Concerns raised about changes to Home Office’s country evidence on Pakistan for LGBT+ people

The Home Office has published an updated country policy and information note known as a ‘CPIN’ on Pakistan and sexual orientation and gender identity claims. A new version of the note was published in May 2025, replacing the earlier version from April 2022 and making significant changes to the 2022 version. This latest iteration, published November 2025, builds on those changes. Below, we consider the Home Office’s updated position, assess whether it substantially changes the landscape for LGBT+ asylum seekers from Pakistan and highlight conflicts with other recent country evidence.

A side-by-side comparison of the April 2022 version with the November 2025 version can be viewed here. As has become usual with these updates, the structure of the document has changed, which makes it an arduous task to ascertain which of the changes are material.

This is yet another example of why the executive summary of a country policy note should never be taken at face value. This note fails to substantiate its conclusions in the summary with evidence from the rest of the document. In fact, the country evidence often points to an opposite conclusion.  

Who does the country policy and information note apply to?

Country policy and information notes are documents published by the Home Office which provide up-to-date country information to assist decision-makers tasked with assessing risk on return to a country for certain groups of people seeking protection in the UK.

The note is important for anyone who has sought protection in the UK because of a fear of return to Pakistan due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is because the evidence in it is likely to form the basis of a Home Office decision in their case and will also be considered by a tribunal in any appeal should the claim be refused.

What does it say?

The note recognises that an individual seeking asylum because of their sexual or gender identity will fall within the remit of the Refugee Convention because ‘LGBT+ people form a particular social group’. In law, being part of a ‘particular social group’ means sharing an innate characteristic or common background that is so fundamental to identity that a person should not be forced to renounce it and having a distinct identity in the country a person is from because the group is perceived as being ‘different’ by surrounding society. So far, no change here in the guidance.

Establishing that someone’s claim falls within the remit of the Refugee Convention is only the first hurdle to succeed in a claim. The decision-maker or tribunal will proceed to consider risk of harm, whether protection is available from the state and feasibility of any internal relocation before accepting a claim.

Risk

When it comes to risk, the note is somewhat muddled. The document first confirms that there is limited information about the extent of treatment of LGBT+ people in Pakistan and that most information focusses on trans women.

The note then proceeds to state that LGBT+ individuals are unlikely to face persecution from the state in Pakistan. This assertion is made despite the note recognising there are no laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in Pakistan and that consensual same-sex acts are criminalised under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The note then identifies that LGBT+ people are, however, likely to face persecution from non-state actors such as from family members, community members or religious groups, because there is significant societal discrimination. The ‘executive summary’ itself paints a picture of the serious risks: it describes that gay men are often targeted for extortion and subject to violence and lesbian and bisexual women facing violence including honour killing and ‘corrective’ rape. Anyone preparing their claim should set out clearly who the applicant fears harm from.

The note adds information at 3.3.2 about those who enter into a “lavender” marriage, described as a heterosexual union between a gay man and a lesbian, to protect themselves from societal and familial rejection. It suggests that it is elite individuals living in urban areas who enter such arrangements but it is not clear why this is referenced within the document.

The note also states that individuals who do not comply with arranged marriages, can face rejection and, in extreme cases, honour killings. It is unclear how this will be interpreted by the Home Office when assessing claims involving a “lavender” marriage.

If risk of harm is established, then the next consideration is whether state protection is available to them.

Protection

The biggest change in the policy is that this note now claims that those fearing serious harm or persecution from non-state actors may be able to obtain protection from the state. According to the country policy note that depends on who is fearing harm and it states that a lesbian, gay or bisexual individual will find that the state is ‘able but not willing’ to offer effective protection.

This is a departure from the April 2022 version, which stated:

2.5.5 In general, the state may be able, but is not willing, to offer effective protection to lesbian, gay and bisexual persons and the person will not be able to avail themselves to the protection of the authorities.

In contrast, the new note states:

4.1.2 A person who has a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm from a rogue state actor and/or a non-state actor may be able to obtain protection from the state depending on their profile.

Further, this paragraph somewhat contrasts with what is said in the next paragraph:

4.1.3 In general, the state is able but not willing to offer effective protection to lesbian, gay or bisexual people.

Pedants will note there is a slight shift here from the state ‘may’ be able, in the previous version, to ‘is’ able, in the current version, to provide effective protection.

This leaves matters slightly unclear and the approach that decision-makers will take here is unknown. It seems likely that an individual will now need to establish why the state would not be able to protect them and this author has recently encountered this approach from the Home Office during an appeal hearing.   

The basis of the shift is unclear given that the country information has not substantially changed. The objective evidence presented within the note itself paints the same picture as that in the previous note.

Internal relocation

It is generally accepted in the country policy note that someone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual will be unlikely to be able to relocate internally. This is because of “prevailing homophobic attitudes across the country”. Based on this, someone identifying as such need not show that internal relocation is unavailable to them.

This aligns with the previous version, however the following paragraph has been removed:

2.6.4 Internal relocation will not be an option if it depends on the person concealing their sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the proposed new location if the reason (or one of the reasons) is a fear of persecution. Each case must be considered on its facts.

The Home Office has been systematically removing these references from all of the country policy information notes on sexual orientation and gender identity claims, however removal of this paragraph does not take away from the established case law which confirms that an LGBT+ person cannot be expected to return to their country of origin and live discreetly (HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31). 

For trans individuals, the note says that there is protection in law and relocation to urban areas may be reasonable ‘subject to individual circumstances’. Anyone seeking asylum on this basis will need to establish why they would not be able to safely relocate including any reasons that might make that relocation unduly harsh.

Does this align with what is currently being reported on Pakistan?

The country information within the note itself undermines the assertion that lesbian, gay and bisexual people may be able to obtain state protection against non-state actors in Pakistan. Section 9 of the country policy note cites numerous sources which demonstrate the state being at best, dismissive, and at worst, persecutory towards LGBT+ people.  

For instance, the police are reported to abuse the law which criminalises sexual relations between men as a tool to blackmail, harass, and extort LGBT+ people. This is reported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and Project ADAL, (9.2.1 to 9.2.4). Notably, the DFAT report is dated April 2025.

The US State Department reported in 2023 that the police are generally taking little action in response to reports of crimes against LGBT+ people (9.4.1). A United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concerns around impunity for perpetrators of crimes against LGBT+ people (9.4.5).  

The US State Department’s 2024 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Pakistan, which was published after the country policy note, is silent on the experiences of LGBT+ people. However, as Human Rights Watch highlighted earlier this year, many 2024 editions of these reports omit the usual sections on gender and sexuality. This pattern raises the possibility that the omissions are a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to minimise human rights abuses of certain groups. 

Conclusion

When making submissions, it is important to remember that the standard for proving that a person would not be protected from persecution is the lower standard, a reasonable degree of likelihood, as per s.32(4) Nationality and Borders Act 2022. 

Overall, the country policy note’s executive summary on state protection does not align with what is being extensively reported about Pakistan and so those working on these cases should ensure that they address this point when making submissions to the Home Office in support of an asylum claim.

This article was co-authored by Katherine Soroya and Niamh Fegan, both of Goldsmith Chambers.