Rainbow Migration supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) people through the asylum and immigration system. We provide practical and emotional support to improve self-esteem and confidence, reduce isolation, and help access health services and housing. We also give specialist legal information and advice to LGBTQI+ people who are seeking asylum. We carry out campaigning and policy work to improve the asylum and immigration system.
The position for LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum in the UK has improved substantially since the 98-99% rejection rate referred to in the Call for Evidence for this inquiry. However, there remains room for improvement in all areas, including asylum accommodation, immigration detention, interpreters, Home Office interviewing and decision making, and the appeals process, as outlined in this submission.
Importantly, government collection and reporting of data to monitor the impact of the asylum system on LGBTQI+ people requires significant improvement, particularly in the context of the Nationality and Borders Bill, where the government has acknowledged a risk of disproportionate impact but has said that this will be mitigated when operationalised. If such mitigation is to be successful it will require very careful monitoring, which should be transparent.
- The Home Office should improve its statistics on asylum claims based on sexual orientation so they are no longer ‘experimental’.
- The Home Office should also publish statistics on asylum claims based on gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.
- There should be a range of accommodation options available and offered to LGBTQI+ people who need asylum accommodation and location preference should be taken into account. Some LGBTQI+ people may priories being close to services (for example a legal aid lawyer with specialised knowledge of their type of asylum claim) or an LGBTQI+ community over the type of accommodation. A person’s preference for where to live should not be a relevant consideration in their asylum claim.
- The complaints process for asylum accommodation should be improved.
- Questions asking claimants how they feel about their religion and how they reconcile their sexual orientation with their religion occur too frequently. This kind of questioning presumes a conflict and also implies an expectation of a complex theological narrative.
- The Home Office routinely addresses documentary evidence as an afterthought, dismisses it without engaging with it in substance or simply labels it as ‘self-serving’ without any evidential basis for doing so. In fact, evidence such as statements from friends or partners, confirmation of participation in LGBTQI+ groups or events, and social media exchanges can have a corroborative effect in the context of the totality of evidence and should be afforded some, or even decisive, weight.
- Conversely, the Home Office also uses the absence of such evidence as damaging.
- Persecution, abuse and culturally embedded prejudice means that many LGBTQI+ people have spent much of their lives hiding their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBTQI+ people may exhibit in some form shame or secrecy about who they are, making it extremely hard for them to talk about their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). This means that a great many LGBTQI+ people who claim asylum do not do so immediately on arrival in the UK. Too often, the Home Office assesses this as damaging to their credibility, sometimes refusing asylum claims almost entirely on this basis. Similarly, the Home Office frequently ignores or disbelieves the reasons given by LGBTQI+ to explain why they did not claim asylum earlier – including when people did not know that that SOGIESC was grounds for refugee protection – disregarding the lived experience of LGBTQI+ people seeking asylum.
- The Home Office also displays unrealistic or stereotypical expectations in relation to what a credible narrative of an LGBTQI+ person should contain. However, people understand themselves in different ways and have different experiences[10].
- The Home Office should ensure the correct standard of proof of ‘reasonable likelihood’ is applied to all decisions on asylum claims.
- Decision makers should assess all items of evidence affording them appropriate weight, refrain from applying unreasonable expectations for corroboration and desist from labelling evidence as self-serving where there is no evidential basis for doing so.
- Home Office decision makers should recognise the many reasons why LGBTQI+ people frequently delay claiming asylum. Delay should not routinely operate to diminish the value of the individual’s account and their supporting evidence.
- In order to avoid stereotypes, the Home Office should recognise the diversity of LGBTQI+ lives and experiences and that SOGIESC is conceptualised or understood differently according to individual experiences and/or cultural contexts.
- The Home Office should improve its training and supervision of LGBTQI+ asylum claims.
- There have been times when interpreters have provided a poor service because of prejudice against LGBTQI+ people, for example by mistranslating, rebuking or judging people, or being dismissive of their fears such as the death penalty.
