Lawyer and “Exiles” founder Mikhail Benyash is defending a Ukrainian citizen who lived in Belarus from the age of 14. There she took an active part in the 2020 protests and worked as a photographer for a publication that Lukashenko’s regime designated “extremist.” In 2025 she began to be summoned for interrogations, so she was forced to flee the country.
On arriving in Lithuania, the young woman applied for a humanitarian residence permit. But the Migration Department abruptly refused her.
The officials explained their decision by saying that nothing threatens her life in Ukraine. The department did not even consider the risks of returning to Belarus: in their view, nothing connects her with that country anymore.
The young woman then filed a claim in court. But both the first-instance court and the highest instance sided with the migration authorities. In their view, “the applicant’s subjective conviction alone that the entire territory of Ukraine is unsafe does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to find that… conditions exist for issuing a residence permit [on humanitarian grounds].”
Now the “Exiles” lawyer is preparing a complaint to the ECtHR.
More detail: In 2014, Russia attacked Ukraine. A family in Kryvyi Rih received two call-up notices at once: both the father and the mother (who was a nurse) were called up for the army. The family decided that the father would stay to fight, while the mother and their 14-year-old daughter would go to Belarus, to the grandmother.
In 2020, mass protests began in Belarus, in which the young woman took an active part. As a photographer, she documented the crimes of Lukashenko’s regime and supplied independent media with photographs. She stayed in the country even after the Belarusian authorities designated her main media outlet “extremist.” But in 2025 she began to be summoned for interrogations, so she left for Lithuania, where her boyfriend, a Belarusian activist, was already living.
On arriving in Lithuania, the young woman applied for a humanitarian residence permit. She explained that she could not return to Ukraine because of the war, or to Belarus because of the risks of political persecution. But in April 2026 the Migration Department refused her.
In the officials’ view, the young woman came to Lithuania “because of better economic living conditions,” and nothing threatens her in Ukraine. To support their position, they cited Ukraine’s 2014 law on internally displaced persons. Under that law, “citizens of Ukraine whose permanent place of residence is in a zone of military operations or in a zone of heightened risk due to military operations have the right to be relocated within the country to safer regions of Ukraine.” The officials did not assess the risks of criminal prosecution in Belarus, since the applicant is a Ukrainian citizen.
The Migration Department also stressed that the young woman is not being expelled from the country, and is “merely” being refused a residence permit.
The young woman then turned to the court, with the help of our lawyer Mikhail Benyash.
Commenting on the reference to the Ukrainian law on internally displaced persons, she pointed to the year it was adopted: 2014. At that time, relatively safe regions still existed in Ukraine. But after the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, there are no such regions in Ukraine. And her home city, Kryvyi Rih, is regularly shelled by Russia.
The applicant also responded to the migration authorities’ conclusion about the “economic motives” for her coming to Lithuania. She stated that this conclusion is simply illogical, since a humanitarian residence permit does not provide access to social support measures.
The young woman stressed that at present she has three alternative countries in which to live legally: Ukraine, where a war is going on; Belarus, where a real threat of repression exists for her; and Lithuania, where the center of her life interests is being formed. “Without a residence permit, my stay in Lithuania is illegal. This decision does not directly send me abroad, but it makes my lawful existence anywhere impossible: I have nowhere to return to, and nowhere to stay,” she explained.
Unfortunately, the Regional Administrative Court sided with the migration authorities. In the court’s view, the applicant failed to prove that anything threatens her life in Ukraine. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the first-instance court: “The applicant’s subjective conviction alone that the entire territory of Ukraine is unsafe did not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to find that… conditions exist for issuing a residence permit.”
And once again one wants to ask the Lithuanian officials: whose side are you on, anyway? First you expelled a Russian deserter, then you handed over an antiwar activist to Russia, where he was jailed, and now you are refusing a Ukrainian woman a humanitarian residence permit on the pretext that “there are safe territories in Ukraine.”
Separately, I would like to draw attention to the quality of Lithuanian justice. The court twice left the claim, which was unwelcome to them, without action. Moreover, the applicant was denied access to the court’s electronic service, where all the documents in her case were posted. We were therefore forced to request every document in writing. Under such conditions, it is hard to speak of effective legal remedies.
Let’s see how the ECtHR looks at this case.
If you need our lawyers’ help, write to our direct messages or email.
Leave a Reply