Source: http://www.saechsischer-fluechtlingsrat.de/en/legal-tipps-at-which-point-deportations-are-enforced-and-which-steps-might-prevent-them/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:16:05+00:00

Document:
Legal Tipps – At which point deportations are enforced and which steps might prevent them?
In Germany, the federal states are responsible for enforcing deportations. Together with the state head office (Landesdirektion) the foreigners’ departments organize deportations under the supervision of the ministries of the interior. Though until the deportation is actually enforced, the agencies and offices have got to go a long way.
By requesting asylum, refugees receive a temporary permit to stay. The asylum procedure should be used already to make a possible future deportation less likely. Core of the procedure is the interview. Here refugees are supposed to bring up all their reasons of escape. It is highly recommended to get in touch with a local and independent counseling center that offers legal advice. The counseling centers prepare for frequent questions, the story of escape can be told, telling the story can be practiced. This is of particular relevance since the BAMF reasons its decisions by evaluating the “credibility” of the interviewee (and contradicts that reasoning by letting two different officials interview and decide rather than one person doing both). In December 2016, the first collective deportation to Afghanistan after 12 years took place. In this context, PRO ASYL pointed out important hints for the interview, link here. We highlight the right to bring an assisting person to the interview. The assisting person has got the right to intervene in case the interviewer would not dissolve contradictions or inconsistencies. Also, the assisting person has got the right to ask the interviewer to raise additional questions. In every case the protocol should be translated to the interviewee after the interview. If the interviewer tries to ignore that, insist on your right! An eye should be kept on the translator, too. They often lack professionalism. PRO ASYL comprehensively informs about the interviewing and deciding practice as well as about the quality of the official decision documents (“Bescheide”). Currently, the agency is confronted with critique in all aspects of its work. PRO ASYL and other organizations published a joint memorandum that points out fundamental deficits in the agency’s job and bases its critique on a number of documented individual cases.
Also people from countries labeled as “safe” respectively from countries with a low percentage of recognition should prepare intensively for the interview. The interview protocol could play an important role in a possible, concluding process at administration court.
A multilingual online leaflet published by asyl.net informs comprehensively on the issue of the interview. Also to be recommended is the multilingual movie on the same issue, published by Cologne Refugee Council and other initiatives from Cologne.
The counseling centers of Saxon Refugee Council are located in Dresden and Chemnitz.
The yellow envelope is very important, the date of arrival is noted here. Among others, the deadline for filing a lawsuit against the Bescheid results out of that date. So, keep the envelope! In case you received a simple or obviously unfounded rejection, immediately contact a counseling center so the lawsuit may be filed before the deadline. The counseling centers know lawyers and mediate.
Get independent legal advice. It is important to make use of all of your legal rights.
Be attentive towards letters from agencies and/ or lawyers. In case that you do not understand what is written there, contact a counseling center.
For supporters: speak about options to act and their consequences. Make sure that everyone affected knows the situation in all its aspects. If questions remain unanswered, especially when it comes to legal matters, contact a counseling center.
Decisions of agencies might be wrong. Always question them. Because of that: do not sign anything without having heard an experienced opinion. Be particularly aware of BAMF-Bescheide. Their quality has been decreasing. Often, the reasoning of the Bescheid is not connected to the interview protocol for instance.
For supporters: be sensitive when it comes to private information and the legal situation of refugees, means, not to tell anything aside the supporters’ circle.
The time limit for filing legal remedies starts as soon as the ‘Bescheid’ of Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge was sent (date was noted on the yellow envelope. Keep it in every case!). In the case of usual rejection or partial rejection (i.e. subsidiary protection was granted only for example), the time limit is two weeks. In case of an obviously unfounded rejection, you’ve got only one week. The time limit as well as the responsible administration court are noted on the information sheet on remedies.
The remedy itself may be issued by the next asylum legal center. Alternatively, the responsible administration court offers a service center where one might file lawsuits.
Additionally, the reasoning for the lawsuit needs to be handed in. Asylum legal centers usually do not draft those documents. A lawyer is required here, legal advice centers support and connect and answer questions on the money issue.