- LGBTQI+ people can feel inhibited (sometimes extremely so) to talk about their claims in front of an interpreter from the same country of origin for fear of such prejudice and/or fear being outed to others from the same community, with potential negative consequences for the decision.
- Interpreters from the same community may not always act appropriately if they see the client in other contexts, such as at community events or places of worship.
- Concepts can be hard to translate across cultures and languages, particularly where they are not usually discussed or are considered taboo.
- Home Office interpreters receive adequate training on LGBTQI+ awareness and sensitisation, so that they are familiar with the terms and issues people normally face.
- In order to help put LGBTQI+ people at ease during asylum interviews, the Home Office caseworker should say at the outset of the interview that the interpreter is not there to judge them and that they have a duty of confidentiality so cannot share anything that is said.
- Stereotyping sexual orientation based on appearance and voice
- Stereotyping sexual orientation based on sex drive
- Assumptions based on religion
- Errors in decision-making as to whether the appellant would face persecution in their home country
- Disregarding potential persecution due to appearances
- Disregarding potential persecution due to the existence of gay clubs and venues in major cities
- Generalising behaviour based on an individual’s ‘manner’
- Generalising risk of persecution based on the frequency of organised LGBTQI+ activities in a country
- Presenting Officers should receive ongoing training, including on claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
- It is made clear to Presenting Officers that they are expected to act in line with Home Office asylum policy instructions and other guidance.
- The Home Office asylum appeals team should consider conceding cases that are indefensible in court. We are aware that such a review is built into the new process in the First-Tier Tribunal, however it is often still difficult to get the Home Office to properly engage at an early stage of the appeal process, with Tribunal orders often ignored by the Respondent.
- UKVI’s adult safeguarding strategy states that being LGBTI is an indicator of vulnerability.
- On the database used by asylum caseworkers[12], there is a ‘special conditions marker’ which can be used to indicate vulnerability. One of the 29 indicators is being LGBTI.
- LGBTI people are recognised as vulnerable for the purposes of resettlement.
- The Home Office should recognise lesbian, gay and bisexual people as vulnerable in immigration detention, alongside existing identification of the vulnerability of trans and intersex people in detention. This would be in line with developments in international law finding that detention of LGBTQI+ people places them in a situation of vulnerability, and consistent with the Home Office’s existing recognition of the vulnerability of LGBTQI+ people under its safeguarding strategy, asylum casework database and resettlement programmes to immigration detention.
- As it is almost impossible for the safety of LGBTQI+ people to be assured in detention, the Home Office should end the detention of all LGBTQI+ people.
- The Home Office should collect and analyse data on the experiences of LGBTQI+ people in all their interactions with the asylum system, from the progress and outcomes of asylum claims to their experiences of accommodation and detention, and use such data to ensure there is no direct or indirect discrimination towards them.
- The review into the way asylum claims on the basis of religious and LGBTQI+ grounds are assessed is published.
November 2021
Countries highlighted in red have the death penalty for consensual same-sex acts between adults.[25]
Countries highlighted in orange have prison sentences of ten years to life for consensual same-sex acts between adults.[26]
Countries highlighted in yellow have prison sentences of up to eight years for consensual same-sex acts between adults.[27]
Initial decisions and decisions on asylum appeals where sexual orientation formed part of the basis for the claim, by nationality
| Asylum applications[28]*
*Note that these statistics are reported in a different way to those on sexual orientation, we have included decisions on asylum only in order to compare with claims based on sexual orientation. Totals are omitted as the below figures exclude countries with no reported asylum claims based on sexual orientation.
