National forms of protection
In Germany, national protection forms are available in addition to constitutional asylum, refugee status, and subsidiary protection. These national protection statuses primarily consist of national deportation bans under Sections 60 (5) and 60 (7) of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz). A deportation ban is issued when it is determined that the individual cannot be returned to their country of origin due to specific risks. These risks may involve a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR), or a concrete danger to life, liberty, or health in the destination country.[1] If these conditions are met, the person is granted a residence permit for at least one year, which may be extended. After five years, provided the individual meets other criteria, such as securing their livelihood and having sufficient German language skills, a permanent settlement permit may be issued. In practice, national deportation bans are closely examined by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) within the asylum process, although they can also be established by the immigration authorities, particularly in cases of internal obstacles to deportation, in which case they may issue a toleration (Duldung) under Section 60a.[2] In cases where the deportation ban is decided based on human rights or health risks (as opposed to internal obstacles such as the impossibility of the deportation), individuals receive a residence permit, which includes a specific right to work. However, there are also restrictions based on legal exclusion grounds, similar to those under subsidiary protection or refugee status: in case it is established the person comes under one of the legal exclusion grounds, this does not affect the legal determination of the deportation ban itself[3] and the person cannot be deported, but it will affect the “additional rights” (such as the right to work) which may not be granted. In comparison to the other protection statuses (constitutional asylum, refugee status, subsidiary protection), national deportation bans tend to address specific, often urgent humanitarian concerns that are not covered by the broader forms of international protection.[4]
In 2025, a total of 12,105 deportation bans under Section 60(5) and (7) of the Residence Act were granted, corresponding to 3.9% of all decisions and 5.2% of the adjusted overall protection rate.[5] Of these, 11,729 cases were based on Section 60(5) AufenthG (3.8% of all decisions; 5.0% adjusted rate), while 376 cases fell under Section 60(7) AufenthG (0.1% of all decisions; 0.2% adjusted rate).[6] Compared to 2024, when 20,823 deportation bans were granted[7], this represents a substantial decrease in absolute numbers, alongside a slight decline in their relative importance within the overall protection system. This development mirrors the broader drop in the overall protection rate, which fell from 44.4% in 2024 to 28.1% in 2025 (37.5% adjusted).[8]
For applicants with a return decision that can be implemented, the national authorities will still assess whether a deportation ban is applicable before proceeding with their return. A “Duldung” is issued when a temporary suspension of the deportation is required in cases when the individual is required to leave Germany but their deportation is not possible for factual or legal reasons (see Section 60a of the Residence Act).[9] It is granted to individuals who do not have legal status in Germany, but whose deportation cannot be carried out for specific reasons. A Duldung is not a residence title and does not grant lawful residence in Germany; it only exempts the individual from criminal liability for staying illegally. People with a Duldung remain subject to the obligation to leave the country. The Duldung expires when the individual leaves the country and does not permit re-entry into Germany.[10]
Applicants do not need to apply separately for protection under Section 60(5) or (7) of the Residence Act. These provisions are automatically reviewed by the national authorities when they reject an asylum application or consider a return decision. In the asylum process, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) assesses whether national deportation bans (Abschiebungsverbote) apply, especially if the applicant is at risk of human rights violations or serious harm in the country of return. This review occurs alongside the assessment of the asylum application, and if a national deportation ban is determined, the applicant is granted a residence permit, typically for one year, which may be extended if the conditions continue to apply.[11]
Rights
The rights attached to a deportation ban are more limited compared to those granted under international protection statuses such as refugee or subsidiary protection. Nevertheless, individuals under a deportation ban still enjoy some important rights.[12] They are protected from deportation to the country in question, and they are granted a residence permit for a year, which can be extended if the ban remains applicable. In rare cases, they may be eligible for a refugee passport, although this is not common.[13] Furthermore, they are subject to a residence requirement (Wohnsitzauflage), meaning they must stay in a specific location, but this condition can be lifted under certain circumstances.[14]
Additionally, individuals with a deportation ban have access to the labour market. Typically, a request for a work permit (based on a specific employment found by the person) is granted, and in this context, they may also apply for the removal of the residence requirement.[15] For asylum applicants, see Reception conditions – Access to the labour market.; for BIPs, see Content of international protection – Access to the labour market.