When it comes to Dublin-cases (the BAMF-Bescheid indicates an inadmissible rejection), a legal center should be contacted in order to evaluate the chances for success of a lawsuit.
1. How long has the person been in Germany?
2. Does the person have any professional or educational qualifications?
3. Are there obstacles for deportation?
Also, there should not be any hints that he*she does not recognize the constitutional order of Germany based on freedom and democracy.
Conditions here include a constant stay of eight years in Germany, in case a minor child lives in the household, six years suffice.
This time, the person needs to recognize the constitutional order of Germany based on freedom and democracy (different to §25a!) and needs to have basic knowledge about law, society and life in Germany.
In case deportation has been suspended for 18 months, a stay permit needs to be issued. For this, the Foreigners’ Department should not recognize any guilt in the emigration that has not taken place. The Foreigners’ Department sees guilt as given in case false declarations or deceptions about identity or citizenship have been made. It will also not issue the permit in case obstacles for emigration were not removed although it would have been reasonable.
one has graduated from vocational training and has been working in his*her profession for three uninterrupted years. The whole of the household’s living expenses have not been covered by public budget for the last year.
Furthermore, sufficient living space is required, German language skills should be on B1/level, no deception of the Foreigners’ Department about aspects relevant to residence law should have taken place, there should be no contact nor support to extremist and terrorist groups and there should be no verdict on intentional crimes. Exceptions are fees due to crimes that can be committed only by people without German citizenship in the framework of residence and asylum law. The exception is valid for daily rates up to 50 or up to 90.
a written agreement with the Foreigners’ Department should be reached.
Before that they need to request a cut of their ten month re-entry restriction to the day of their re-entry.
Good preparation is needed here, definitely a counseling center needs to be contacted!
The so called “Ausbildungsduldung” was issued with the “integration law” of July 2016. First and foremost it needs to be said that the law defines no margin of discretion for the Foreigners’ Office. The department must issue the letter of tolerance (see below why this is often not the case in reality).
The most important condition is the start of a qualified vocational training in the past or future. Although the Foreigners’ Department actually has no margin of discretion, some departments reject the request for such a letter of tolerance. In every case the department needs to justify that decision. If arguing is not possible, one might require the reasoning in written form. A lawsuit may be filed too. Contact counseling centers and lawyers if that is the case.
Another condition is that concrete measures to end the stay in Germany are not in planning. This is where a loophole opens up for the state government. There is no definition of what “concrete” actually means. The Bavarian government includes simple invitations for appointments into the definition. There are verdicts of different administration courts that do not share that view. They are collected by PRO ASYL here. The states of Rhineland-Pfalz and Lower Saxony obliged their Foreigners’ Departments to apply the rule in the interest of the law and the people affected. TWhy the issuing of “Ausbildungsduldung” often fails in practice was shown in a position paper, published by us and other state refugee councils. To be found here.
After vocational training has come to an end, the letter of tolerance shall be extended for another six months so one is able to look for a job. If the job search turns out to be successful, a residence permit according to §18a Residence Law (see above) needs to be issued for a period of two years.
Work does not protect from deportation. Theoretically, deportation still might be enforced. By having a job, one might argue with an even more profound integration when it comes to requesting residence permits. It also could play a potential role in Hardship Commission.
First and foremost: a letter of tolerance is neither a residence nor a settling permit. Only because of actual or legal obstacles for deportation, such a letter is issued (§60a Abs. 2 Satz 2).
A letter of tolerance always has temporary character and does not protect from deportation. Usually, it is issued for a period of three or six months.
It is differentiated between actual and legal obstacles for deportation. Firstly, obstacles concerning the situation in Germany are listed.
The reasons that had been checked in the asylum procedure and could have lead to the prohibition of deportation. (→ obstacles of deportation concerning the situation in the country of destination, see text on §60 Abs. 7 below).
Furthermore, the protection of marriage and family as well as the right on physical physical integrity, granted by the constitution.
