An Open Letter to the Keepers of the Refugee Convention

When the Room Fell Silent: A Call for Equal Protection of LGBTQ Refugees

By Prince DeAndre, Duke of Hanumanteshwar

Original publication: July 30, 2026
Added to the H1927LLC IP Library: September 20, 2026

Archival Note

H1927LLC IP Library Note:
This open letter was originally published on LinkedIn on July 30, 2026, following the High-Level Dialogue convened by UNHCR in Nairobi, Kenya, to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is reproduced here as part of the H1927LLC IP Library's permanent record of writing on refugee protection, human rights, institutional accountability, and LGBTQIA+ communities.

The argument, historical context, and questions presented in the original publication have been preserved. Minor corrections to spelling, formatting, and citation presentation have been made for archival publication. No subsequent events have been inserted into the original narrative.

 

When the Room Fell Silent

A Call for Equal Protection of LGBTQ Refugees

By Prince DeAndre, Duke of Hanumanteshwar

Author's Note

I write this open letter not only as an author and advocate for constitutional governance and human dignity, but also from my experience serving as Ambassador & Consultant on Human Rights Violations for the United Refugee Green Council (URGC) from 2015 to 2020. During those years, I worked in support of refugees, displaced communities, and environmental justice, experiences that deepened my commitment to inclusive governance, international cooperation, and the universal principles of refugee protection.

This letter is offered in that same spirit. It is not written to condemn institutions or diminish the important work undertaken by governments, humanitarian organizations, refugee-led organizations, or civil society. It is written because the strength of the international refugee protection system depends upon its willingness to listen when those living within it raise concerns that deserve careful attention.

The questions presented in this letter arise from the public intervention of Doreen Nasaala, an LGBTQ asylum seeker and community leader, during the High-Level Dialogue commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention in Nairobi, Kenya. Her questions deserve thoughtful, transparent, and principled responses from all those entrusted with protecting refugees.

Dear:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
The Department of Refugee Services, Republic of Kenya
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
The International Organization for Migration (IOM)
The World Bank
The Government of Kenya
Governments supporting refugee protection and resettlement, including Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and member states of the European Union
Diplomatic missions accredited to the Republic of Kenya
Humanitarian organizations
Human rights organizations
Refugee-led organizations
Civil society partners
Members of the Global Refugee Forum
And everyone entrusted with the protection, dignity, and future of refugees around the world,

Seventy-five years ago, the international community made one of the most profound commitments in modern history.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees established a simple but extraordinary principle: no person fleeing persecution should stand alone simply because they crossed an international border. Protection would not depend upon nationality, politics, popularity, or convenience. It would depend upon our shared humanity and our collective commitment to uphold the rule of law.

That promise has saved millions of lives.

It has given hope to families who believed they had none. It has protected people fleeing war, persecution, torture, religious oppression, political violence, ethnic cleansing, and countless other violations of human dignity. For seventy-five years, governments, humanitarian organizations, civil society, and refugee communities themselves have worked together to give meaning to that promise.

Kenya has, for decades, stood among the world's leading refugee-hosting nations. It has provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war, persecution, and instability across the region, often while facing significant political, economic, and humanitarian pressures of its own. That record deserves recognition and respect. It is precisely because Kenya has demonstrated leadership in refugee protection that the questions raised in this letter matter.

Nations that lead internationally also have the opportunity to strengthen their leadership through transparency, dialogue, and a continuing commitment to ensuring that the protections guaranteed in law are experienced equally by every refugee.

On July 28, 2026, many of those same institutions gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Refugee Convention. UNHCR confirms that the High-Level Dialogue brought together government institutions, refugee-led organizations, host communities, development and humanitarian partners, civil society, academia, the private sector, and the United Nations.

The language of the day reflected the very principles upon which the Convention was built: protection, inclusion, self-reliance, shared responsibility, durable solutions, and refugee participation.

Those are not merely words.

They are promises.

Yet every promise must eventually answer a simple question.

Who does it protect when protection is needed most?

During that gathering, refugee community leader Doreen Nasaala rose to speak on behalf of LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers living in Kenya.

She did not ask for special treatment.

She did not ask for privilege.

She asked whether the promises being celebrated that day extended equally to those who continue to face persecution because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics.

Her questions were direct.

How will LGBTQ refugees safely obtain documentation?

How will they access healthcare without fear of discrimination?

How will they pursue education and employment?

How will they move toward self-reliance if barriers to safety and equal treatment remain?

How will those who receive legitimate educational opportunities abroad navigate administrative processes without unnecessary delay?

