The Administrative Court of Montenegro has annulled the decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) rejecting the asylum application submitted by IB - a transgender man from Belarus.
The judgment of 23 February 2026 found that the MUP's decision was made with serious procedural and substantive deficiencies, including incomprehensible reasoning, inadequate assessment of international sources, and incorrect application of the standard of proof.
"The mere fact that transgender people in Belarus may be exposed to discrimination is not sufficient in itself to prove a well-founded fear of persecution, unless there are clear indications that that person would be at particular risk (...)," the Ministry of Interior's explanation states, emphasizing that "the security situation in Belarus does not automatically put all persons present at real risk."
The Administrative Court Council concluded that the Ministry of Interior's decision was "incomprehensible, did not contain reasons on decisive facts, and the reasons given were unclear and contradictory with the enacting clause, which is why the legality of the decision could not be examined", and that such a conclusion "has no basis in the factual situation established in the proceedings".
The President of the Council was a judge Vladimir Orovic, and the members Saša Vukotić i Davor StojkovićThey sent the case back for reconsideration.
This case is not isolated. Of the 27 asylum applications in Montenegro from 2022 to the end of 2025, protection was granted in only two cases, in which sexual orientation or gender identity was the basis for the request. Previous research by the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) has shown that LGBT asylum seekers are often required to provide evidence that is almost impossible to meet.
The Ministry of Interior did not comment on the Administrative Court's verdict.
Data that is CIN-CG obtained through a Freedom of Information request shows that a total of 598 asylum applications have been filed since 2022, of which 58 have been approved, while a significant number have been rejected or suspended. Applications based on sexual orientation or gender identity make up just three percent of the total.
The IB case raises questions about how Montenegro assesses risk in asylum procedures, especially when it comes to vulnerable groups. The ruling points to the need to apply a lower standard of belief and base decisions on reliable international sources.
Belarus considers him a pornographer, Russia an extremist
IB was registered as female at birth, so the verdict, due to the formal information in the documents, states the female gender. In this text, we use the masculine gender, in accordance with his gender identity.
His story encompasses a range of institutional pressures and forms of violence that recur across different countries and systems.
The Administrative Court's ruling states that IB was born in Belarus and that from early childhood he was exposed to pressures that violated his physical integrity and right to free choice. In his complaint, he stated that he became a parent at the age of 16, and that the decision about pregnancy and childbirth was made under pressure from his mother, which, he points out, deprived him of autonomy over his own body. He left Belarus because of his gender identity, domestic violence, verbal abuse and the inability to exercise basic rights.
In his country of origin, according to a Human Rights Watch report from April 2024, the Ministry of Culture has expanded the definition of pornography to include same-sex relationships and transgender people. In such a legal framework, the mere public expression of identity can constitute grounds for criminal prosecution, further complicating the position of asylum seekers. Amnesty International has also documented the arrests of LGBT people on charges of “extremism”, “hooliganism” or distribution of pornography. For IB, this means that his mere presence in that country can be treated as a crime.
According to the verdict, IB fled to Russia. There, he began his transition, had access to hormone therapy, and found a community. He has been involved in LGBT activism for years, leading an online group on the VK platform, and co-authoring an LGBT-themed novel.
The situation changes in 2023. Russia bans healthcare for trans people, changing gender designations on documents, and adopting children. The Supreme Court declares the “international LGBT movement” an extremist organization, opening the way for the prosecution of activists, with sentences of up to 10 years in prison. Amnesty International calls this decision “shameful and absurd.”
The consequences for IB are concrete. His online group is blocked, threats of reporting to the police become real, with fears of criminal prosecution, loss of custody of his child, and interruption of medical treatment.
According to international reports, this risk is not hypothetical, but in early 2024, Russian courts will issue the first verdicts based on the decision on "extremism", and by mid-2025, dozens of cases of criminal prosecution of LGBT people and their allies have been documented.
IB submitted an application for asylum in Montenegro on December 20, 2023, and in mid-September 2025 was informed that, despite everything, he had not sufficiently convincingly proven the existence of a specific danger to him.
How is the asylum refusal justified?
When the Ministry of Interior rejected the asylum application of a Belarusian citizen in September 2025, all the aforementioned international reports were already available. According to the judgment, the Ministry of Interior concluded that the IB had not established the likelihood of an individualized and well-founded fear of persecution and that the described actions were not sufficiently serious, neither in nature nor in repetition, to reach the level of persecution in terms of international standards.
CIN-CG noted that in five analyzed verdicts, the Ministry of Interior did not appear at any oral hearing.
The court, however, expresses doubts about the MUP's conclusion that "the problems faced by IB do not constitute justified reasons for protection."
Why the court considers the Ministry of Interior's decision unlawful
The Administrative Court did not accept such reasoning. The court specifically states that the authority “failed to properly assess the reports of relevant international organizations on the situation in Belarus,” including the Human Rights Watch report of April 12, 2024, and the European Parliament Resolution of October 7, 2021, “in particular with regard to the rights of LGBT persons, linking them to the gender identity of the plaintiff.”
The judgment further emphasizes that EU law does not set a strictly defined threshold of proof, but rather refers to a lower level of certainty in asylum procedures. Therefore, an asylum seeker cannot be required to provide almost complete proof of persecution, but must be assessed whether the allegations and evidence reasonably indicate a risk in the event of return.
The Court also recalls the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) according to which "it is not necessary to prove that a person has already been persecuted, that a real and foreseeable risk is sufficient", and that "asylum seekers who are members of the LGBT population represent a vulnerable category and must therefore enjoy a special system of protection".
It was also pointed out that the Ministry of Interior did not adequately assess whether Belarus, in this case, could be considered a safe country of origin, even though this is its legal obligation.
