Dutch Court Rejects Transgender U.S. Asylum Seeker Citing Insufficient Threat

(AMSTERDAM) A Dutch court has rejected the asylum application of transgender U.S. citizen Veronica Clifford Carlos, ruling on August 21, 2025, that she did not face a sufficiently individualized threat of persecution or serious harm in the United States 🇺🇸. The Amsterdam decision—viewed as the first of its kind involving a transgender American seeking refuge in the Netherlands—relies on the Netherlands’ designation of the U.S. as a “safe country of origin.” The ruling is expected to shape how future cases from Western democracies are assessed, particularly for LGBTQ+ applicants who argue that fast-changing policies at home place them at risk.

The court found that recent U.S. measures, while restrictive for trans people in some areas, do not create a generalized risk of persecution. Under Dutch asylum law, applicants from countries listed as safe must present clear, personal evidence that they, as individuals, face serious harm that the state cannot or will not prevent.

In the first half of 2025, 33 transgender Americans filed for asylum in the Netherlands—a small but notable uptick that advocacy groups say reflects growing fear among LGBTQ+ communities.

Ruling and legal reasoning

The court rejected the claim by Clifford Carlos, a 28-year-old visual artist from California, emphasizing that the legal test focuses on an applicant’s specific circumstances.

Clifford Carlos reported death threats and discrimination in the U.S., and argued that state-level restrictions and new federal actions made the country unsafe for trans people. Her legal team (Zuidhoek and Clifford-Arnold) cited measures enacted under President Trump since January 2025, including:

• exclusion of transgender people from military service,
• limits on gender-affirming healthcare for youth, and
• removal of inclusive language in federal documents.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) had already denied the claim based on the U.S. safe-country status, concluding that the United States remains a democracy where LGBTQ+ people, including transgender individuals, can seek protection from authorities. The court agreed that the national legal standard requires proof of targeted persecution or serious harm, not only evidence of hostile policies or social discrimination.

Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Caspar Veldkamp said in September 2024 that while there are concerns about U.S. policies affecting transgender people, these do not generally result in prosecution or serious harm across the country.

Dutch procedure and evidentiary standard

Under Dutch procedure, cases from safe countries move through:

1. an initial safety assessment, and
2. a review of personal risk.

Applicants must show they cannot obtain effective protection or relocation inside their home country. For official guidance on the asylum process, see the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND): https://ind.nl/en/are-you-coming-to-live-in-the-netherlands/asylum.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, safe-country designations typically raise the bar by requiring detailed, individualized evidence, such as:

• documented threats,
• police reports showing lack of protection, or
• other records pointing to direct danger.

Reactions and wider impact

LGBT Asylum Support, the Dutch advocacy group assisting Clifford Carlos and led by Sandro Kortekaas, called the outcome a setback. The group argues the IND’s assessment does not reflect the real conditions many trans and queer Americans face, citing reported increases in hate crimes and legal rollbacks.

Key points from advocacy groups:

• They are assisting around 20 other trans Americans with pending claims.
• They warn the decision could discourage applicants who cannot gather extensive evidence even when they feel unsafe.
• They call for a reassessment of the safe-country list in light of changing laws in parts of the U.S.

The court’s reasoning reinforces the Dutch government’s position that the United States remains a safe democracy for asylum purposes. As a result, lawyers say it will be harder for LGBTQ+ Americans to win protection without hard proof of personal targeting—examples include:

• repeated, specific threats,
• violent incidents tied to gender identity,
• hostile actions by local officials, or
• clear evidence that police cannot provide help.

A further appeal may be possible, but the August 21, 2025 ruling sets a high bar for showing individualized risk from the U.S.

Evidence typically required for trans applicants

Legal experts note that international asylum standards ask decision-makers to separate general hostility from direct persecution. For trans Americans, this often means presenting a detailed record such as:

• threatening messages or posts,
• medical notes documenting denied care,
• complaints filed with authorities,
• witness statements, and
• written explanations why relocation within the U.S. would not reduce risk.

Supporters of Clifford Carlos say the ruling overlooks how rapidly conditions can worsen for trans people—especially in some states. They emphasize that access to healthcare, IDs, housing, and school protections can change quickly, complicating internal relocation and personal safety. Nevertheless, the Dutch court concluded that these changes do not automatically prove a real risk of serious harm to every trans person from the United States 🇺🇸.

Broader legal and practical consequences

The case has drawn attention from human rights groups across Europe, who are watching whether this decision shapes future rulings for LGBTQ+ applicants from Western democracies. Views diverge:

• Some warn safe-country lists can become outdated as policies shift.
• Others say such lists remain useful but must be paired with a fair chance for applicants to show individual danger.

The Netherlands has long granted asylum to people fleeing countries with systemic anti-LGBTQ+ laws. In contrast, authorities view the United States as a democracy with legal remedies and federal and state protections—even if those protections vary by region. That view underpins the safe-country designation.

Dutch officials note applicants can still win cases if they present compelling personal evidence. But as Clifford Carlos’s loss shows, the standard is demanding.

Practical effects expected after the ruling:

• Dutch case officers are likely to cite this ruling when reviewing new claims by trans Americans.
• Applicants will face detailed questions about their home state, interactions with police, and whether family or community networks could help them live safely.
• Applicants may be asked why they cannot move within the U.S., and whether national or local organizations could support them.

Advocacy groups counter that such questions can feel unrealistic when threats come from neighbors, employers, or online mobs, or when public benefits, health coverage, and legal documents vary from state to state. They argue the burden of proof often falls on people who may already be in danger and who may struggle to collect records or find legal help.

Court timeline and follow-up

A hearing on the appeal was held in Amsterdam, with the August 21, 2025 ruling delivered the same day. While a further appeal could follow, lawyers caution that the present judgment will guide many pending cases.

Additional context:

• The Dutch government has launched programs to attract U.S. researchers and to speed up residence under the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, but those schemes do not apply to asylum seekers.
• Updates on this case continue through DutchNews.nl, NRC, and Scene Magazine.

Key takeaway: The ruling underscores that safe-country designations require applicants from those countries to meet a high, individualized evidentiary standard, making it more difficult for LGBTQ+ Americans to obtain asylum in the Netherlands without clear proof of targeted persecution.