Protection from Deportation Through Risk of Destitution: Two Cases Won at the Dresden Administrative Court
Protection from Deportation Through Risk of Destitution: Two Cases Won at the Dresden Administrative Court
1. The Outcome
On 8 April 2026, during the oral hearing at the Dresden Administrative Court, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) granted protection from deportation under Section 60 paragraph 5 of the Residence Act in two of our cases: one for a seventy-two-year-old grandmother from Venezuela with multiple illnesses, and one for a young single mother from Venezuela with a minor daughter. Both would have faced, with substantial probability, a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights upon return — a condition of destitution below the threshold of human dignity.
2. The Legal Core: Destitution as a Ground for Protection under Section 60(5) Residence Act
Deportation is prohibited under Section 60(5) of the Residence Act where the European Convention on Human Rights precludes it. Article 3 ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has made clear in decisions such as Paposhvili, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, and Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom that humanitarian conditions in the country of origin can constitute an obstacle to removal if they would lead to a serious, rapid and irreversible deterioration of health or to an existence below the minimum compatible with human dignity.
In 2023 and 2024, the administrative courts of Saxony developed a clear doctrine around so-called aggravating risk factors. The Dresden Administrative Court in its decisions of 27 November 2023 and 26 February 2024, as well as the Leipzig Administrative Court in its decisions of 19 March 2024 and 27 March 2024, focus cumulatively on age, illness, gender, single parenthood with a young child, and the absence of a family safety net. The higher threshold of Section 60(7) sentence 1 of the Residence Act does not need to be reached. Dr. Arroyave and Matti Kleibömer have systematised this line of case law in their scholarly article on the incapacity to work as a bridge to protection from deportation.
3. The Two Cases
3.1. The Grandmother, 72 Years Old
Our client came from Venezuela to Germany and has lived here for several years. Medical records document a range of conditions that significantly impair her everyday life and ability to work. She is classified as visually impaired. She cannot shop alone and cannot cross a street on her own; daily activities outside the home require an accompanying person. In Venezuela, she has two adult granddaughters who live in cramped households with young children of their own and can provide neither accommodation nor care. Upon return, she would be left without ophthalmological treatment, without reliable access to the medication she needs and without any support — a situation of destitution prohibited by Article 3 ECHR.
3.2. The Young Single Mother
Our client fled from Venezuela to Germany with her small daughter. In 2022 she had already lost a first child in Venezuela — according to her treating doctors due to inadequate medical care. In the German reception centre she developed a thyroid disorder with cardiac arrhythmia that requires ongoing monitoring and medication. No family safety net exists in Venezuela. The statutory minimum wage there amounts to less than four US dollars per month and covers neither rent nor food nor medication nor childcare. The combination of a young child in need of care, the mother's own illness and the absence of any form of support makes destitution after return a substantially likely outcome.
4. What We Delivered in the Proceedings and at the Hearing
4.1. Fact-Finding
We interviewed both clients in person and in their own language, on multiple occasions, and documented the facts chronologically, medically and socially. We obtained and continuously updated medical reports and a qualified medical certificate in line with Section 60a(2c) of the Residence Act — even where this standard is not legally required for Section 60(5), because solid medical documentation carries weight in court.
4.2. Country-of-Origin Research
We substantiated the situation on the ground with current sources: prices of the specific medications in Venezuelan pharmacies, the statutory minimum wage, access to ophthalmological and endocrine care, and the availability of childcare. We placed this evidence in the case file so that the court and, in the second step, the Federal Office could rely on it to make the destitution assessment.
4.3. Preparation and Persuasion at the Oral Hearing
Our firm's strength lies in the oral hearing. We prepare our clients to describe their reality in a few verifiable sentences. We structure the examination so that the cumulative effect of the aggravating risk factors becomes visible during the hearing: age and illness, single parenthood and lack of income, missing network and lack of access to care. After the examination on 8 April 2026, the Federal Office recognised protection from deportation under Section 60(5) Residence Act in both proceedings.
5. What This Means for Those Affected
Not every illness reaches the threshold of Section 60(7) sentence 1 of the Residence Act. That does not mean there is no protection. Those who, upon return, would with substantial probability fall into a situation below the minimum compatible with human dignity can obtain protection through Section 60(5) of the Residence Act. What counts is the combination of age, health, gender, family situation, sources of income and medical care. We assess this combination for every individual case, document the decisive points and prepare the oral hearing so that the arguments carry through.
6. Contact
KAP Rechtsanwälte — Kleibömer Dr. Arroyave Partnerschaft
https://kap-kanzlei.de/en/5/contact.html
Gohliser Strasse 26, 04105 Leipzig, Germany
info@kap-kanzlei.de · kap-kanzlei.de · Instagram @kanzlei_kap
We're not just immigration lawyers. We're migration strategists.
