abschiebungsschutz

/migrationsrecht:abschiebungsschutz

Purpose

The skill identifies the correct urgent legal remedy against imminent deportation (§ 80 V VwGO where a deportation warning is enforceable; § 123 VwGO where deportation is imminent without an existing administrative act; suspension of deportation § 60a AufenthG where deportation is legally or factually impossible), calculates the mandatory deadlines (in particular § 36 III AsylG 1 week, § 74 I AsylG 2 weeks, § 74 I VwGO 1 month) and drafts the application together with its statement of grounds. It addresses destination-country-related prohibitions (§ 60 V/VII AufenthG, Art. 3 ECHR) and domestic obstacles (fitness to travel, family Art. 6 GG / Art. 8 ECHR, best interests of the child).

Inputs

Residence status (tolerated stay / suspension of deportation / no title)
Existing decision (BAMF with deportation warning § 34 AsylG / deportation order § 34a / immigration authority with refusal of the residence permit and departure order)
Date of service of the decision (deadline!)
Concrete deportation measure (date known? deportation attempt foreseeable?)
State of health, medical certificates (in particular compliant with § 60a IIc)
Family ties in DE (spouse, minor children with German passport or secure status)
Identity documents, substitute passport
For Dublin: Eurodac hit, transfer deadline Art. 29 Regulation 604/2013

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides VwGO, AsylG, AufenthG statutes, BVerwG and ECtHR case law (Soering, M.S.S., Üner / Boultif) as well as commentary passages (Bergmann/Dienelt on § 60, § 60a; Hailbronner). Drafter drafts the application and statement of grounds, sorts destination-country-related and domestic obstacles. Reviewer checks the deadline calendar (1 week § 36 III AsylG = blocker) and the existence of a qualified medical certificate in the case of § 60 VII argumentation.

Procedure

1. Determine type of application

Constellation	Urgent legal remedy
BAMF rejection as manifestly unfounded § 30 AsylG + deportation warning § 34	§ 80 V VwGO in conjunction with § 36 III AsylG – 1 week from service
BAMF inadmissibility Dublin § 29 I No. 1 + deportation order § 34a	§ 80 V VwGO in conjunction with § 34a II AsylG – 1 week
BAMF rejection as unfounded § 31 (not "manifestly")	Action § 74 I AsylG 2 weeks; suspensive effect by operation of law § 75 I
Immigration authority decision (e.g. refusal of extension of residence permit with departure order)	§ 80 V VwGO; deadline 1 month § 74 VwGO; § 84 AufenthG list check (immediate enforceability by operation of law)
Imminent deportation without an existing administrative act	§ 123 VwGO (interim injunction); securing or regulatory injunction
At the immigration authority: application for suspension of deportation	§ 60a Residence Act (legal / factual impossibility)
Last-resort emergency (flight within hours)	ECtHR Rule 39 (interim measure) – ultima ratio

2. Deadline block (mandatory in every draft)

§ 36 III AsylG: 1 week Urgent application + 1 week action to file suit in cases of manifestly unfounded under § 30
§ 34a II AsylG: 1 week Urgent application in cases of a Dublin removal order
§ 74 I AsylG: 2 weeks Time limit for filing an action (or 1 week in § 36 cases)
§ 74 I VwGO: 1 month Time limit for filing an action in cases of Residence Act administrative acts
Restoration to the previous state § 60 VwGO examine if the time limit has been missed – but strict requirements
Dublin transfer time limit Art. 29 Regulation 604/2013 (6 / 12 / 18 months) – expiry of the time limit = transfer of responsibility

3. Removal bans related to the country of destination

§ 60 V Residence Act in conjunction with Art. 3 ECHR – inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (ECtHR, judgment of 07.07.1989 – No. 14038/88, Soering v. UK, dejure.org; ECtHR, judgment of 21.01.2011 – No. 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, dejure.org)
§ 60 VII sentence 1 Residence Act – substantial concrete danger to life, limb, freedom
§ 60 VII sentences 3, 4 Residence Act (due to illness) – substantial worsening of life-threatening / serious illnesses
- Qualified medical certificate § 60a IIc / IId Residence Act mandatory: current medical diagnosis, treatment needs, consequences of interruption, lack of treatment options in the country of destination
- Certificates from a general practitioner without these specifics are generally not

