assessing LGBTQI+ claims and failure to align with the DSSH (Difference, Shame, Stigma, Harm) model provided by the EUAA.600 Illustrative of the above is the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO, for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim and represented by GCR:601 For instance, the applicant could not elaborate on the process and the way in which he became aware of his sexual orientation, saying that this happened after an incident of rape when he was [x - minor] years old. […] The applicant gives almost no information about this [rape] incident. When next asked how he felt about his realisation of his sexual orientation, he was content to answer that he accepted it while others did not. One would expect that since it was an internal process, and indeed something that would cause him trouble in his own country, he would be able to give more details about how he experienced it and his feelings and even give more information about how he became aware of it. Finally, when asked whether he knew about LGBTI organisations in his country or about the law on homosexuality in his country, the applicant replied negatively. One would expect him to be aware of such organisations or even the law since he stated that from X to X he became aware of his sexual orientation and externalised his feelings, a reason which played a decisive role in the applicant's decision to leave the country. In a more general assessment, these allegations of the applicant are considered to be incoherent and general and as a result, the Service finds that the internal credibility of the above allegation has not been established. The above reasoning of the first instance negative decision is indicative of the problematic, judgmental and non-sensitive approach and credibility assessment of the Asylum Service with regard to LGBTQI persons and GBV survivors. Similarly illustrative is the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO on September 2024 for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim, legally represented by GCR:602 According to the decision: ‘[t]he applicant made vague and general statements regarding the time and circumstances under which he realized he was homosexual. He also spoke vaguely about the romantic relationship he claimed to have had with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, his descriptions were sparse concerning his feelings and the way he experienced his sexuality, lacking any truly personal or experiential details about his sexual orientation. In this context, the applicant did not provide a clear, detailed, and sufficient account of fundamental aspects related to this significant claim. Regarding when he first realized he was homosexual, the applicant vaguely stated: "From when we were in his room watching pornographic movies together, we felt it." (See interview transcript, p. 16). Similarly, his responses to subsequent questions posed by the interviewer did not reflect the narrative of someone recounting personal and experiential changes upon realizing their sexual orientation. When asked about the change in his life after realizing he was homosexual, the applicant vaguely responded: "Yes," and "I feel that I am different from other males." (See interview transcript, p. 17). At another point in the interview, the applicant was again asked to describe his feelings and whether he feared how society would perceive him if it became known that he was homosexual. The applicant vaguely stated: Lawyer: "What feelings or thoughts crossed your mind when you realized you liked boys? Were you afraid of how people would treat you?" Applicant: "I am not afraid." Lawyer: "How can you not be afraid when you've been telling us all along that it is illegal in Iraq?" Applicant: "Yes, it is forbidden, but I don’t need to tell anyone that I am homosexual." (See interview transcript, p. 23). When asked if he knew other homosexual people in his country or if he tried to meet them, the applicant responded in a manner that did not reflect personal experiences, providing information from the internet and social media. The applicant vaguely stated: “Do you know if there are areas, cafés, or other establishments in your 600 601 602 Heinrich Boll Stiftung, ibid. More information available on the applicant’s case file, with GCR. More information available on the applicant’s case file, with GCR. 132