Access to employment for tolerated individuals (Geduldete), whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be deported due to legal or practical obstacles, such as the lack of travel documents or ongoing armed conflict in their country of origin, varies. If they are required to live in a reception centre, they should be allowed to work after six months, unless deportation measures are imminent. Outside of reception centres, tolerated individuals should generally be granted access to employment after three months under the same condition. Nevertheless, work bans apply to those who are deemed to fail to meet their obligations to cooperate with departure (particularly by not presenting identification documents), to those from safe countries of origin, to individuals whose asylum claims were rejected as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible, and to those considered to have misrepresented their identity. Tolerated persons generally require a work permit, which must be granted by the local Foreigners’ Office (Ausländerbehörde). The Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, BA) typically also has to approve the employment and checks whether the working conditions are comparable to those offered to German nationals, including in the case of temporary agency work. After 48 months of stay, BA approval is no longer necessary, although the work permit from the Foreigners’ Office is still required. In certain cases — such as employment in skilled professions or during vocational training — access to the labor market has been simplified and no longer requires BA approval. Furthermore, tolerated persons may obtain a legal pathway to stay through work or vocational training. Under certain conditions, they can receive a “Beschäftigungsduldung” (30-month tolerated stay for employment), an “Ausbildungsduldung” (tolerated stay for vocational training), or a residence permit specifically for vocational education and training.[16]
It is important to note that tolerated individuals (§ 1 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, AsylbLG) are generally not subject to the Social Code (SGB) until they are granted a residence permit but instead fall under the provisions of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. However, after 36 months of uninterrupted residence, they are entitled to social welfare benefits, provided they have not extended their stay in bad faith, such as by concealing their identity. Although these individuals remain formally eligible for benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act until their recognition, their standard needs increase, and they may receive a health insurance card if they did not have one previously.[17]
If a tolerated person fails to comply with their obligation to clarify their identity and obtain a passport, they are granted a “toleration for persons with unclear identity” under Section 60b of the Residence Act (referred to as “Duldung-light“). This form of toleration can only be granted if deportation cannot take place due to deception regarding identity or nationality, false statements, or failure to obtain a passport, meaning it is based on the individual’s behavior. If deportation is impossible for other reasons, toleration under Section 60b of the Residence Act cannot be granted. The consequences of this type of toleration include the denial of a work permit (any existing work permit does not automatically expire but must be revoked through a separate administrative action), reduced benefits, and the toleration periods are not counted toward acquiring a residence permit under Sections 25a or 25b of the Residence Act.[18]
Lastly, individuals with a deportation ban do not have the right to family reunification.[19]
Return procedure
In Germany, the return procedure is closely linked to the asylum process. When an asylum application is rejected, the individual is generally required to leave the country, resulting in a return decision. If the asylum application is rejected, the person typically faces a deadline for voluntary departure — 30 days in case of a regular rejection and only one week if the rejection is due to the application being deemed “manifestly unfounded”.[20] In cases where voluntary departure does not occur within the designated time frame, the relevant foreign authorities are responsible for enforcing the return through forced deportation.[21] However, the authorities can temporarily suspend the return decision if obstacles to deportation are identified.[22] This can include granting a “Duldung” (toleration), a temporary suspension of deportation when legal or factual barriers prevent the return. There are also provisions for voluntary return, with both federal and state governments offering various programs to support returnees.[23]