| ||||||||
Initial decisions | Initial Decisions | Grants % | Refusals % | Appeals Determined | Appeals Allowed % | Appeals Dismissed % | Initial decisions | Granted asylum % | Final outcome: Grants of asylum % |
Afghanistan | 9 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 2,022 | 19% | 47% |
Albania | 68 | 23.53% | 76.47% | 17 |
|
| 1,234 | 2% | 21% |
Algeria | 18 | 50.00% | 50.00% | 7 |
|
| 95 | 9% | 25% |
Bangladesh | 90 | 33.33% | 66.67% | 29 | 20.69% | 75.86% | 916 | 8% | 21% |
Botswana | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 10 | 0% | 30% |
Cameroon | 60 | 45.00% | 55.00% | 18 | 38.89% | 55.56% | 124 | 24% | 45% |
China | 6 |
|
| * |
|
| 394 | 4% | 10% |
Congo (Democratic Republic) | 5 |
|
| * |
|
| 189 | 25% | 47% |
Egypt | 11 | 54.55% | 45.45% | 7 |
|
| 284 | 5% | 19% |
The Gambia | 40 | 17.50% | 82.50% | 14 |
|
| 173 | 13% | 32% |
Ghana | 38 | 15.79% | 84.21% | 16 |
|
| 148 | 5% | 11% |
India | 30 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 704 | 0% | 4% |
Iran | 107 | 68.22% | 31.78% | 20 | 60.00% | 30.00% | 3,074 | 39% | 61% |
Iraq | 9 |
|
| * |
|
| 2,077 | 8% | 27% |
Jamaica | 30 | 46.67% | 53.33% | 7 |
|
| 158 | 9% | 13% |
Kenya | 13 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 71 | 10% | 23% |
Libya | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 383 | 12% | 38% |
Malawi | 13 | 38.46% | 61.54% | 5 |
|
| 65 | 11% | 17% |
Malaysia | 15 | 46.67% | 53.33% | * |
|
| 45 | 22% | 36% |
Mauritius | 8 |
|
|
|
|
| 34 | 6% | 6% |
Morocco | 19 | 42.11% | 57.89% | 6 |
|
| 55 | 13% | 24% |
Nigeria | 146 | 25.34% | 74.66% | 59 | 11.86% | 83.05% | 815 | 11% | 20% |
Pakistan | 432 | 38.89% | 61.11% | 145 | 40.69% | 55.86% | 2,040 | 16% | 33% |
Philippines | 7 |
|
| * |
|
| 40 | 3% | 13% |
Russia | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 62 | 34% | 55% |
Senegal | 10 | 50.00% | 50.00% | * |
|
| 24 | 21% | 38% |
South Africa | 10 |
|
| * |
|
| 47 | 2% | 11% |
Sri Lanka | 50 | 12.00% | 88.00% | 26 | 23.08% | 73.08% | 892 | 7% | 48% |
Sudan | 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 2,886 | 85% | 92% |
Syria | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 2,359 | 86% | 89% |
Tanzania | 6 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 32 | 9% | 9% |
Turkey | 5 |
|
| * |
|
| 218 | 10% | 44% |
Uganda | 169 | 65.09% | 34.91% | 49 | 57.14% | 40.82% | 248 | 50% | 69% |
Zimbabwe | 56 | 17.86% | 82.14% | 20 | 35.00% | 65.00% | 253 | 13% | 29% |
Other | 41 | 29.27% | 70.73% | 26 | 34.62% | 57.69% |
|
|
|
Total | 1,584 | 39.14% | 60.86% | 515 | 32.43% | 62.91% |
|
|
|
Initial decisions | Initial Decisions | Grants % | Refusals % | Appeals Determined | Appeals Allowed % | Appeals Dismissed % | Initial decisions | Granted asylum % | Final outcome: Grants of asylum % |
Afghanistan | 12 |
|
| * |
|
| 2,039 | 27% | 56% |
Albania | 49 | 22.45% | 77.55% | 37 | 43.24% | 56.76% | 1,189 | 8% | 30% |
Algeria | 15 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 122 | 6% | 16% |
Bangladesh | 209 | 18.18% | 81.82% | 103 | 37.86% | 62.14% | 1,628 | 5% | 18% |
