The applicant, a third-country national who had lived in Lithuania since 2010, applied for international protection in 2023, after temporary residence renewal had been denied on national security grounds. The applicant claimed fear of mobilization and being forced to participate in a war, as well as a risk of persecution due to political opinions opposing the authorities of the country of origin and the war and providing financial support through a fund in Lithuania. The applicant had a family in Lithuania and argued that, upon return, he would have no income or housing and would be unable to access medical and other services. On 2 October 2025, the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior refused to grant international protection, ordered expulsion to the country of origin, and imposed a three-year entry ban and a Schengen Information System (SIS) alert. The applicant challenged the decision before the Regional Administrative Court, which on 21 January 2026 partly upheld the complaint by annulling the entry ban and SIS alert for lack of sufficiently individualized reasoning, but otherwise upheld the refusal of international protection and confirmed the expulsion. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment. Referring to its own case law, it reiterated that a “fully well-founded fear” must be supported by both subjective and objective elements, and that potential risk of persecution must be substantiated by concrete facts and be individual in nature. The court found the applicant's fear of mobilization to be purely hypothetical, noting that country of origin information (COI) indicated that the armed forces relied on volunteer contractors and those called up during a prior partial mobilization, and that the applicant did not fall within groups typically subject to mobilization pressure. The court further emphasized that avoidance of military service, in itself, is not a ground for granting international protection.

As regards political opinion, the court noted that merely holding political beliefs is insufficient. It found that the applicant had not demonstrated public opposition activity, considered the applicant's registration for an opposition forum during the appeal stage as an attempt to formally comply with asylum criteria, and noted that the country-of-origin authorities could not access Lithuanian banking systems to identify any donations made by the applicant. The court also held that the alleged lack of housing, income, and services upon return did not constitute a ground for granting international protection.

The Supreme Administrative Court further upheld the finding that the applicant posed a threat to national security and, consequently, confirmed the expulsion. It reasoned that the applicant's long public service in the country of origin, including leadership roles, implied a duty of loyalty and, therefore, a susceptibility to exploitation by the country of origin's special services. The court also noted that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not guarantee a right to family life in a particular country and does not impose an obligation to admit foreigners for family reunification, hence the right to family life is rather derived from the general obligation to respect family life (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom, No 9214/80, No 9473/81 and No 9474/81, 28 May 1985; Ahmut v the Netherlands, No 21702/93, 28 November 1996). The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the national security interest outweighed the applicant's private and family interests.

In conclusion, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the refusal of international protection, and confirmed the expulsion on national security grounds.