The applicant is an Arab and Sunni national of Syria who entered the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 September 2015 and requested international protection. Following an accelerated procedure, the applicant was granted refugee status by decision of 15 December 2015. By decision of 10 December 2018, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) revoked the refugee status granted to the applicant and found that the applicant was not granted subsidiary protection status, but that there was a prohibition on deportation under Section 60(5) of the AufenthG with regard to Syria.  The action brought by the applicant against that decision was withdrawn following the rejection of his urgent application and was closed on 23 October 2019.  By final decision of 19 August 2021, the applicant was ordered to leave the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The deportation decision was annulled by the Administrative Court of Bremen on 6 March 2023. In February 2025, BAMF initiated a revocation procedure. On 4 April 2025, it revoked the prohibition on deportation. On 28 May 2025, the applicant brought an action against that decision and lodged an urgent application, claiming that the court should order the suspensive effect of the decision.

The Administrative Court of Bremen found that, in the event of deportation of the applicant to Syria, there was no significant concrete risk to the life, physical integrity or freedom of the applicant. The court observed that the risk assessment to be made when examining the need for protection against deportation pursuant to Section 60(5) of the AufenthG in conjunction with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is, in principle, whether the foreigner who is returned, if necessary through return assistance, is able to meet the most basic needs over a foreseeable period of time.

The court noted that the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria in December 2024 has led to a significant change in the actual circumstances in the applicant’s country of origin. While the overall security situation in Syria remained highly volatile and tense (due to active hostilities, ethnically motivated acts of violence against certain groups of the population, military activities of third countries, the threat of terrorism, violent crime and kidnappings), the applicant was from the Hama area, administered and controlled by the new Syrian government and considered to be relatively stable. The court noted that, in the Hama region, his life and physical integrity were not sufficiently likely to be threatened by indiscriminate violence, despite isolated attacks and riots in Hama after the collapse of the regime.

Furthermore, the court noted that there was no valid indication that the applicant, who was of Sunni faith, would be exposed to a serious individual threat merely because of presence in the region of origin.

The court noted that the economic situation in Syria remained tense, but that in this case, it could be assumed that the applicant had a sufficiently sustainable family network, a wide range of practical work experience and no health restrictions, so that he could do heavy physical work if necessary. Against this background, despite the tense labour market in Syria, the court noted that it will be possible for him to earn an income in the long term to finance at least a life on the fringes of minimum subsistence.

The court also noted that it was not apparent that the applicant faced any persecution from the group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which was ruling instead of the Assad regime, since he belonged to the ruling ethnic and religious group (Arab and Muslim Sunni). The court further noted that BAMF provided detailed reasons for its particular interest in immediate enforcement and the considerations which led it to order the immediate enforcement in relation to the circumstances of the case, which was based in particular on a risk posed by the applicant.

The court therefore rejected the application for reinstatement of the suspensive effect of the decision.