Burma | 5 |
|
| * |
|
| 46 | 17% | 48% |
Cameroon | 48 | 35.42% | 64.58% | 26 | 30.77% | 65.38% | 148 | 18% | 47% |
Congo (Democratic Republic) | * |
|
| 7 |
|
| 177 | 23% | 48% |
Egypt | 6 |
|
| * |
|
| 308 | 7% | 26% |
Eritrea | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 1,178 | 74% | 81% |
Ethiopia | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 341 | 45% | 68% |
The Gambia | 28 |
|
| 28 | 28.57% | 67.86% | 150 | 13% | 27% |
Ghana | 57 | 10.53% | 89.47% | 33 | 24.24% | 72.73% | 238 | 3% | 8% |
India | 49 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 1,024 | 0% | 3% |
Iran | 124 | 52.42% | 47.58% | 39 | 51.28% | 46.15% | 3,833 | 38% | 65% |
Iraq | 30 | 30.00% | 70.00% | 6 |
|
| 2,351 | 9% | 31% |
Jamaica | 30 | 40.00% | 60.00% | 8 |
|
| 217 | 8% | 10% |
Kenya | 18 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 76 | 9% | 25% |
Malawi | 17 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 61 | 7% | 20% |
Malaysia | 22 | 50.00% | 50.00% | 8 |
|
| 60 | 25% | 40% |
Morocco | 10 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 72 | 10% | 26% |
Nigeria | 186 | 15.59% | 84.41% | 103 | 24.27% | 70.87% | 992 | 10% | 19% |
Pakistan | 528 | 24.43% | 75.57% | 283 | 40.64% | 57.24% | 2,341 | 14% | 29% |
Philippines | 8 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 58 | 2% | 12% |
Senegal | 8 |
|
| * |
|
| 31 | 10% | 32% |
Sierra Leone | 7 |
|
| * |
|
| 43 | 16% | 23% |
South Africa | 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 37 | 0% | 11% |
Sri Lanka | 38 |
|
| 33 | 36.36% | 63.64% | 727 | 6% | 46% |
Tanzania | 12 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 36 | 11% | 25% |
Trinidad and Tobago | 8 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 27 | 22% | 30% |
Uganda | 180 | 53.33% | 46.67% | 58 | 53.45% | 43.10% | 181 | 48% | 65% |
Zimbabwe | 37 | 13.51% | 86.49% | 31 | 38.71% | 61.29% | 258 | 8% | 30% |
Other | 36 | 38.89% | 61.11% | 29 | 37.93% | 58.62% |
|
|
|
Total | 1,845 | 26.94% | 73.06% | 916 | 37.23% | 60.37% |
|
|
|
Initial decisions | Initial Decisions | Grants % | Refusals % | Appeals Determined | Appeals Allowed % | Appeals Dismissed % | Initial decisions | Granted asylum % | Final outcome: Grants of asylum % |
Afghanistan | 13 |
|
| 12 | 41.67% | 58.33% | 994 | 29% | 53% |
Albania | 54 |
|
| 44 | 15.91% | 70.45% | 969 | 17% | 32% |
Algeria | 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 108 | 4% | 18% |
Armenia | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 22 | 14% | 36% |
Bangladesh | 269 | 8.55% | 91.45% | 216 | 30.56% | 66.20% | 1,393 | 4% | 20% |
Botswana | * |
|
|
|
|
| 12 | 17% | 25% |
Brazil | * |
|
|
|
|
| 15 | 13% | 20% |
Burma | * |
|
| * |
|
| 29 | 28% | 48% |
Cameroon | 75 | 28.00% | 72.00% | 50 | 36.00% | 60.00% | 197 | 25% | 51% |
China | 6 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 307 | 2% | 13% |
Congo (Democratic Republic) | * |
|
| * |
|
| 15 | 7% | 40% |
Dominica | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 165 | 23% | 49% |
Egypt | 16 | 43.75% | 56.25% | 6 |
|
| 7 | 43% | 43% |
