The applicant requested international protection in Lithuania due to his sexual orientation. On 4 July 2024, the Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application deeming it unreliable and fabricated. The applicant appealed the decision before the Regional Administrative Court, stating that the Migration Department did not properly apply the DSSH model (Difference, Stigma, Shame, Harm) in assessing his case, as the officials lacked specialized knowledge. He criticized the interview process, stating that it lacked sensitivity, failed to adapt to his situation, and did not gain his trust. The applicant also contested the rejection of medical certificates from Médecins Sans Frontières, in which medical professionals, including a psychologist, supported his statements. Additionally, he pointed out that a previous court ruling in 2022 had found his testimony consistent and sufficiently detailed.

The Regional Administrative Court, on 21 October 2024, upheld the appeal of the applicant and ordered a re-examination of his asylum application. The court ruled that the Migration Department had failed to apply the proper evidentiary standard, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements did not invalidate his claim. The applicant had consistently reported being detained, abused, and persecuted due to his sexual orientation. The court also recognized that homosexuality was criminalized in his country of origin and found that the Department had failed to properly assess whether the mistreatment he suffered constituted persecution under EU law. The Migration Department appealed the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the Regional Administrative Court failed to conduct an impartial assessment and that the applicant misled the investigation by submitting forged documents.

The Supreme Administrative Court emphasised that the applicant’s experience should be viewed in the context of his fear of persecution due to his sexual orientation, regardless of his ability to precisely define terms related to homosexuality. The court rejected the idea that his inability to meet a "universal" standard for LGBTIQ self-identification negates his asylum request. The court concluded that the Migration Department did not fully investigate the applicant's situation or properly consider the context of the persecution, including the country's laws and their enforcement. Thus, the court ruled that the asylum decision should be re-examined due to the failure to adequately assess the applicant's narrative and the country of origin situation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.