The applicant, a Colombian national identified as A1, applied for international protection in Luxembourg on 22 December 2022. He claimed that he was persecuted in Colombia because of his sexual orientation and activism in favour of LGBTIQ rights, particularly for participating in meetings, two public demonstrations, and engaging on social media with the organisation Colombia Diversa. The applicant claimed that around the same time, he received four online threats which he did not take seriously. However, on 11 December 2021, a photo of him leaving work was posted online together with a threatening message, which prompted him to resign and file a complaint with the Colombian prosecutor’s office. After receiving no response from the prosecutor’s office in two days, during which he received three threatening phone calls, he decided to leave the country out of fear for his life.

On 24 August 2023, the Minister of Immigration and Asylum rejected A1’s application and requested him to leave the territory within 30 days. The Minister noted that Colombia has one of the most progressive legal frameworks for LGBTIQ rights in Latin America, and that there was no evidence that the applicant could not live openly as a gay man in Colombia or that he would be denied state protection. On 22 September 2023, A1. appealed the Minister´s decision to the Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal assessed the applicant’s claims under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Law of 18 December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection. Firstly, the tribunal acknowledged that sexual orientation may fall within the scope of international protection under Article 2(f) of the Law of 18 December 2015. The Tribunal analysed the country-of-origin information presented by the applicant, and recognized that violence and discrimination against members of the LGBTIQ community do take place in Colombia. Nevertheless, it also stated that it could not be said that the general situation of the LGBTIQ community in Colombia is such that every one of its members is at risk of persecution or serious harm.

Regarding the particular facts raised by the applicant, the Tribunal found that they did not present sufficient gravity isolated or taken cumulatively so that they could qualify as persecutory acts or serious harm, nor were they of such a nature to establish that, in the absence of any evidence indicating a proven and current risk of such acts being committed, the applicant would face a real risk of suffering such acts if he were to return to his country of origin.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Minister’s decisions, rejecting both the appeal against the refusal of international protection and the appeal against the return order, finding that the facts raised by the applicant did not have sufficient  gravity to be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection.