A Russian national applied for asylum in Switzerland for the second time on 21 July 2025, claiming persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation. He stated that he had lost his job in April 2024 because of his homosexuality, that he had allegedly been assaulted by uniformed men outside a gay club in May 2024, and that the general situation of LGBTIQ persons in Russia had deteriorated. He had previously applied for asylum in Switzerland in July 2024, but after his transfer to France under the Dublin procedure, he voluntarily returned to Russia on 30 October 2024.

 He further held that despite no longer being liable for military service because of his age as ascertained by a 2022 court decision, the competent commission withheld his military booklet, on condition that he voluntarily committed himself to military service, which he refused to do. He explained that following his first expulsion from Switzerland, he did not want to return to France due to the high crime rates there, which is why he returned to Russia on 30 October 2024, but only stayed for one night. Since then, he had travelled around different countries including Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, before returning to Switzerland to apply for asylum again.

On 14 August 2025 the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected the application and ordered removal to Russia. It found that although the May 2024 incident had led to physical and psychological injuries, there was no evidence that persecution was still ongoing at the time of his second departure at the end of October 2024. The SEM acknowledged the fact that the applicant had lost his job but also stated that this measure was not severe enough or personally targeted to a level which would make it relevant to asylum. The SEM also deemed the applicant’s claim on being pressured to join military service as not relevant within the meaning of Article 3 of the Asylum Act. Finally, the SEM recognised that homophobia was widespread in Russia and acknowledged its intensification in recent years but emphasised that while Russia’s laws banned LGBTIQ “propaganda”, they did not criminalise homosexuality, and no general persecution of homosexuals existed.

On 21 August 2025, the applicant appealed the SEM’s decision to the Federal Administrative Court, seeking recognition as a refugee, or alternatively provisional admission. In the appeal, he stated that since the Russian Supreme Court’s decision of 30 November 2023 to classify the international LGBTIQ movement as an extremist organisation, and the legal restrictions introduced in the last years, persecution of LGBTIQ people had escalated and that Russian authorities were unwilling to protect them. He requested that personal data not be transferred to Russia and asked the court to obtain an expert report on the situation of LGBTIQ persons and military conscription in Russia.

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed these procedural requests, noting that Article 97(3) of the Asylum Act already restricted data transmission and that the court possessed sufficient country-specific knowledge. On the merits, the court first acknowledged that sexual orientation could constitute membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the AsylG but recalled its own case law (judgments E-1508/2021 of 6 August 2025, E-3210/2021 of 12 August 2025 and E-5216/2020 of 7 December 2023) finding  that LGBTIQ people in Russia were not subject to nationwide, systematic, targeted state persecution and that the Russian state was fundamentally capable and willing to provide protection. The court highlighted that the applicant was able to disclose his sexual orientation to his employer without facing prosecution or detention, and that the termination agreement, which was concluded with mutual consent, was motivated by the protection of the company’s image (in view of stricter legislation), and not by an intention to personally discriminate the applicant on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

Regarding the beating he allegedly received from uniformed individuals, the court stated that he should have reported it to the authorities. His ability to obtain a 2022 court ruling exempting him from military conscription and the fact that he was able to legally travel abroad demonstrated that he could access State protection and judicial remedies. Moreover, his voluntary return to Russia in October 2024 contradicted his alleged fear of persecution.

Regarding the removal order, the court upheld the SEM’s conclusion that return was lawful, reasonable and possible under Article 44 of the Asylum Act and Article 83 of the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (AIG). It held that Russia was affected by generalised violence, and that the applicant’s phycological condition could be treated there. There was no real risk of torture or inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture.

In conclusion, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the SEM’s negative decision on asylum. It declared that the removal order was lawful, reasonable and possible.