conditions were met in this case.

In fact, the Regional Administrative Court of Cologne pointed out that the applicant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression due to the violence that she experienced in India. In the event of a return to India, the Regional Administrative Court of Cologne recalled that the applicant’s health would be immediately affected, considering the assessments made in the medical documents submitted and according to the findings referred to at the hearing. The court also noted that admission to her family or to the Hijra community would not constitute a safe environment for the applicant as this was where she experienced sexual abuse from childhood, violence and she was forced to prostitute for a living. The court further observed that it must be assumed that the applicant would experience traumatisation directly in connection with a re-entry to India and this would result in a significant deterioration in their health, as revival symptoms and associated excitement symptoms would increase sharply in the short term. The court further noted that the applicant was already suffering from fears, especially ­in the event of encounters with several other people indoors, from sleep disorders and from severe depression.

Moreover, due to her transsexuality, The Regional Administrative Court of Cologne pointed out that she will not have access to medical treatment in India.

Finally, the applicant started an endocrinological treatment in the context of counter-sex hormone therapy in men-to-women transsexuality. According to the Regional Administrative Court of Cologne, this treatment requires a close-knit medical supervision especially at the beginning of therapy and after completion of therapy and regular follow-up examinations which could not be ensured in India. It was noted that failure to continue this treatment can have disastrous health consequences on the applicant.