According to the allegations in the lawsuit, the right of IB to state his/her position on all relevant facts before the decision is made was also at issue in the proceedings, which is of particular importance in asylum cases, where the decision is largely based on personal testimony.
The Court further emphasizes that a state may not return a person if there are “substantial grounds for believing that the alien in the country to which he is expelled would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights”.
This article prescribes an absolute prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and in this case it is linked to the obligation that a state must not return a person if there is a real risk of such treatment.
Fear of the future
Case IB shows how complex asylum procedures can be. The risk here is not linked to a single event or a single perpetrator, but to a combination of family relationships, social environment, legislative frameworks in the two countries, activism and limited access to healthcare.
An additional layer is the concept of so-called sur place refugees - a situation in which the risk of persecution arises or increases after leaving the country of origin, either due to deteriorating conditions in the home country or due to activities undertaken by the person abroad. In this case, the IB pointed to both elements simultaneously, but it is not clear from the judgment to what extent the MUP considered this aspect. The complaint itself, as conveyed in the judgment, also refers to the possibility of recognizing refugee status sur place.
In the retrial, the Ministry of Interior will also be faced with the fact that relevant international reports after its initial decision have further confirmed and deepened the risks to which the applicant referred.
IB’s activism in Russia, including an online group and co-authorship of LGBT-themed novels, has since been met with even more serious legal consequences. According to Human Rights Watch, in May 2025, Russian authorities filed charges against employees of publishing houses for distributing LGBT-themed fiction, claiming that they were “recruiting” citizens to an extremist organization. Such practices suggest that activities such as those IB engaged in could be grounds for criminal prosecution.
At the same time, the situation in Belarus has further deteriorated. On 2 April 2026, the parliament adopted a law prohibiting the promotion of gender reassignment and same-sex relationships, with the term “promotion” broadly defined. International organizations warn that this formulation allows for arbitrary application of the law. Seven United Nations experts have assessed this measure as a dangerous escalation, while civil society organizations have already documented new cases of persecution based on gender identity in early 2026.
Access to hormone therapy
Lawyer Gordana Razić from the Civic Alliance, which represents IB, states that this is a transgender person who did not have access to adequate medical care in the context of transition.
Iskra Đurišić from the Spektra Association warns that the problem does not end with the asylum procedure itself, but continues throughout the daily life of trans people in Montenegro.
“There are serious challenges. Unfortunately, Montenegro, although formally moving towards membership in the European Union (EU), has still not resolved some of the key issues when it comes to the basic human rights of transgender people. The discrepancy between apparent progress and the real lives of people is very visible when it comes to access to healthcare, including hormone therapy,” Đurišić told CIN-CG.
There is an additional risk factor for trans people: the visibility of their identity, which is not always a matter of choice. Medical transition and the discrepancy between appearance and identity documents can further increase exposure to discrimination and violence.
Đurišić points out that in practice transgender asylum seekers cannot access hormone therapy without a regulated residence status, that is, without obtaining resident status.
"This means that people who are already in an extremely vulnerable position because they have left their countries due to persecution, violence or discrimination, by seeking asylum in Montenegro often enter an additional circle of insecurity. Their lives and their safety are practically 'on hold' while the processes continue, and medical transition, which for many is a matter of general health, becomes unavailable or postponed indefinitely," says Đurišić.
He adds that interruptions in therapy have direct and serious consequences.
“Lack of access to hormone therapy can lead to worsening mental health, increased anxiety, depression and feelings of isolation. For most trans people, continuity of therapy is not a luxury, but a necessity. In this sense, the issue of access to hormones is not only a medical issue, but also an issue of basic human dignity and the right to health care,” says Đurišić.
What's next?
Gordana Razić explains that, after the lawsuit is approved, the case is returned to the Ministry of Interior for a new decision, with the obligation to take into account all the allegations accepted by the court. After receiving the verdict, the Ministry of Interior should schedule a new hearing and make a new decision. If it is negative again, there is the possibility of filing a new lawsuit, after which the Administrative Court's verdict would be final.
In the retrial, as the court states, the Ministry of Interior must "undoubtedly establish all the circumstances on which the merits of the request for international protection depend."
Since the case has been returned to the MUP for reconsideration, this implies a new hearing and a more detailed assessment of all relevant circumstances, including more recent international sources. The MUP may again reject the request, but in that case it must clearly justify its decision and demonstrate that all relevant facts have been taken into account.
What the system does not recognize
Iskra Đurišić says that these problems are systemic and broader than individual cases.
"We cannot talk about progress while we are faced with such systemic obstacles. It is important to emphasize that this problem does not apply exclusively to asylum seekers. Systemic inefficiency and discrimination also affect trans people who are citizens of Montenegro," says Đurišić.
A particular challenge, as he points out, is the fact that legal recognition of gender identity is still not possible in Montenegro because the law on legal recognition of gender identity based on self-determination has not been adopted.
"The first version of the draft law included both asylum seekers and foreigners. However, one of the compromises made with the political elites was that the law would be available only to citizens of Montenegro. This excluded this group from the legal solution, which poses a major problem for asylum seekers who cannot return to their countries and who have found refuge in Montenegro, a country that is promoted internationally as a safe place for LGBT people," Đurišić said.
Razić adds that these procedures do not only decide on asylum, but also on subsidiary protection, which is granted when a person does not meet all the conditions for asylum, but there is a real risk of serious injustice in the event of return.
The civil society sector points out that the problem lies in the lack of political will. Without adopting a law on self-determination, improving health protocols and removing administrative barriers, Montenegro continues to maintain a system that excludes and endangers trans people. The analysis shows a discrepancy between international obligations and their implementation in practice when it comes to the protection of trans people. As a result, LGBT asylum seekers remain deprived of adequate protection and often do not find understanding in the institutions in Montenegro.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