Differentiating between legal and actual obstacles of deportations is difficult when it comes to obstacles concerning the situation in the country of destination. A look on §60 Abs. 7 Residence Law helps. These reasons have been checked in the asylum procedure already on the possibility of issuing a prohibition of deportation. Again, it is recommended to contact a counseling service and a lawyer.
Sentence 1 prohibits deportation in case of a substantial, concrete threat to body, life or freedom in the country of destination. Theoretically, it is still possible to suspend deportation in case that the health situation would decrease in the country of destination due to non-sufficient health care (§60 Abs. 7 Satz 2). This section is part of the laws that were made ever stricter ever since 2015. See the advice for medical certificates below.
Swiss Refugee Support regularly publishs very helpful papers on different treating options to different illnesses in the different countries of origin. References to reports from other NGOs are to be found there, too. With reports like these, one might argue in the interest of the individual case. Available here.
We have noticed that local Foreigners‘ Departments do not even issue the Duldung anymore. Only, the law unambiguously states that the Duldung is to be issued. Neither alternative documents such as “Grenzübertrittsbescheinigung” or “Aufenthalt ohne Dokumente” suffice the requirements of identity proof nor do they have any legal basis in residence law. State government argues that there are reasons for a Duldung. We doubt that. If a deportation cannot be enforced – also if no obstacles for deportation are existent but rather the Foreigners’ Deprtartment is simply not able to do so – a Duldung needs to be issued. Even though the Duldung is problematic itself it is much more difficult to find an apartment or a job or even to open a bank account. It is questionable if a residence permit according to §§25 a and b Residence Law can be applied if the period of Duldung was interrupted. You may also check the minor request on „Grenzübertrittsbescheinigungen“ below.
A letter of Tolerance due to margin of discretion might be issued if urgent humanitarian or personal reasons or substantial public interests require the person affected to stay. Aside from the “Ausbildungsduldung”, other reasons might include surgery that cannot be conducted in the country of origin, an upcoming graduation from school or vocational training or taking care of a sick family member. There is always a chance to argue with the Foreigners’ Department on other reasons to be thought of.
Issuing a letter of tolerance due to margin of discretion is in the public interest whenever the person affected needs to witness at court or whenever it is part of a police investigation. Neither integration efforts nor pending petitions are considered.
Checking the conditions for residence permits and letters of tolerance is a complex matter. It is highly recommended to contact a counseling center and a lawyer. Similarly, the foreigners’ departments are not obliged to inform people affected whenever requirements for a residence permit or a letter of tolerance are met. That means that people could get deported who actually met the requirements of §25b, concerning long-term integration. Saxon Refugee Council demands such an obligation to inform.
Under some conditions, a subsequent request for asylum is worth to consider. Only, new reasons should have emerged that haven’t been evaluated by the BAMF until now. A changed situation in the country of origin could be a new reason. Health or psychological issues could at least provide the basis for the status of protection of deportation. A subsequent request for asylum does not protect you from deportation though! Different from the first request, you will not receive a temporary permit to stay for the period of the asylum procedure. This only happens if the BAMF decides to evaluate the request in depth and does not reject due to formal reasons. This is why the subsequent request should be accompanied by an emergency appeal, aiming to postpone deportation. This is very important! The Supreme Court rejected to let one man be deported to Afghanistan because his emergency appeal was still not decided upon. Contact a counseling center and a lawyer for both subsequent asylum request and emergency appeal.
Only the members of Hard Ship Commission are entitled to hand in requests. It is important that there are no pending legal remedies and/ or requests for a residence permit. Generally speaking, all options of a safe residence should have been tried or should be considered as not feasible. Hard Ship Commission will not decide on reasons that have been checked by an agency, department or court. Proven integration progress is of first priority. Language skills, economic status as well as social and cultural integration are taken into account.
In the case of acute catastrophes in the country of destination, the ministry of the interior may declare the stop of all deportations for the maximum period of three months. A letter of tolerance is issued on the legal basis of §60a Abs. 1 Residence Law. There is no legal claim existent. Public pressure may be helpful, Saxon Refugee Council supports initiatives and networks in Saxony. Write to pr@sfrev.de or call public relations directly: 0351/ 33 22 52 35.
