An Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity requested international protection in Germany on 12 October 2023, claiming that, as a Hazara, he was subject to persecution by the Taliban. He stated that his parents had been killed by the Taliban two years prior, and that the Hazara population continued to face systemic discrimination, limitations on religious freedom, and targeted violence in Afghanistan. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected granting refugee status and subsidiary protection. The applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court of Leipzig.

The court examined whether the Hazara ethnic group faced persecution in Afghanistan. It found that while Hazaras were subject to discrimination, targeted violence, and attacks (including by ISKP), these did not reach the threshold of systematic, group-wide persecution. The court relied extensively on country of origin information reports such as:  EUAA, COI Report – Afghanistan: Targeting of Individuals, September 2022; EASO, COI Report – Afghanistan: Country Focus, January 2022; EASO, Country Guidance Afghanistan, November 2021; UN and ACCORD reports. The country of origin information confirmed the Hazara displacement, sporadic Taliban attacks, and ISKP terrorist violence against Hazara civilians. It also documented Taliban-led evictions of Hazara families and ongoing marginalisation; and – provided guidance on ‘Westernisation' risks, noting that Afghan returnees perceived as having adopted Western values could face suspicion, although evidence remained limited. The reports also noted the Taliban's mixed stance: on one hand, symbolic inclusion of Hazara officials and securing Shia religious events; on the other, ongoing displacement, exclusion from government, and tolerance of discriminatory practices.The court acknowledged serious security risks, but at the same time emphasised that persecution must be individualised. There was insufficient evidence that the Taliban or other non-state actors systematically targeted all returnees for persecution based solely on Hazara ethnicity or ‘Westernisation.'

The court, while rejecting to grant refugee status and subsidiary protection, upheld the ban on removal under Section 60(5) of the Residence Act, which incorporated the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. It held that if the applicant were to return to Afghanistan, he would be exposed to conditions incompatible with human dignity, given the unstable security situation, ongoing violence, and absence of adequate state protection. The court referenced the EUAA COI: Key socio-economic indicators when assessing the living conditions in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover of power, which are characterised by high-unemployment, poor housing conditions, insufficient access to food and good, with high reliability on international humanitarian donations, and lack of state financial support.

In conclusion, the Administrative Court of Leipzig partially upheld the applicant's claim. It confirmed the BAMF's rejection of refugee status and subsidiary protection status, but it held that deportation to Afghanistan was prohibited under Section 60(5) of the Residence Act.