A Russian citizen and her two minor children entered Latvia in April this year and applied to the border guard with a request for refugee or alternative status in Latvia. The woman has sought asylum for her political views. Since 2008 you have actively participated in demonstrations directed against the Russian political regime. You have also attended rallies in support of Russian opponents Alexei Navalny and Boris Nemtsov.
In general, from the age of 18, his actions and deeds were directed against the political situation in Russia. The woman feared that she would be detained or that child law enforcement authorities might carry out checks and remove the children from the family. Due to her and her ex-husband’s political actions and activities, the children unknowingly began to support her political stance. The children’s police forces carried out inspections at the woman’s home, who also had to come to school and kindergarten, whose educators carried out inspections.
In 2014, both the woman and her ex-spouse expressed their views regarding the war in Ukraine. The woman went to protest against the war together with her fellow students.
The woman wanted the children to study at school in person from the new year. In Russia, children will not be able to attend school in person, because they grow up in a family with one political position, but another is propagated at school.
The woman regularly posted messages on social networks, expressing her political position. Last year the woman participated in anti-war demonstrations in Ukraine and during a demonstration in the center of Nizhny Novgorod she wanted to shoot a video to post on a social network. At that time, two police officers arrested her and asked her to check her passport because she travels so much and spends time abroad. When police officers found out she works in the film industry, they let her claim go, telling her not to “walk where she shouldn’t.” Subsequently, she remained more cautious and did not go to the demonstrations.
Last August, the PMLP refused to grant the family refugee and alternative status. The administration claimed that between 2017 and 2022, the woman traveled several times to various European Union member states, including Finland, Estonia and Latvia, but showed no interest in applying for international protection. Shortly before applying for asylum, she entered Latvia for work reasons, where she remained until February 2022, showing no interest in international protection.
The circumstances mentioned indicate that his danger level in Russia was not so high as to call for help immediately. The emigration of the woman from Russia could be related to other, for example, practical considerations related to the more convenient organization of the educational process of her children or, for example, the realization of the woman’s professional ambitions, above all considering her recent work experience in Latvia, PMLP discussed.
When assessing whether the woman’s fear of politically motivated persecution is justified, it cannot be established that she was a member of a political party or movement in Russia, ran for election or participated in public debates.
Disagreeing with the PMLP’s decision, the family appealed to the District Administrative Court. In court, the woman argued that new circumstances have arisen since her asylum application, indicating that she is being persecuted and risks facing measures from the police and public authorities in her home country, which are per discriminatory self.
Similarly, a woman in Latvia has been working as a volunteer in central Ukraine since April 2022, an association that has provided support to Ukrainians. The woman’s position on civil and personal freedom, Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, as well as the fact that she helps Ukrainians by physically working in the center of Ukraine in Riga are known to her children: the woman is raising them for become free citizens who respect human freedom.
After evaluating the case materials, the court concluded that the description of the woman’s circumstances is generally reliable and consistent. The woman also stressed that the integrity of her family would be threatened in Russia and the court understands this concern.
In the case under consideration, the children, upon their return to Russia, would most likely be faced with the negative attention of employees of educational institutions. From observations made while alive, the court concluded that, taking into account the ages of the applicant’s children – aged 8 and 10 – it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to hide the political views instilled at home during the educational process.
Thus, girls in a Russian school would most likely experience discrimination, which can negatively affect not only the learning process, but also the protection and well-being of the family.
“Taking into account the above and individually assessing the situation of the woman and her children, as well as the circumstances found in the case in their connection, the court concluded that she has strong political convictions, which sooner or later will come into conflict with the government authorities of the country of origin with a sufficiently high degree of reliability. Therefore, in this case, it can be concluded that the applicant’s fear of politically motivated persecution of her family in Russia is objectively justified,” the judgment reads.
On 30 December, the court instructed the PMLP to make a decision on granting refugee status in Latvia to the woman and her two children within one month of the date the ruling took effect. The sentence is not appealable.
It has already been reported that last year up to December 28, 183 citizens of Russia and Belarus applied for asylum in Latvia: 118 from Russia and 65 from Belarus.
As of 30 November, a total of 82 asylum seekers from Russia and Belarus have been granted refugee or alternative status in Latvia, including people who had applied for asylum even earlier.
In the first 11 months of the year, a total of 171 applications from citizens of Russia and Belarus were considered.
Between the announcement of the mobilization in Russia in late September and 27 December, 35 Russian citizens applied for asylum in Latvia, including those who cited the mobilization as a reason for seeking asylum.
LETA also recently wrote that in mid-December, the District Administrative Court, contrary to the PMLP’s decision, instructed to provide asylum in Latvia to a former Russian soldier and police officer, according to the publicly available court verdict. The man asked for political asylum because he did not agree with the Russian military invasion of Ukraine and therefore feared that he would end up in prison in Russia or be sent to fight on the territory of Ukraine.
At the end of the year PMLP, LETA stated that only in very rare cases did the District Administrative Court change the decision made by the administration on granting or refusing to grant refugee or alternative status. There have been judicial decisions of this kind in the cases of nationals of various third countries.