In the paragraph, a reference to §23 Residence Law can be found. Here, the highest state agency may order that people of specific citizenship or specific group membership receive residency. Reception results out of humanitarian reasons or reasons concerning international law or whenever the political interests of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be preserved.
Saxon Refugee Council demands such a residency from Saxon state government in the case of the Rom*nja, mostly escaped from the Western Balkans. The situation of Rom*nja in the Western Balkans is characterized by persecution and discrimination. Their political and social exclusion results in a high degree of poverty with consequences for health and life expectancy. Humanitarian reasons and reasons concerning international law are given. The political interest results out of the historical responsibility of the Federal Republic, legal successor of the German Reich, for the in Porajmos committed crimes. Official mourning in memory of the genocide among Sint*ezze and Rom*nja takes place today, a memorial has been erected in Berlin. Only, remembrance does not come along with concrete improvement of the life situation of the European Rom*nja. This is the failure of the European community in general and of the Federal Republic in particular. After 72 years having passed ever since the end of World War Two and the liberation of the concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau this comes close to mockery. The ministries of the interior would not have to do a lot in order to apply §23 Residence Law.
“Protection of physical integrity needs to be preserved already because of constitutional reasons. The legislator is thereby prohibited to issue opposing rules of procedure. Hence, protection cannot depend on a specific medical certificate not brought up. A lack of such a certificate does not make life threatening deportations constitutional. Also here, the inquisitorial system [i.e. the need to state the reasons on which a decision is based and to investigate the background of the circumstances concerning that decision] remains.
Basic human rights like the right to physical physical integrity are absolute and not to be subjected to political objectives such as high deportation numbers. This unconstitutional ruling makes a judicial review of the ever stricter asylum legislation ever since 2015 even more necessary.
Psycho-therapeutic certificates do not play any role since the paragraph makes the restriction “medical (ärztliche) certificate”. §1 Abs. 3 of the Law on psychotherapists leaves no doubt about the qualification of certified psychotherapists according to the German Lawyers’ Association.
If a psychotherapeutic certificate is existent, it should nevertheless be handed in. Administrative courts strengthened psychotherapeutic certificates in the past. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia argued that psychotherapists indeed “are able to diagnose psychological sicknesses, even Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder due to their professional qualification.” (cf. OVG NRW, Judgement from December 19th 2008, 1Az. 8 A 3053/08.A). Again one can say: look for a counselling center. Other courts may decide differently.
the degree of severity of the sickness and the consequences that result after medical treatment out of the situation.
Aside from those outspokenly high requirements, the certificate needs to be sent “immediately” to the Foreigners’ Department. The Lower Saxon Refugee Council writes, immediately could be understood as time period of two weeks. If the Foreigners’ department does not receive the certificate within that period, the department is not allowed anymore to consider it. If there are other actual indications of a life threatening or otherwise severe sickness, exceptions from this rule could be made. Also if it is reasoned that there is no own fault for sending the certificate too late, an exception applies. The certificate will not be considered if the obligation to be medically examined by a state doctor is not met. The person affected needs to be informed about those obligations and the consequences if he*she does not meet them.
The requirements for medical certificates were compiled by Henning J. Bahr, a lawyer from Munich, once again, published by AnwälteHaus. To be found here.
As it was outlined before, obstacles for deportation concerning the country of destination may be recognized due to health reasons even though the legislator made the complying paragraph (§60 Abs. 7 Satz 2 Residence Law) much stricter. The sicknesses need to be life threatening or severe in order for an obstacle for deportation to be recognized. Additionally, this happens only then, if the health situation can be expected to decrease in the country of destination due to the country’s health care system. The legislator generally decides that health care in the country of destination does not have to suffice health care in the Federal Republic. Also, it is enough already if medical treatment is available in one part of the country of destination only. German Lawyers’ Association claims that those rules are not constitutional, referring to Article 2 of the constitution, dealing with physical physical integrity. The association elaborates that point in a statement.