4. Domestic obstacles to removal

Fitness to travel (medical): related not to the country of destination but to travel
Family Art. 6 Basic Law / Art. 8 ECHR: spouse / minor children with German citizenship or secure residence status; proportionality (ECtHR, judgment of 18.10.2006 – No. 46410/99, Üner v. NL, dejure.org; ECtHR, judgment of 02.08.2001 – No. 54273/00, Boultif v. CH, dejure.org)
Best interests of the child Art. 24 CFR, UN CRC
Procurement of replacement passport / clarification of identity: factual impossibility → § 60a II suspension of deportation

5. Application for suspension of deportation § 60a Residence Act

In cases of legal or factual impossibility of removal. Important subtypes:

Training suspension of deportation § 60c
Employment suspension of deportation § 60d
Suspension of deportation for persons with unclear identity § 60b (aggravated consequences)
Transition to Opportunity residence § 25c examine

6. Draft pleading

Addressee: competent administrative court (in asylum matters, as a rule the court at the seat of the BAMF branch office). Application first (judgment style), then chronological reasoning. Evidence: medical certificate (in accordance with § 60a IIc-k), marriage certificate, birth certificate, children's school certificate, language proficiency certificates, country reports (BFA, ACCORD, ECOI).

7. ECtHR Rule 39 (ultima ratio)

Only if there is a threat of imminent, irreversible violation of Art. 2 / 3 ECHR and domestic legal remedies have been exhausted / are not effective. Application to the ECtHR by fax / secure channel with reasoning and decision; as a rule within hours.

Sources and Citation Style

Mandatory: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

§ 60 AufenthG (prohibition of deportation)
§ 60a AufenthG (tolerated stay; in particular para. IIc, IId – qualified medical certificate)
§ 60b AufenthG (tolerated stay in case of unclear identity)
§ 60c AufenthG (tolerated stay for training)
§ 60d AufenthG (tolerated stay for employment)
§ 34 AsylG, § 34a, § 36 (deportation warning / order / urgent legal protection)
§ 74 AsylG (time limit for action), § 75 (suspensive effect)
§ 80 VwGO (suspensive effect / order), § 80a, § 80b
§ 123 VwGO (interim injunction)
§ 74 VwGO, § 60 (restitution)
§ 84 AufenthG (no suspensive effect of certain AufenthG acts)
Art. 6 GG, Art. 19 IV GG
Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 8 ECHR
Art. 29 Regulation (EU) 604/2013 (transfer time limits)

Commentaries

Bauer, in: Bergmann/Dienelt, AuslR, as of 2024, § 60a AufenthG marginal no. 1 et seq. (tolerated stay)
Bergmann, in: Bergmann/Dienelt, AuslR, as of 2024, § 60 AufenthG marginal no. 1 et seq. (prohibitions of deportation)
Hailbronner, AuslR, as of 2024, § 60 AufenthG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Hofmann, in: NK-AuslR, 3rd ed. 2023, § 60 AufenthG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Funke-Kaiser, in: GK-AsylG, as of 2024, § 36 marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law

ECtHR, judgment of 07.07.1989 – No. 14038/88, Soering v. UK (Art. 3 ECHR, imminent ill-treatment in the destination country), dejure.org
ECtHR, judgment of 21.01.2011 – No. 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Art. 3 and Art. 13 ECHR, systemic deficiencies of the Greek asylum system), dejure.org
ECtHR, judgment of 18.10.2006 – No. 46410/99, Üner v. NL (Art. 8 ECHR, expulsion of long-term residents), dejure.org
ECtHR, judgment of 02.08.2001 – No. 54273/00, Boultif v. CH (proportionality of expulsion, Art. 8 ECHR), dejure.org
BVerwG, judgment of 25.11.1997 – 9 C 58.96, BVerwGE 105, 383 = NVwZ 1998, 524 (obstacle to deportation relating to the destination state in cases of inadequate treatment options; issued on § 53(6) sentence 1 AuslG, today § 60 VII AufenthG), dejure.org
BVerwG, judgment of 17.10.2006 – 1 C 18.05, BVerwGE 127, 33 = NVwZ 2007, 712 (prohibition of deportation under § 60 VII AufenthG owing to the worsening of an illness in the destination state — relating to the destination state, not fitness to travel relating to the domestic state), dejure.org
BVerfG, order of 17.09.2014 – 2 BvR 939/14, NVwZ 2014, 1511 (Dublin transfer to Italy; obligation to examine obstacles to deportation relating to the destination state and the domestic state, if necessary assurance from the destination state), dejure.org

