The applicant, a Syrian national, was granted subsidiary protection status by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) on 1 August 2017. He subsequently committed several offenses, including three acts of theft, two counts of fraud, two counts of bodily injury, misuse of identity documents, and resisting law enforcement officers. On 1 March 2021, the Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt District Court convicted the applicant of rape, sentencing him to two years and six months of youth detention. The court found that, in July 2018, he forcibly engaged in sexual acts with a 17-year-old victim in a hotel room. On 6 April 2023, the Tübingen Regional Council issued an order expelling the applicant from the Federal Republic of Germany. He contested this decision, and the matter is currently under review in pending administrative proceedings before the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen.
On 9 May 2023, the BAMF revoked the applicant's subsidiary protection status, stating that the conditions justifying the protection had significantly changed. This decision was based on the applicant's conviction for a serious rape offense, which was classified as a severe crime. The BAMF highlighted the gravity of the offense, including the use of force and threats, and the substantial youth sentence imposed on the applicant. It also noted that the applicant's serious criminal behavior, including the severity of the rape and prior offenses, justified the revocation of subsidiary protection. Additionally, the applicant's ongoing danger to the public, lack of remorse, and refusal to engage in rehabilitation further supported this decision.
On 22 June 2023, the applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Court of Karlsruhe, seeking either its annulment or the reinstatement of his subsidiary protection status. He argued that only capital crimes should lead to exclusion from subsidiary protection and contended that his age at the time of the offense and subsequent rehabilitation efforts warranted a reconsideration of the decision.
The court held that the decision was consistent with legal requirements and did not infringe the applicant's rights. Firstly, it found that the criteria for a serious criminal offense were met, based on the findings of the Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt Local Court. The applicant's conviction for particularly serious rape, which carried a minimum prison sentence of two years, was deemed a serious criminal offense. Additionally, the court noted that the gravity of the offense was underscored by its brutal and coercive nature, the abuse of position by the applicant, and the severity of the act itself. These factors confirmed that the applicant's conduct fell within the category of serious criminal offenses as defined under section 4 (2) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Asylum Act, which implements Article 17 (1)(b) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD). Moreover, the court deemed the criminal offense sufficiently serious because the criminal court imposed a prison sentence under § 17.2 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JGG), noting that traditional educational measures were inadequate due to the applicant's harmful tendencies. The court highlighted that the gravity of the offense had significantly exacerbated these tendencies, necessitating prolonged education to address this development and mitigate the risk of reoffending. Evidence of continued harmful behavior included the applicant's attempt to coerce a witness into false testimony and his lack of remorse.
The court acknowledged that while the offense occurred two and a half years prior to the judgment and the applicant had complied with his last probation, his history of violent offenses and the ongoing suffering of the victim were significant factors. Finally, it pointed out that the applicant's status as a parent did not alter the classification of his offense as serious, as higher laws do not mandate a different legal treatment due to his parental role. The court concluded that the applicant was no longer entitled to subsidiary protection and dismissed the appeal.