Even though these restrictions exist: the right to physical integrity is absolute. It should not be undermined by an inhumane paragraph. Saxon Refugee Council wants to expose the problems the paragraph causes. For this, comprehensive documentation is required in order to be able to argue in public. With a critical mass of individual cases, public pressure can be created constantly. We are dependent on your help here. Once again the contact details to public relations: pr@sfrev.de // 0351 / 33 22 52 35. Since sensible data is concerned, encrypted communication should be used after first contact.
First and foremost, church asylum makes sense when it comes to Dublin cases. Due to a time limit of six month within deportation to another EU-member-state needs to be enforced, Germany is responsible for processing the asylum procedure after those six months. When in church asylum one can hold out for the time limit to end, even though the freedom to move might be restricted severely.
It is important to differentiate between Dublin-cases and those cases who fall under the safe-third-country regulation. Dublin cases are relevant whenever an applicant for protection requests asylum but BAMF rejects it as inadmissible since another EU-member-state is responsible for processing the asylum procedure.
Whenever an asylum procedure is going on in another Dublin state.
Whenever the request for asylum has been rejected in another Dublin state.
Whenever another Dublin state granted a national protection status and the request for asylum was rejected.
Whenever no asylum procedure was started in any Dublin state but the person affected traveled through another Dublin state.
The safe-third-country regulation applies to people who have received the refugee status according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees or who have received subsidiarity protection. Church asylum is not of use here.
Advice to church asylum is offered among others by the Delegate on Foreigners’ Issues of the Protestant Church of Saxony, Albrecht Engelmann. Contact here.
Church asylum might become obsolete due to the planned reform of the Dublin-regulation, known as Dublin IV. Exactly those six-month time-limits are targeted. A switch of responsibilities between the member states is thereby excluded. Thereby, the phenomena of refugees in orbit would be accepted. Refugees could be deported to countries like Bulgaria, Hungary or Italy even after years – all of them countries who are overburdened already and/ or actively commit human rights violations. By diffusing responsibilities for people seeking shelter among the member states, people will only have access to the asylum procedures of those states where they do not have a humane chance of survival. PO ASYL comprehensively informs here to Dublin IV and its critique.
Refugees confronted with deportation are still free human beings. Even if the police appears to be too powerful, they do not have to remain silent, can still make decisions and still can move. For this, they need support.
Wishes and planes of the people affected should be taken seriously. Also, limits to action should be determined and accepted. Deportations often have a traumatizing effect, especially for kids. Actions by supporters should always be agreed upon with the people affected.
Take a public stand against deportation. Raise awareness among friends and acquaintances or in public by giving addresses, readers’ letters, participation at demonstrations. The public relations office of Saxon Refugee Council supports initiatives like these. Our concern is to document deportations comprehensively to expose the problems that come with the enforcement measure of the state. More information to public relations in this field here.
The telephone number of our asylum counseling center on Dammweg 4 in Dresden: 0351/ 33 22 12 73. Of the center on Henriettenstraße 5 in Chemnitz: 0371/ 90 31 33. Our employees gladly provide further information and arrange an appointment if necessary.
In December 2016, the first collective deportation to Afghanistan after 12 years took place. In this context, PRO ASYL pointed out important hints for the interview, link here. Against the background of ever continuing deportations to Afghanistan, Bavarian Refugee Council compiled tipps in Dari and Paschtu. Further hints in English, Farsi and German on our website.
In Bavaria, a couple of cases were reported where police officers and officials from Foreigners’ departments appeared in schools. Students were supposed to be dragged out of their lessons in order to deport them. Out of that reason, the Union for Education and Science together with Hubert Heinold, a lawyer from Munich, compiled a guideline for teachers so they can refuse to participate in a legally watertight way. The guideline can be found here.
The “Guideline for Refugees” of the Refugee Council of Lower Saxony gives a detailed and comprehensive overview on the here presented permits to stay and possibilities to receive a letter of tolerance. More information concerning refugees are provided, the asylum procedure for example is explained in depth. Most of the information presented here base on those guidelines. Here the link.

References: §25
 §18
 §60
 §60
 §25
 §60
 §23
 §23
 §1