The return decision and asylum rejection are two separate decisions, often issued simultaneously, which have a significant impact on the possibility of appealing the asylum rejection. If the asylum decision is not challenged within the designated time (e.g., through the submission of an appeal or an urgent request for a judicial review), and if the voluntary return period expires, the individual faces the risk of deportation. If the asylum application is rejected as “inadmissible” or “manifestly unfounded”, there is no automatic right to extend the departure deadline, and the person may be immediately subject to deportation measures.[24]
In terms of the appeal process, once a person receives a return decision, the opportunity to appeal the asylum rejection may still exist, depending on the circumstances. If the person has not filed an appeal within the required time frame or if no suspensive effect is granted for their appeal (see Regular procedure – Appeal), the return decision becomes enforceable, and deportation may proceed.[25] Legal challenges against the return decision can also be pursued, but these are separate from those against the asylum decisions and need to be made in a timely manner to halt deportation actions.[26]
The organization Netzpolitik.org revealed, German Federal States are investing significant funds in software to extract and analyse data from the mobile phones of individuals obligated to leave the country.[27] In general, in the context of return procedures, authorities are increasingly resorting to intrusive digital searches to establish identity.[28] According to Netzpolitik.org, almost all German Federal States routinely search the mobile phones and other digital devices of individuals classified as “obliged to leave,” using forensic software to extract data for clues about nationality or origin, a practice that has become a de facto nationwide standard and often takes place without detailed statistics on outcomes or clear evidence of effectiveness.[29] Critics argue these measures represent deep incursions into privacy and fundamental rights, with authorities even able to retain and examine cloud-stored data under recent legal changes, while the actual benefit of such searches in clarifying identity remains unclear.[30]
Statistics
Throughout 2025, Germany deported 22,787 people, representing an approximate 20 percent increase compared with the previous year amid a broader “migration turnaround” policy that also saw first-time asylum applications drop by half to 113,236 in 2025.[31] Deportations were unevenly distributed across the Federal States, with North Rhine–Westphalia (4,784), Bavaria (3,649) and Baden-Württemberg (3,368) accounting for the highest numbers, followed by Hesse (1,891) and Berlin (1,673), while smaller numbers were recorded in states such as Bremen (109) and Brandenburg (191); an additional 613 deportations were carried out by the Federal Police.[32] In terms of destination countries, the most frequent target states were Turkey (2,297), Georgia (1,690), Spain (1,162), France (1,053) and Serbia (875), alongside 83 deportations to Afghanistan and 18 to Iran.[33] Deportations affected particularly vulnerable age groups: 3,000 children aged 0–13 and 628 adolescents aged 14–17 were deported in 2025, as well as 379 people aged 60–70 and 75 persons over the age of 70.[34]
During the same period, 9,180 individuals voluntarily left Germany under the REAG/GARP federal-state return assistance program. In total, approximately 25,100 individuals who were required to leave Germany departed voluntarily with a Grenzübertrittsbescheinigung (Border Crossing Certificate). This marks an increase of around 10% compared to the same period in the previous year.[35] In 2025, a total of 7,532 persons received reintegration support under the StarthilfePlus programme, with disbursed funding amounting to €3,292,410.27 and a further €2,156,000 approved but not yet paid out.[36] The total disbursements include support for 3,929 individuals who departed Germany in 2025 as well as 3,603 individuals who had already returned in 2024, reflecting the delayed payment structure of reintegration assistance, which is often partly disbursed six to eight months after return.[37]
In February 2025, a new (non-government affiliated) website was launched with the goal of regularly publishing data and additional information on migration-related topics. Currently, the platform provides data on deportations from German Federal States up until 2024. Unfortunately, as of early 2026, no statistics on 2025 are available on this website.[38] According to its own statements, the website is a project by students of the master’s program Migration and Development at Sapienza University in Rome. The database aims to serve as a research resource for journalists, think tanks, and NGOs. The data on various topics is collected through Freedom of Information Act (IFG) requests submitted to the relevant authorities. In addition to visually processed information, the platform also provides access to the original requests and responses from the authorities. Furthermore, basic information on each topic is available in the form of FAQs. Regarding deportations, the website offers figures for all Federal States except Bavaria and Lower Saxony.