Most importantly, she asked whether the promise of protection belongs equally to LGBTQ refugees.

The room grew quiet.

This letter is written because difficult questions should never disappear once the conference has ended.

It is not written to condemn.

It is not written to diminish the important work undertaken every day by governments, humanitarian agencies, refugee-led organizations, or civil society.

It is written because the credibility of the international refugee protection system is measured not only by the commitments it proclaims, but by its willingness to examine where those commitments remain unfinished.

Doreen Nasaala's intervention was more than a personal appeal.

It became a question addressed to every institution entrusted with protecting refugees.

This open letter respectfully asks that her questions receive the thoughtful, transparent, and principled responses they deserve.

The Convention's Unfinished Promise

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees remains one of the most significant foundations of international refugee protection.

It established that persecution should never be answered with abandonment. Instead, nations accepted a shared responsibility to provide protection to those who could no longer rely upon the protection of their own governments.

That commitment fundamentally changed how the world understands human dignity.

Yet every historic document also reflects the era in which it was written.

When the Refugee Convention was adopted in 1951, the language of international human rights had not yet evolved to explicitly recognize persecution based upon sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics. As a result, LGBTQ refugees have largely depended upon the interpretation of existing legal protections rather than explicit textual recognition within the Convention itself.

Over time, UNHCR and national refugee systems have recognized that persecution because of sexual orientation or gender identity can fall within Convention protections, particularly through the category of membership in a “particular social group.” UNHCR's Guidelines on International Protection No. 9 specifically address claims based upon sexual orientation and gender identity, while UNHCR's current guidance recognizes the protection needs of people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics.

That evolution has saved lives.

It has allowed individuals fleeing imprisonment, violence, torture, and persecution because of who they are to seek safety beyond their own borders.

But it has also left an enduring challenge.

Rights that are expressly written into law often provide greater certainty than rights that depend upon interpretation.

Interpretation can differ.

It can vary between countries, institutions, decision-makers, and even individual refugee status determination interviews.

For LGBTQ asylum seekers, that uncertainty can become another form of vulnerability.

A refugee should not have to wonder whether the person interviewing them understands international refugee law.

They should not have to fear that disclosing their identity to an interpreter from their own community could expose them to further danger.

They should not have to question whether deeply personal testimony will be received with dignity or prejudice.

The Refugee Convention was never intended to create different standards of protection depending upon who was seeking refuge.

Its purpose was to ensure that people with a well-founded fear of persecution would receive an opportunity to be heard and considered for protection under the law.

That is why the questions raised by Doreen Nasaala matter far beyond one conference in Nairobi.

They ask whether the evolution of international refugee law has been fully matched by the evolution of its implementation.

The issue before us is therefore not whether the Refugee Convention remains relevant.

It unquestionably does.

The question is whether its promise is being realized equally for those whose protection has historically depended not upon explicit recognition, but upon the willingness of institutions to faithfully interpret and apply the principles the Convention was created to uphold.

Seventy-five years after the Convention's adoption, that remains one of the unfinished responsibilities entrusted to every institution charged with protecting refugees.

The Question That Changed the Room

International conferences often conclude with declarations of shared purpose.

They celebrate progress, reaffirm commitments, and encourage cooperation among governments, humanitarian organizations, civil society, and refugee communities. Those gatherings matter because they create opportunities not only to recognize achievements, but also to confront the work that remains unfinished.

The High-Level Dialogue in Nairobi was no different.

Throughout the day, speakers spoke about inclusion, self-reliance, refugee participation, durable solutions, and strengthening protection under Kenya's Refugee Act and the Shirika Plan.

Then the conversation shifted.

Doreen Nasaala stood and addressed the institutions gathered before her.

She did not speak only as an individual.

She spoke as a refugee.

She spoke as an LGBTQ asylum seeker.

She spoke as a community leader.

She spoke on behalf of others whose voices were not being heard inside that room.

Her questions were not theoretical.

They reflected the daily realities faced by LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers living in Kenya.

How will LGBTQ refugees safely access healthcare when fear of discrimination remains a constant concern?

How will they obtain documentation that allows them to build stable and independent lives?

How will they pursue education if administrative barriers prevent opportunities from becoming reality?

How will they participate in the promise of self-reliance if safety itself remains uncertain?

How will they access humanitarian services, legal protection, and meaningful inclusion if their identities continue to expose them to additional risk?

These were not questions seeking privilege.

They were questions seeking equal protection.

They asked whether the principles celebrated throughout the conference extended equally to one of the most vulnerable refugee communities.

