Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, October 23, 2018, Case No.: 7 A 10866/18 (Lower Court: Administrative Court Koblenz, June 18, 2018, Case No.: 3 K 26/18.KO)
Deportation is an administrative act through which an immigration authority can terminate a residence permit and simultaneously impose a ban on issuing a new residence permit. This action makes the addressee obligated to leave the country. Deportation law is regulated in §§ 53 ff. of the Residence Act (AufenthG), where, under the new law, a so-called deportation interest is required for deportation. According to § 52 (1) of the Residence Act, a foreigner whose stay endangers public safety and order, the liberal democratic basic order, or other significant interests of the Federal Republic of Germany must be deported if, after considering all circumstances of the individual case, the balance of interests in leaving the country versus remaining in the federal territory shows that the public interest in departure outweighs the interest in remaining. Thus, it is required that the so-called deportation interest (§ 54 AufenthG) outweighs the so-called interest in remaining (§ 55 AufenthG).
A justification for deportation can be the general preventive consideration, which also corresponds to the apparent intention of the legislator according to § 53 of the Residence Act. According to § 53 (1) of the Residence Act, the danger does not have to emanate directly from the foreigner; it can also result from their presence. However, the deportation interest must still be current, meaning it must exist at the time of the court’s decision.
Facts of the court case:
Case Facts: The Plaintiff Was Convicted of Serious Sexual Abuse
The plaintiff in this case committed serious sexual abuse of a defenseless person in conjunction with exposure. As a result, he was deported by the defendant immigration authority. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against this deportation, but the Administrative Court of Koblenz confirmed the decision of the defendant immigration authority.
After the immigration authority deported him and the court confirmed this decision, the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff appealed against this decision before the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrative Court.
Judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate
The Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate ruled that the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Koblenz dated June 18, 2018, is rejected. The plaintiff’s arguments did not justify granting the requested appeal. The reasons cited by the plaintiff for the appeal, including serious doubts (§ 124 (2) No. 1 VwGO), special factual or legal difficulties (§ 124 (2) No. 2 VwGO), and fundamental importance (§ 124 (2) No. 3 VwGO), were not present.
Plaintiff Meets Criteria for Particularly Serious Deportation Interest
The Administrative Court rightly dismissed the lawsuit against the deportation of the plaintiff ordered on June 2, 2017, and his request for a residence permit. Due to the crime committed by the plaintiff on February 15, 2012 (serious sexual abuse of a defenseless person in conjunction with exposure), a particularly serious deportation interest was correctly assumed, which was not countered by an equivalent interest in remaining. Furthermore, the Administrative Court convincingly explained that, considering all individual circumstances, the interest in the plaintiff’s deportation outweighs from a general preventive perspective.
The plaintiff argued that the Administrative Court did not sufficiently consider his age at the time of the crime, the absence of a „criminal career,“ and his waiver of early release to undergo social therapy. However, the Administrative Court convincingly demonstrated that all the criteria cited by the plaintiff were considered (Judgment of the Regional Court of Mainz dated December 16, 2013 (3111 Js 4733/12.jug – 1 KLs –)).
Deportation Justified by General Preventive Considerations
Even under the deportation law applicable since January 1, 2016, general preventive considerations can justify deportation (see BVerwG, Judgment of July 12, 2018 – 1 C 16/17 –, juris, LS 1; Judgment of the Senate dated April 5, 2018 – 7 A 11529/17.OVG, juris, LS 1). When assessing whether the individual’s stay endangers public safety and order, the liberal democratic basic order, or other significant interests of the Federal Republic of Germany, it is crucial that deportation is expected to have an adequate general preventive effect. This can be affirmed if it is expected that other foreigners will behave properly due to consistent deportation practices. Authorities and courts may assume that deportation ordered as a result of a criminal conviction is suitable for achieving this purpose. It is necessary that there are foreigners in similar situations to the individual in question who could be deterred from committing similar or identical criminal acts by the individual’s deportation (see Judgment of the Senate dated April 5, 2018 – 7 A 11529/17.OVG –, juris, para. 44, with further references).
One can assume a danger to public safety and order even if a criminal foreigner does not pose a (repetition) danger, provided that the absence of an immigration response to their misconduct would fail to deter other foreigners from committing comparable offenses (see BVerwG, Judgment of July 12, 2018 – 1 C 16/17 –, juris, para. 16). In this case, it was rightly assumed, due to the severity of the crimes and the motivation for them, that the plaintiff’s deportation is suitable for deterring foreigners from cultural backgrounds that do not adhere to the principle of gender equality from committing crimes against sexual self-determination.
It is the task of danger prevention law—and thus of deportation law under the Residence Act—to prevent a perspective that is not aligned with gender equality from leading foreigners who do not adhere to the values of the Basic Law to commit crimes against sexual self-determination. The particular brutality of the crime is evidenced by the findings in the final judgment of the Regional Court of Mainz dated December 16, 2013. For this reason, the plaintiff has a particularly serious deportation interest under § 54 (1) No. 1, 1a of the Residence Act, as he has already been sentenced to more than two years of imprisonment for this crime against sexual self-determination. Given the high rank of the legal interests violated by the crime on February 15, 2012—physical integrity, life, and sexual self-determination—and considering the extent and consequences of the violations of legal interests—lifelong psychological and physical impairments of the victim—no high requirements need to be placed on the assumption of a risk of repetition. However, the mere remote possibility of renewed violations of legal interests cannot justify a risk of repetition; instead, a risk of repetition must be seriously feared, even when high-ranking legal interests have been violated (see BVerwG, Judgment of October 4, 2012 – 1 C 13.11 –, juris, para. 18; Decision of the Senate dated March 14, 2017 – 7 B 11061/16.OVG – ESOVGRP, para. 11). In the plaintiff’s case, significant factors indicate a risk of repetition.
Thus, the plaintiff’s deportation is necessary to prevent serious crimes by making it clear to many young men that the German state not only punishes crimes against sexual self-determination but also takes measures to terminate residence. Additionally, it demonstrates to the plaintiff’s former clique that the state takes preventive measures to protect women, that one cannot approach this with a misogynistic attitude, and that crimes against sexual self-determination have not only criminal but also immigration law consequences. Conversely, the state’s interest in protecting the right to sexual self-determination would be undermined if the plaintiff were allowed to remain in Germany despite the severe and long-lasting consequences of his crime for the victim.
Source: Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an e-mail to info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.