By the end of 2025, Germany resumed deportations to Syria and Afghanistan after many years of largely suspended returns to these countries.[39] The first deportation flight following the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan took place in 2024 and July 2025 marked the beginning of a structured cooperation with the authorities. Among these deportations, the Federal Government reported that 83 convicted offenders were returned to Afghanistan, and for the first time since the start of the Syrian civil war, a convicted Syrian criminal was deported after the fall of the Assad regime—marking only the third such return under the stricter enforcement approach.[40] These measures have been pursued following political decisions and negotiations with the respective governments, with a particular focus on the removal of convicted criminals and persons considered security risks, even as debates continue about the security situation in Syria and Afghanistan and overall asylum numbers decline.[41] The government’s resumption of deportations to Afghanistan—including charter flights carrying Afghan nationals, some convicted of crimes—drew sharp criticism from human rights organisations, advocacy groups and legal experts concerned about the pervasive human rights violations under Taliban rule. PRO ASYL condemned Germany’s first flight of 81 deportees to Kabul as occurring “despite known human rights abuses and deterioration of conditions on the ground,” arguing that forced returns violate international law and urging a halt to all deportations to Afghanistan given the risks of torture, persecution and abuse faced by returnees.[42] The German Institute for Human Rights similarly called for an end to forced returns as long as the security and humanitarian situation remains dire.[43] Critics emphasised that cooperation with the Taliban—an internationally non-recognised de facto authority implicated in systematic rights violations—risks legitimising a regime guilty of widespread abuses, and that Germany should instead prioritise protection and alternatives to deportation for people at risk.[44]
In response to questions about arrangements with the Taliban regarding deportations to Afghanistan, Parliamentary State Secretary Daniela Ludwig stated in early January 2026 that the German government had reached agreements with the Afghan de facto government on technical-level discussions, below the political level, to resume regular readmission procedures.[45] She clarified that responsibility for implementing deportation measures lies primarily with the Federal States, while the Federal Police provides support such as security escorts in accordance with their residence law responsibilities.[46] The government emphasized that as of January 2026, only persons who had committed criminal offenses had been deported to Afghanistan.[47] Regarding monitoring to ensure respect for human rights of deported persons, the response noted that the National Agency for the Prevention of Torture regularly observes Federal Police operations as part of its mandate and based on its own priority-setting.[48] According to ARD investigative reporting from 21 March, a Taliban official has effectively taken over the Afghan embassy in Berlin, making Germany the first EU state with de facto Taliban diplomatic representation.[49] Nebrasul H., a Taliban member, arrived in Berlin in July 2025 as one of just two junior consular officials, with the approval of the German federal government. Since then, he unofficially took over the embassy. His task include preparing deportations to Afghanistan which raises serious concerns about the diplomatic and ethical price being paid to enable the deportation infrastructure.
The methods and circumstances of deportations from Germany in the first half of 2024 varied, with some individuals removed without escorts and others under the supervision of law enforcement authorities or security personnel from destination countries. In the first half of 2024, a total of 4,664 individuals were deported without any escort. In addition to these, several deportations took place under the supervision of law enforcement authorities, categorised as follows: 3,641 individuals were deported under escort by officers from the Federal Police, involving a total of 6,408 federal police officers. 94 individuals were deported under escort by officers from state police forces or other national authorities, with the involvement of 188 officers from these agencies. 896 individuals were deported under escort by security personnel from the destination countries. In the same period, a total of 1,725 minors were deported from Germany.[50]No dedicated information about the circumstances of deportations was available at the time of writing the update on 2025.
In 2024, a total of 111,095 decisions issued by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees were challenged in court, making for a litigation rate of 36.86 %.[51] (As of the time of writing this report, no numbers were available for 2025). This represents an increase from 2023 (80,245 decisions contested in 2023, litigation rate of 30.7%) and 2022 (67,267 BAMF decisions were contested, with a litigation rate of 32.2%). When considering only rejected asylum applications, the litigation rate was consistently higher, although it has also declined in recent years. In 2023, 58.8% of rejected asylum decisions were appealed, compared to 64.1% in 2022, 57.2% in 2021, and 73.3% in 2020.[52] In 2024, the average duration of an appeal process was 16.7 months.[53]. As of 30 November 2024, 130,909 appeals against BAMF decisions were pending.[54] Between January and November 2025, a total of 806 grants of subsidiary protection were issued following judicial review of negative asylum decisions.[55] The vast majority of these decisions—593 cases, or 73.6%—were based on Section 4(1) No. 2 of the Asylum Act, i.e. a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, while 155 cases (19.2%) were granted under Section 4(1) No. 3 Asylum Act (serious and individual threat due to indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict), and 32 cases (4.0%) under Section 4(1) No. 1 Asylum Act (death penalty or execution). A further 26 cases (3.2%) concerned subsidiary family protection.[56]
In terms of nationalities, the largest groups benefiting from subsidiary protection following judicial review were from Eritrea (224 cases), the Russian Federation (103), Iraq (83), and Türkiye (71). While Section 4(1) No. 2 Asylum Act dominated across most nationalities, some variations can be observed: for example, cases concerning persons from the Palestinian territories and Lebanon were predominantly decided under Section 4(1) No. 3 Asylum Act, reflecting conflict-related risks, whereas for countries such as Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, all positive decisions were based exclusively on Section 4(1) No. 2 Asylum Act. Overall, the figures indicate that judicial review continues to result in a non-negligible number of protection grants, but these remain concentrated in specific legal categories and nationalities, with courts primarily recognising risks related to inhuman or degrading treatment rather than other forms of serious harm.