Those questions deserve careful reflection because they were entirely consistent with the objectives of the conference itself.

A discussion devoted to inclusion cannot avoid examining those who continue to experience exclusion.

A discussion devoted to protection cannot overlook those who continue to fear persecution.

A discussion devoted to self-reliance cannot ignore the barriers that prevent some refugees from reaching that goal.

The true measure of participation is not whether refugees are invited into the room.

It is whether their questions are genuinely heard once they begin to speak.

According to the recording reviewed by the author, the response from a representative of Kenya's Department of Refugee Services, identified by Doreen Nasaala as Madam Diana, indicated that DRS, as a government institution, does not consider LGBTQ or queer identity, by itself, to be a ground for asylum.

Doreen Nasaala described the response as dismissive of LGBTQ refugees and inconsistent with the realities faced by her community.

This open letter does not presume to determine whether that statement reflects the official policy of the Department of Refugee Services or whether additional context would clarify its meaning.

That clarification is precisely what this letter respectfully seeks.

Kenya's Department of Refugee Services currently states publicly that its refugee definition includes a well-founded fear of persecution because of membership in a particular social group. UNHCR guidance, separately, recognizes that LGBTIQ+ claims may fall within that Convention ground.

If the recorded response accurately reflects the position expressed during the conference, it raises legal, humanitarian, and administrative questions that deserve transparent answers.

If it does not accurately reflect official policy, clarification is equally important.

Neither refugees nor the institutions charged with protecting them benefit from uncertainty.

When questions of life, safety, and dignity are involved, clarity is itself a form of protection.

For that reason, this open letter respectfully invites the Department of Refugee Services, UNHCR, and all institutions responsible for refugee protection to clarify how the principles of equal protection, non-discrimination, and refugee status determination are being applied to LGBTQ asylum seekers in Kenya.

The room may have fallen silent.

The questions, however, remain.

Rights Written on Paper, Lives Lived in Reality

One of the most important principles of the rule of law is that rights must exist in practice, not merely in legislation.

Laws are written because societies aspire to justice.

Institutions exist because those aspirations require implementation.

When implementation falls short, the question is not whether the law is noble. The question is whether the people it was written to protect are able to experience its protection.

The Department of Refugee Services publicly states that a refugee includes a person with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons including race, religion, sex, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group.

These are significant commitments.

They demonstrate that Kenya's refugee protection framework contains mechanisms for due process, documentation, humanitarian protection, and legal recognition.

The question raised by Doreen Nasaala was never simply whether commitments exist.

Her question was whether LGBTQ refugees experience those commitments with the same certainty that they are described in public policy.

For many refugees, the difference between law and lived experience can determine every aspect of daily life.

A legal right to documentation means little if documentation is delayed while an asylum seeker remains unable to participate fully in society.

A legal right to healthcare means little if fear of discrimination prevents someone from safely seeking medical treatment.

A legal opportunity to pursue education becomes fragile if administrative barriers prevent a student from accepting a scholarship or traveling lawfully to continue their studies.

A commitment to self-reliance cannot be realized if a refugee cannot safely obtain employment, open a bank account, secure housing, or move freely for legitimate educational, humanitarian, or medical reasons.

These are not abstract policy debates.

They are questions that shape whether a refugee can live with dignity while awaiting protection.

The purpose of this open letter is not to suggest that every refugee shares the same experience or that every institution has failed equally.

Rather, it is to ask whether the protections described in law are reaching those who remain among the most vulnerable.

If the answer is yes, greater transparency will strengthen public confidence.

If the answer is no, acknowledging those gaps becomes the first step toward addressing them.

The credibility of refugee protection has never depended solely upon the quality of its legal framework.

It has depended upon whether the person standing before that framework can trust that the promises written into law will also be honored in practice.

For LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers, that remains one of the defining questions of our time.

It is also the question that Doreen Nasaala placed before the international community.

Her words were not an interruption of the conference.

They were a reminder of its purpose.

The Questions That Still Demand Answers

The purpose of this open letter is not simply to recount what occurred during one conference.

Its purpose is to ask the questions that remain unanswered.

Many of these questions have already been raised by refugee communities, humanitarian organizations, legal advocates, and international researchers. Others arise directly from the commitments made under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Kenya's Refugee Act, 2021, and the objectives of the Shirika Plan.

They deserve clear and transparent responses.

Refugee Status Determination

We respectfully ask the Department of Refugee Services and UNHCR to clarify how claims based upon sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics are assessed within Kenya's refugee status determination process.