El Salvador | * |
|
|
|
|
| 269 | 9% | 34% |
Eritrea | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 36 | 33% | 42% |
Ethiopia | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 1,027 | 72% | 78% |
The Gambia | 15 |
|
| 28 | 42.86% | 57.14% | 430 | 28% | 51% |
Georgia | * |
|
|
|
|
| 62 | 18% | 31% |
Ghana | 59 | 11.86% | 88.14% | 54 | 11.11% | 87.04% | 32 | 13% | 22% |
Grenada | * |
|
|
|
|
| 194 | 8% | 11% |
India | 47 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 10 | 20% | 20% |
Iran | 78 | 56.41% | 43.59% | 53 | 41.51% | 54.72% | 850 | 0% | 3% |
Iraq | 41 | 19.51% | 80.49% | 29 | 37.93% | 55.17% | 2,411 | 41% | 66% |
Jamaica | 27 | 25.93% | 74.07% | 12 |
|
| 2,136 | 12% | 32% |
Kenya | 21 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 161 | 7% | 11% |
Lebanon | * |
|
|
|
|
| 67 | 10% | 34% |
Libya | * |
|
|
|
|
| 50 | 18% | 32% |
Malawi | 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 370 | 21% | 24% |
Malaysia | 24 | 41.67% | 58.33% | 10 |
|
| 52 | 6% | 12% |
Mauritius | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 88 | 36% | 51% |
Mongolia | * |
|
|
|
|
| 35 | 0% | 6% |
Morocco | 15 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 | 29% | 29% |
Namibia | 7 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 73 | 16% | 32% |
Nigeria | 192 | 21.35% | 78.65% | 140 | 26.43% | 72.86% | 65 | 8% | 17% |
Pakistan | 562 | 19.57% | 80.43% | 505 | 37.23% | 61.78% | 861 | 11% | 20% |
Philippines | 8 |
|
| * |
|
| 1,967 | 15% | 31% |
Russia | 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 65 | 3% | 6% |
Rwanda | 7 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 95 | 44% | 72% |
Saudi Arabia | 14 |
|
|
|
|
| 19 | 11% | 53% |
Senegal | 7 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 26 | 65% | 69% |
Sierra Leone | * |
|
| 5 |
|
| 15 | 13% | 40% |
Somalia | * |
|
|
|
|
| 38 | 24% | 42% |
South Africa | 7 |
|
| * |
|
| 258 | 44% | 58% |
Sri Lanka | 19 |
|
| 31 | 38.71% | 61.29% | 59 | 2% | 3% |
Sudan | * |
|
|
|
|
| 569 | 8% | 49% |
Syria | 8 |
|
|
|
|
| 1,621 | 47% | 65% |
Tanzania | 11 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 545 | 84% | 87% |
Thailand | * |
|
| * |
|
| 36 | 14% | 22% |
Trinidad and Tobago | 13 | 61.54% | 38.46% | 6 |
|
| 15 | 0% | 20% |
Tunisia | * |
|
|
|
|
| 32 | 34% | 44% |
Turkey | * |
|
| * |
|
| 29 | 10% | 28% |
Uganda | 80 | 61.25% | 38.75% | 69 | 36.23% | 59.42% | 332 | 27% | 55% |
Vietnam | 9 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 110 | 53% | 63% |
Yemen | * |
|
|
|
|
| 724 | 33% | 54% |
Zimbabwe | 35 |
|
| 42 | 38.10% | 59.52% | 116 | 34% | 46% |
Other | 50 | 28.00% | 72.00% | 55 | 38.18% | 52.73% | 206 | 6% | 24% |
Total | 1,887 | 22.42% | 77.58% | 1,477 | 32.97% | 64.39% |
|
|
|
Initial decisions | Initial Decisions | Grants % | Refusals % | Appeals Determined | Appeals Allowed % | Appeals Dismissed % | Initial decisions | Granted asylum % | Final outcome: Grants of asylum % |
Afghanistan | 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 1,035 | 46% | 63% |
