A Syrian mother and her two children of Arab ethnicity requested international protection in Germany. On 12 October 2022, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected granting refugee status, but granted subsidiary protection. The applicants challenged the decision before the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, arguing that they faced persecution in Syria due to several factors: the mother’s alleged renunciation of Islam and embrace of atheism since 2018, shared with her children; their adoption of a ‘Western lifestyle’ in Germany, including wearing Western clothes, not attending mosque, and use of online dating services; threats from two uncles, whom the mother described as conservative and violent; general risks connected with the Syrian civil war, the Assad regime, and later developments following the fall of Assad in December 2024 and the assumption of power by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) within a transitional government; risks of discrimination as women and concerns regarding custody of children under Syrian law; and concerns linked to possible military service obligations for the husband of the applicant. The applicants claimed that their circumstances amounted to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ under Section 3 of the AsylG and the Geneva Refugee Convention. 

The Administrative Court of Düsselfdorf analysed the situation of atheists in Syria before and after the Assad regime. Reports indicated no systematic persecution of atheists, though apostasy or conversion to Christianity was prohibited in principle. The court relied on different sources of country of origin information: Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, Country Information from the State Documentation, Syria, Version 11, of 27 March 2024; EUAA, Country Guidance: Syria, April 2024; EUAA, COI Report - Syria: Country Focus, March 2025. The court noted that these sources suggested that, while atheism might be socially frowned upon, the Assad regime did not systematically target atheists, and the new HTS-led transitional government had pledged to respect minority rights. 

Regarding the invoked childhood threats from the applicant’s uncles, more than 25 years old, the court found them not credible. 

The court considered CJEU judgment K and L v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), (C-646/21) of 11 June 2024, and CJEU judgment WS v State Agency for Refugees under the Council of Ministers (SAR) (C-621/21) of 16 January 2024, concerning women as a social group. It found no evidence that women in the areas controlled by the HTS-led transitional government were persecuted for Westernised behaviour. It noted that EUAA, COI Report - Syria: Country Focus, March 2025 confirmed that women now held official (political) positions in the new government in Syria, including as women's representative, head of the Syrian Central Bank and Minister of Labour and Social Affairs. 

In conclusion, the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the applicants’ appeal, holding that they did not qualify for refugee status under Section 3 of the AsylG. It upheld BAMF’s decision which rejected granting refugee status.