If persecution based upon membership of a particular social group remains recognized within Kenya's refugee framework, how is that protection being applied in practice to LGBTQ asylum seekers?

If additional guidance has been issued to decision-makers, interpreters, and protection officers, can that guidance be made publicly available?

Transparency strengthens confidence in the integrity of refugee protection.

Confidentiality and Safe Disclosure

Every refugee status determination depends upon truthful testimony.

For LGBTQ asylum seekers, that testimony can require revealing deeply personal experiences involving identity, violence, family rejection, imprisonment, sexual assault, or torture.

We respectfully ask what safeguards exist to ensure confidentiality during interviews.

How are interpreters selected and trained?

How are conflicts of interest prevented when interpreters may come from the same refugee communities where disclosure could expose an individual to further danger?

How can an asylum seeker safely disclose the very reason they fled if they fear their identity may not remain confidential?

UNHCR's own guidance recognizes the importance of trained interviewers and interpreters, sensitive questioning, and the potential difficulties created when an interpreter shares the applicant's cultural or community background.

Documentation and Legal Identity

The Department of Refugee Services has publicly outlined procedures for recognition letters, identity documentation, and refugee protection.

We respectfully ask whether published service standards are being consistently achieved.

If delays occur, what protections exist to ensure that refugees are not excluded from healthcare, education, employment, banking, or housing while awaiting documentation?

A legal identity is more than a piece of paper.

It is often the key that unlocks every other right.

Healthcare

Healthcare must be measured not only by whether a clinic exists, but by whether a person can safely seek treatment.

We respectfully ask what measures are in place to ensure that LGBTQ refugees can access healthcare without fear of discrimination, humiliation, involuntary disclosure, or denial of services.

How are healthcare providers trained to respond to the medical and psychological needs of LGBTQ refugees who may have experienced violence or persecution?

Education and Opportunity

Education is one of the most durable forms of refugee protection.

We respectfully ask how refugees who receive legitimate educational opportunities, scholarships, or professional training abroad are supported throughout the administrative process.

What measures ensure that deserving students are able to pursue those opportunities without unnecessary delay?

Every scholarship represents more than an academic achievement.

It represents hope.

Safety Within Refugee Settlements

The promise of refugee protection cannot end at the gates of a refugee settlement.

We respectfully ask what additional measures are being implemented to protect LGBTQ refugees who face violence, intimidation, harassment, or exclusion within camps or settlements.

When a refugee reports threats because of sexual orientation or gender identity, what immediate protection mechanisms are available?

How are those reports investigated?

What independent oversight exists to ensure accountability when protection fails?

Urban Relocation and Emergency Protection

Not every refugee settlement provides the same level of safety for every refugee.

We respectfully ask how requests for relocation are evaluated when an LGBTQ refugee demonstrates credible fears for their safety.

What emergency procedures exist for individuals whose continued residence in a settlement presents an immediate risk to life or physical security?

How are community leaders and human rights defenders protected after publicly advocating for their communities?

Self-Reliance

Throughout the Nairobi dialogue, self-reliance was presented as a central objective of refugee protection.

It is an important objective.

But self-reliance cannot exist without safety.

It cannot exist without documentation.

It cannot exist without equal access to healthcare, education, employment, financial services, and legal protection.

We respectfully ask how the success of self-reliance initiatives is being measured for LGBTQ refugees.

Are they experiencing the same opportunities as other refugee populations?

If not, what steps are being taken to close those gaps?

Shared Responsibility

Finally, we respectfully ask every institution addressed in this letter to remember that refugee protection has never belonged to one government alone.

It belongs to an international community that chose, seventy-five years ago, to accept a shared responsibility toward those forced to flee persecution.

That responsibility extends beyond funding.

It extends beyond conferences.

It extends beyond declarations.

It requires the willingness to listen when those living under the protection system tell us where that system is still falling short.

Doreen Nasaala asked those questions publicly.

This open letter respectfully asks that they now receive public answers.

A Call for Leadership, Not Defensiveness

The questions raised in this open letter should not be understood as an attack upon Kenya, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Department of Refugee Services, or any of the institutions that dedicate themselves each day to the protection of refugees.

On the contrary.

They reflect confidence that these institutions are capable of listening, reflecting, and leading.

No refugee protection system is perfect.

Every nation continues to confront new challenges.

Every humanitarian organization must constantly adapt to changing realities.

The Refugee Convention itself has endured for seventy-five years not because every question was answered in 1951, but because each generation has sought to apply its principles to circumstances its original authors could not have fully anticipated.

The protection of LGBTQ refugees is one of those defining responsibilities.

