Scholarlink

Introduction <p>This article explores how inconsistencies between legal recognition and material protection impact the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and Lebanon through a comparative analysis.</p> Methods <p>We draw on 120 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2023 and 2025 with LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum (50 in the UK; 70 in Lebanon) to develop a legibility–governance framework with two axes: legal recognition of SOGIESC-based claims and material protection in practice.</p> Results <p>The UK represents a system of recognition without protection, while Lebanon exemplifies partial protection without recognition due to criminalization and outsourced governance to UNHCR. Across these systems, we identify four mechanisms through which asylum governance generates mental health harms.</p> Conclusions <p>Mental health challenges are generated not only by violence experienced before leaving one’s country of origin, but also by harms produced by asylum governance systems themselves through uncertainty, waiting, skepticism, and isolation.</p> Policy implications <p>Our analysis illustrates the need to reduce evidentiary burdens in SOGIESC asylum claims, design SOGIESC-sensitive and safer housing, and expand LGBTIQ+-affirming, culturally competent mental health services within both formal and outsourced asylum systems.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Governing Legibility: Recognition, Protection, and Mental Health Among LGBTIQ+ Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom and Lebanon

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月18日

查看全文
  • Diego Garcia Rodriguez,
  • Jasmin Lilian Diab

摘要

Introduction

This article explores how inconsistencies between legal recognition and material protection impact the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and Lebanon through a comparative analysis.

Methods

We draw on 120 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2023 and 2025 with LGBTIQ+ people seeking asylum (50 in the UK; 70 in Lebanon) to develop a legibility–governance framework with two axes: legal recognition of SOGIESC-based claims and material protection in practice.

Results

The UK represents a system of recognition without protection, while Lebanon exemplifies partial protection without recognition due to criminalization and outsourced governance to UNHCR. Across these systems, we identify four mechanisms through which asylum governance generates mental health harms.

Conclusions

Mental health challenges are generated not only by violence experienced before leaving one’s country of origin, but also by harms produced by asylum governance systems themselves through uncertainty, waiting, skepticism, and isolation.

Policy implications

Our analysis illustrates the need to reduce evidentiary burdens in SOGIESC asylum claims, design SOGIESC-sensitive and safer housing, and expand LGBTIQ+-affirming, culturally competent mental health services within both formal and outsourced asylum systems.