Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
LV: The District Administrative Court upheld the appeal of an Uzbek citizen and granted subsidiary protection on the grounds that the applicant faces serious harm in Uzbekistan from Uzebek authorities who will not protect him.

Input Provided By
Other Source/Information
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Latvia, District Administrative Court [Administratīvā rajona tiesa], A v Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, No A42-01858-23/21 , ECLI:LV:ADRJRIT:2023:1011.A420185823.2.S, 11 October 2023. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Other information

The Republic of Latvia granted an employment-based residence permit to A, a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Following a Dublin procedure where Slovenia accepted responsibility for examining the application, the applicant applied for international protection in Latvia and claimed that he risks facing persecution for political reasons, as he spoke up for his basic rights and the rights of Uzbek people. As a lawyer, the applicant defended members of the LGBTI+ community, who have been wrongfully convicted, and who have been subjected to unlawful conduct by Uzbek law enforcement, including torture while being questioned. Moreover, the applicant, who attended law school in Kaliningrad, voluntarily represented Uzbek nationals who had been accused by the Uzbek Government of membership of Islamist groups and requested their extradition.

The Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs rejected the applicant's application for international protection on the grounds that the applicant's statements were inconsistent. Moreover, the Office declared that although the applicant's political activities caught the attention of Uzbek law enforcement, the applicant is not a well-known political activist and that he had only applied for international protection following Slovenia’s request to assume responsibility. 

The applicant appealed the decision to the District Administrative Court, which upheld the appeal and granted alternative status (subsidiary protection). The court determined that there is a possibility that the applicant might experience substantial harm as defined by Article 41(2) of the Asylum Law if he was placed under investigation by Uzbek authorities or imprisoned there. The applicant thus faces a threat of significant harm in Uzbekistan due to his individual circumstances, and it is reasonable to conclude that his country of origin is unable to provide him with the required protection.

Country of Decision
Court Name
LV: District Administrative Court [Administratīvā rajona tiesa]
Case Number
No A42-01858-23/21
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Gender identity / Gender expression / Sexual Orientation / SOGIESC
Political opinion
Subsidiary Protection