Albania | 46 | 10.87% | 89.13% | 32 | 31.25% | 68.75% | 708 | 16% | 21% |
Algeria | 12 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 118 | 7% | 15% |
Armenia | * |
|
|
|
|
| 3 | 33% | 33% |
Bangladesh | 255 | 12.55% | 87.45% | 220 | 34.55% | 62.73% | 830 | 10% | 23% |
Brazil | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 26 | 15% | 19% |
Burma | 7 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 11 | 36% | 55% |
Cameroon | 78 | 34.62% | 65.38% | 57 | 57.89% | 42.11% | 158 | 40% | 62% |
China | 6 |
|
| * |
|
| 358 | 9% | 16% |
Congo (Democratic Republic) | 9 |
|
| * |
|
| 13 | 31% | 31% |
Egypt | 8 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 182 | 18% | 40% |
Ethiopia | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 414 | 27% | 48% |
The Gambia | 16 |
|
| 12 | 41.67% | 58.33% | 46 | 26% | 39% |
Ghana | 46 | 10.87% | 89.13% | 30 |
|
| 136 | 7% | 15% |
Grenada | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 14% | 29% |
India | 19 |
|
| * |
|
| 624 | 0% | 2% |
Iran | 64 | 51.56% | 48.44% | 37 | 43.24% | 45.95% | 3,027 | 64% | 80% |
Iraq | 54 | 16.67% | 83.33% | 39 | 46.15% | 51.28% | 2,282 | 17% | 35% |
Jamaica | 20 | 55.00% | 45.00% | 7 |
|
| 77 | 10% | 14% |
Kenya | 25 |
|
| 22 | 40.91% | 59.09% | 92 | 14% | 30% |
Lebanon | 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 18 | 17% | 28% |
Malawi | 12 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 28 | 11% | 32% |
Malaysia | 103 | 52.43% | 47.57% | 33 | 42.42% | 51.52% | 166 | 49% | 56% |
Morocco | 17 | 52.94% | 47.06% | 12 | 41.67% | 50.00% | 60 | 22% | 25% |
Namibia | 41 | 12.20% | 87.80% | 23 |
|
| 137 | 9% | 27% |
Nigeria | 109 | 25.69% | 74.31% | 96 | 28.13% | 67.71% | 609 | 14% | 22% |
Pakistan | 444 | 22.07% | 77.93% | 364 | 42.58% | 56.32% | 1,245 | 25% | 37% |
Philippines | 7 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 50 | 0% | 2% |
Russia | 12 | 41.67% | 58.33% |
|
|
| 113 | 62% | 80% |
Saudi Arabia | 11 |
|
|
|
|
| 57 | 72% | 74% |
Senegal | 8 |
|
| * |
|
| 10 | 20% | 40% |
Sierra Leone | 6 |
|
| * |
|
| 45 | 33% | 44% |
Sri Lanka | 13 |
|
| 16 | 31.25% | 68.75% | 305 | 13% | 41% |
Sudan | 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 1,478 | 71% | 75% |
Tanzania | 17 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 43 | 14% | 23% |
Thailand | 6 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 17 | 6% | 6% |
Trinidad and Tobago | 8 |
|
| * |
|
| 27 | 41% | 56% |
Tunisia | 8 |
|
|
|
|
| 28 | 7% | 14% |
Turkey | * |
|
| 5 |
|
| 399 | 57% | 74% |
Uganda | 88 | 65.91% | 34.09% | 34 | 44.12% | 50.00% | 117 | 62% | 73% |
Zimbabwe | 26 | 23.08% | 76.92% | 27 | 29.63% | 55.56% | 91 | 16% | 37% |
Other | 54 | 38.89% | 61.11% | 68 | 42.65% | 48.53% |
|
|
|
Total | 1,745 | 28.71% | 71.29% | 1,229 | 38.49% | 58.42% |
|
|
|
Initial decisions | Initial Decisions 2019 | Grants 2019 % | Refusals 2019 % | Appeals Determined 2019 | Appeals Allowed 2019 % | Appeals Dismissed 2019 % | Initial decisions | Granted asylum % | Final outcome: Grants of asylum % |
Afghanistan | 8 |
|
| * |
|
| 737 | 56% | 62% |
Albania | 35 | 28.57% |