Refusal of asylum to a Russian citizen born in Latvia who was allegedly threatened with being sent to fight in Ukraine

Latvia has refused asylum to a Russian citizen born in Latvia who was allegedly threatened with being sent to fight in Ukraine.

Most read

“What can lecturers dressed like this be taught?” The poetess and lecturer is publicly horrified and mocks the teachers’ clothes

We eat every day! Which foods contain the most plastic?

Ancient and powerful beliefs: These things should never be borrowed or lent

Read other posts

According to the publicly available judgment of the Administrative District Court, a Russian citizen already in September 2022 applied to the State Border Guard with an application for the granting of refugee or alternative status.

The man claimed that he did not agree with the Russian state policy, the war against Ukraine and the general mobilization. He does not want to be mobilized, become a terrorist and die for the regime of Vladimir Putin.

The Citizenship and Migration Board (PMLP) refused asylum, arguing that in the present case the man’s fear of being drafted into military service was hypothetical. He did not indicate that he had received a summons in connection with the mobilization announced in Russia. In addition, the man has been exempted from compulsory military service due to his health condition, so he has no military specialization, relevant work or combat experience.

Similarly, the man’s individual actions or their set do not allow to conclude that he is considered to be a representative of civil society who publicly expresses views that the authorities do not like and thus could face persecution from the Russian authorities.

Disagreeing with the administration’s decision, the man appealed to the Administrative District Court. In court, he argued that he was born in Latvia and left for permanent life in Russia, submitting to the will of his parents.

For the last several years, the applicant considered the possibility of returning to Latvia, which he still considers his real homeland. The applicant has several relatives living in Latvia, some of them are Latvian citizens. Likewise, the man works for a wage in Latvia and actively studies the Latvian language. With nothing connecting the man to Russia, only the applicant’s parents remained there, who were said to have been stunned and confused by the propaganda of the Kremlin regime and whose political opinions were absolutely unacceptable to the applicant.

Also, the man told the court that according to the conclusions of the State Security Service, no negative information was found regarding him.

He is also registered in the military records as fit for military service. Also, a summons was issued with an order to appear at the military commissariat last year, which the man did not fulfill, as he was in Latvia at the time. Likewise, the PMLP unjustifiably did not give due importance to the fact that the applicant repeatedly participated in rallies and protest actions organized by Alexei Navalny.

The man believed that the conclusions mentioned in the appealed decision of the PMLP are based not on the assessment of the real situation, but on outdated information about the completion of mobilization, which has long ceased to be relevant, taking into account the current situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and the loss of human resources of the Russian army there.

The court rejected the man’s application because the court found that the applicant did not state that he would face the death penalty or its execution in Russia. Likewise, the court, having previously evaluated the prerequisites for granting refugee status to the applicant, recognized that the applicant’s claims about his threatened persecution in Russia are not objectively substantiated and there is no reason to grant the applicant refugee status.

Thus, on the basis of the same considerations, the court found that there was no reason to believe that the applicant could be subjected to torture, inhuman treatment or degrading punishment upon his return to Russia.

Even if the evidence presented by the applicant could be considered authentic, it does not point to efforts by the Russian authorities to forcefully send the applicant to fight in Ukraine.

At the time of preparation of this judgment, the court recognized the threat of mobilization regarding the applicant as hypothetical and agrees with the administration’s finding that the applicant has not provided information that would indicate his justified fear of being mobilized or conscripted into military service. The documents submitted by the applicant in the case file do not prove the efforts of the Russian authorities to mobilize the applicant.