The Convention's promise was never intended to be limited to those whose persecution fit neatly within the language of another era.

Its enduring strength lies in its capacity to protect people whose dignity, liberty, or lives are threatened because of who they are, what they believe, or the social group to which they belong.

That responsibility belongs to all of us.

It belongs to governments that establish and administer refugee policy.

It belongs to international organizations that provide guidance, protection, and oversight.

It belongs to humanitarian agencies delivering assistance on the ground.

It belongs to donor governments whose support sustains refugee protection systems.

It belongs to diplomatic missions, human rights organizations, civil society, and refugee-led organizations that accompany displaced people through some of the most difficult moments of their lives.

It also belongs to those of us who bear witness and refuse to allow difficult questions to disappear once a conference has ended.

Leadership is not demonstrated by insisting that every system is already without fault.

Leadership is demonstrated by recognizing where improvement is needed and having the courage to pursue it.

The seventy-fifth anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention presents such a moment.

Anniversaries should not only commemorate the achievements of the past.

They should renew our obligations to the future.

If this milestone is to carry lasting meaning, it should be remembered not only for speeches delivered in conference halls, commitments repeated in official statements, or photographs taken among institutional leaders.

It should be remembered for the measurable improvements that followed.

It should be remembered for reducing delays that leave refugees waiting in uncertainty.

It should be remembered for strengthening the fairness, confidentiality, and consistency of refugee status determination procedures.

It should be remembered for ensuring that documentation opens doors to healthcare, education, lawful movement, employment, financial services, and independent lives.

It should be remembered for protecting refugees who face violence, intimidation, exclusion, or renewed persecution because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics.

It should be remembered for ensuring that interpreters, protection officers, healthcare providers, administrators, and decision-makers receive the training necessary to treat LGBTQ refugees with dignity, professionalism, and respect.

It should be remembered for creating meaningful pathways to safety when refugee settlements themselves become places of danger.

Most importantly, it should be remembered for reaffirming a simple but profound principle.

Equal protection under international refugee law must mean equal protection for every refugee.

That is not a request for special treatment.

It is a request for the faithful fulfillment of the promise that has guided the international refugee protection system for three-quarters of a century.

Doreen Nasaala asked whether that promise truly reaches LGBTQ refugees.

Her question deserves more than silence.

It deserves thoughtful engagement.

It deserves careful examination.

It deserves transparent answers.

Most of all, it deserves leadership.

Leadership from the Department of Refugee Services in clarifying how LGBTQ asylum claims are understood and processed under Kenya's refugee framework.

Leadership from UNHCR in ensuring that international protection standards are consistently understood and applied.

Leadership from humanitarian organizations in reviewing whether their services are equally accessible to LGBTQ refugees.

Leadership from donor governments and development partners in connecting funding to measurable protection outcomes.

Leadership from refugee-led organizations and civil society in continuing to document, advocate, and bear witness.

And leadership from the international community in recognizing that the credibility of the Refugee Convention depends not only upon what institutions promise, but upon what refugees experience.

The purpose of this open letter is not to demand defensiveness.

It is to invite response.

It is to invite clarification.

It is to invite institutions to examine the space between policy and practice and to demonstrate that difficult questions will not be treated as unwelcome interruptions.

They will be recognized as essential contributions to the future of refugee protection.

If this letter contributes, even in a small way, to meaningful dialogue among governments, international organizations, humanitarian agencies, refugee-led organizations, civil society, and the communities most directly affected, then it will have served its purpose.

The Refugee Convention has never been sustained by documents alone.

It has endured because people and institutions have been willing to transform legal principles into living protection.

That work is not finished.

The responsibility now belongs to our generation.

Respectfully,
Prince DeAndre, Duke of Hanumanteshwar
Author and Human Rights Advocate
Ambassador & Consultant on Human Rights Violations, United Refugee Green Council
2015–2020

---

References

International Law
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951.
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967.

United Nations
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, High-Level Dialogue commemorating the 75th Anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Nairobi, Kenya, July 28, 2026.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, relevant international human rights standards concerning equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of refugees.

Republic of Kenya
Refugees Act, 2021, Republic of Kenya.
Department of Refugee Services, official refugee guidance and Frequently Asked Questions.

Research and Reference Materials
Publicly available research and guidance concerning refugee protection, LGBTQ refugees, refugee status determination, and access to protection in Kenya.

The author acknowledges refugee advocates, humanitarian professionals, legal scholars, and members of refugee communities whose research, public engagement, and lived experiences continue to strengthen global understanding of refugee protection and the implementation of the 1951 Refugee Convention.