Freedom House Migration U kraine’s visa-free entry regime and international reputation for democratic reform makes it an attractive destination for people seeking to escape political repression. However, while it is relatively easy to enter the country, one must overcome a burdensome and lengthy process to establish residency or apply for asylum in order to remain in Ukraine legally. The migration process lacks key protections and is riddled with inaccurate or biased information on countries of origin. A complicated and bureaucratic asylum system Ukraine offers two forms of protection for those seeking asylum: refugee status and complimentary protection. The formal procedure for applying for protection is relatively simple, but the process can be difficult in other ways. Asylum seekers receive no social services or housing and do not have the right to formal employment. In addition, both pathways to legal protection require that applicants surrender their passports, even though the presentation of a passport is often required to secure accommodation and other services in Ukraine. People find the prospect of their passports being confiscated “scary,” 16 and the lack of a passport poses very serious problems for those hoping to stay in Ukraine or travel outside of it. The temporary identification document that asylum seekers receive cannot be used in place of a passport, which leaves individuals especially vulnerable in emergency situations, such as the sudden onset of armed conflict. In the aftermath of the Russian regime’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, there were numerous media reports about the difficulties that asylum seekers in Ukraine faced when trying to cross the border into neighboring countries alongside many displaced Ukrainian civilians.17 Some asylum seekers and refugees were separated from Ukrainians, detained in special lines, and subjected to extra scrutiny by border officials. Only a small number of people receive refugee status in Ukraine; roughly 100 applications for protection per year are approved.18 The State Migration Service is not obliged to provide an explanation for refusing an application for asylum. However, some recent cases demonstrate that these refusals can be based on a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of conditions in the applicant’s origin country. For example, the asylum application of Zhanara Akhmetova, an activist and journalist from Kazakhstan, was rejected repeatedly over the course of three years. Akhmetova had fled her home country after prosecutors threatened to force her to serve a previously deferred prison sentence based on a dubious fraud conviction. In defending its decision to deny asylum, the State Migration Service argued in court that Akhmetova was trying to “avoid criminal liability” for “nonpolitical fraud charges.” 19 Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report rates Kazakhstan as Not Free and notes that “authorities have consistently marginalized or imprisoned genuine opposition figures.” 20 A letter to Ukrainian officials from the UN special rapporteur for torture and the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders specifically stated that Akhmetova would face “trumped-up charges of fraud, which seem to be a direct result of her work defending human rights,” as well as the risk of “torture and/or other forms of ill-treatment.” 21 In a similarly flawed decision, the State Migration Service argued that an employee of leading Russian opposition activist Aleksey Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) did not have a legitimate claim to asylum in Ukraine because the criminal accusation he was facing in Russia was of a personal nature. He had been accused of insulting and misleading individuals as part of his work on the anticorruption documentary Он вам не Димон (Don’t Call Him Dimon).22 Ukrainian authorities went so far as to claim that what happened to the leadership of FBK, specifically the fact that Navalny was imprisoned, did not negatively reflect on the rankand-file employees of the organization. Despite recognizing Russia as an “aggressor” state, Ukrainian migration authorities have treated asylum seekers from Russia in ways that seem to dismiss their concerns about political persecution. In 2015, Pyotr Lyubchenkov fled to Ukraine from Russia after opposing the regime’s seizure of Crimea and was labeled a “terrorist.” In trying to deny his asylum request, a representative of the State Migration Service argued in court that the practices of torture and inhumane treatment were not formally enshrined in Russian law.23 Russia is rated as Not Free in Freedom in the World, and multiple instances of torture at the hands of police, prison staff, and regional officials have been documented in the country.24 Lawyers who work with asylum seekers and were interviewed for this report noted that employees of the State Migration Service routinely use freedomhouse.org 5