Output format

EILANTRAG / SCHRIFTSATZ — Abschiebungsschutz
An: <Verwaltungsgericht>
Mandant: <anonymisiert, Az.>
Zustellungsdatum des Bescheids: <Datum>
Frist-Ablauf: <Datum + 1 Woche / 2 Wochen / 1 Monat>

I. Anträge
   1. Die aufschiebende Wirkung der Klage gegen den Bescheid des BAMF
      vom <Datum>, Az. <…>, wird angeordnet (§ 80 V S. 1 Alt. 1 VwGO
      iVm § 36 III AsylG).
   2. Hilfsweise: einstweilige Anordnung gem. § 123 VwGO, dass die
      Antragsgegnerin keine Abschiebung in <Zielstaat> vor
      rechtskräftiger Entscheidung in der Hauptsache vollzieht.

II. Begründung

   1. Zulässigkeit
      – Statthafte Antragsart (§ 80 V VwGO / § 123 VwGO)
      – Antragsfrist (§ 36 III AsylG – Tag der Zustellung + 1 Woche)
      – Antragsbefugnis § 42 II VwGO analog

   2. Begründetheit
      a) Ernstliche Zweifel an der Rechtmäßigkeit des Bescheids
         (§ 36 IV AsylG)
      b) Zielstaatsbezogene Hindernisse
         – § 60 V AufenthG iVm Art. 3 EMRK
         – § 60 VII S. 1 / S. 3 AufenthG (krankheitsbedingt)
      c) Inlandsbezogene Hindernisse
         – Reisefähigkeit
         – Art. 6 GG / Art. 8 EMRK
         – Kindeswohl
      d) Dublin-Überstellungsfrist Art. 29 VO 604/2013 (sofern relevant)

III. Beweismittel / Anlagen
   – qualifizierte ärztliche Bescheinigung (§ 60a IIc AufenthG)
   – Heiratsurkunde / Geburtsurkunde Kinder
   – Sprachstandsnachweise, Schulbescheinigungen
   – Länderberichte (BFA, ACCORD, ECOI)

IV. Frist-Block
   – Eilantrag: spätestens <Datum>
   – Hauptsacheklage: spätestens <Datum>
   – Dublin-Überstellungsfrist-Ablauf: <Datum>

V. Risikoeinstufung
   🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 mit Begründung

VI. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (abridged)

Facts: The BAMF notice of , served on , rejects the asylum application as manifestly unfounded (§ 30 AsylG) and threatens deportation to Iran (§ 34 AsylG). According to a qualified medical certificate, the client suffers from severe coronary heart disease requiring resuscitation; adequate treatment in the destination state is not assured.

Type of application and deadline: Urgent application under § 80 V VwGO in conjunction with § 36 III AsylG, deadline 1 week from service. Deadline expiry: . High-risk deadline (🔴) – entry in the deadline calendar with reminder two days before expiry.

Merits: Serious doubts as to the lawfulness of the notice (§ 36 IV AsylG) exist because the BAMF did not sufficiently consider the qualified medical certificate within the meaning of § 60a IIc AufenthG. § 60 VII sentence 3 AufenthG (prohibition of deportation on grounds of illness) is sustainable: life-threatening illness; substantial deterioration if treatment is interrupted; no assured treatment option in the destination state (evidence: current BFA country report Iran, chapter Health Care, p. ...).

Risks / typical mistakes

Overlooking the 1-week deadline under § 36 III AsylG – the most common and most fatal mistake.
Medical certificate not compliant with § 60a IIc (family doctor's attestation without statement of diagnosis/consequences) → certificate unsuitable.
Overlooking the § 84 AufenthG list: for administrative acts listed there, there is no suspensive effect by operation of law – an application under § 80 V VwGO must imperatively be made.
§ 123 VwGO instead of § 80 V VwGO (or vice versa) – choose the type of application carefully.
Dublin transfer deadline not monitored – expiry of the deadline leads to a transfer of responsibility; failure to comply harms the client in the procedural argument.
ECtHR Rule 39 used as a routine tool → is granted by the ECtHR only in genuine emergencies; reputation of the authorized representative.
Restoration to the previous state § 60 VwGO after a missed deadline only under very strict conditions; fault of the authorized representative is attributed.
Proportionality Art. 8 ECHR without specific Üner / Boultif criteria (duration of residence, integration, family ties, severity of the breach of duty), not convincing.