Returns made impossible due to practical or political obstacles (see also above, National forms of protection)
Even when third-country nationals without a residence permit fail to comply with an order to leave Germany, their deportation may be postponed or suspended due to various practical or political obstacles. Such obstacles include deportation bans, moratoriums on returns, lack of cooperation from countries of origin or transit, or other humanitarian and legal barriers.
A deportation may be postponed, and a Duldung (temporary suspension of deportation) granted if state authorities issue a suspension order of the deportation measure for up to three months on humanitarian or international law grounds, if the individual is participating in a vocational training program, has a minor child with a valid residence permit, has close family ties to another individual with a Duldung, suffers from a severe medical condition certified by a doctor, or faces legal obstacles such as the absence of travel documents.[57]
Rejected asylum seekers in Germany are granted Duldung for various reasons. In 2023, the most common cause was the lack of travel documents, affecting 45,566 individuals, while unresolved identity issues accounted for 25,408 cases. Additionally, 20,740 individuals received Duldung due to family ties to other holders of Duldung. Humanitarian or personal reasons, such as completing education or caring for ill family members, led to 7,208 suspensions. A further 3,208 individuals were granted Duldung due to their participation in vocational training, while 1,230 had it on employment-based grounds. Deportation moratoriums applied to 3,480 individuals, and 2,537 cases involved medical reasons. Imminent deportation procedures accounted for 5,603 Duldungen, and 6,031 individuals were awaiting decisions on follow-up asylum applications. Additionally, 4,114 unaccompanied minors and 65,087 individuals for various other reasons received Duldung.[58] By the end of 2024, approximately 178,500 people in Germany were living with tolerated status, a notable decline from around 248,000 at the end of 2022.[59] This reduction is largely attributable to the introduction of the Chancen‑Aufenthaltsrecht (Opportunity Residence Law), which enabled many formerly tolerated individuals to secure a residence permit, thereby regularising their stay.[60] At the same time, the number of deportations increased, with about 20,084 deportations carried out in 2024, further decreasing the population of tolerated persons and reflecting a shift toward stricter enforcement of departure obligations.[61] A significant share of those still holding tolerated status did so because of family ties, education, or humanitarian reasons, and over 40 percent had lived in Germany for more than five years, underscoring the long‑term presence and integration of many individuals affected by these legal categories.[62]
In 2023, approximately 30,300 deportations failed before the individuals could be transferred to the Federal Police, with most failures resulting from last-minute cancellations of flights. Around 1,000 deportations failed after individuals had been handed over to the police. Resistance from individuals facing deportation caused 295 failures, representing about one percent of unsuccessful attempts, while medical reasons accounted for 77 cases. Additionally, airlines or pilots refused to transport individuals in 230 cases.[63]
To address obstacles to deportation, the German government has signed several readmission agreements, including with Balkan countries, Algeria, and Morocco.[64] However, no such agreements currently exist with countries such as Pakistan, Iran, or Nigeria, which remains a significant barrier to returns.
[1] See details at Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, ‚Nationale Abschiebungsverbote‘, updated as of January 2023, available in German here.
[2] BAMF, ‘National ban on deportation’ 28 November 2018, available here.
[3] Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, ‚Nationale Abschiebungsverbote‘, updated as of January 2023, available in German here.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4448 , 3 March 2026, available in German here,8.
[6] Ibid.
[7] BAMF, Akutelle Zahlen, December 2024, available in German here, 11.
[8] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4448 , 3 March 2026, available in German here,8.
[9] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‘Duldung’, available in German here.
[10] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‘Duldung’, available in German here.
[11] BAMF, ‚Nationales Abschiebungsverbot‘, available in German here
[12] Refugees Welcome Duesseldorf, ‚Welche Formen der Anerkennung gibt es für Flüchtlinge?‘, available in German here.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Flüchtlingsrat Thueringen, Wohnsitzauflage, 5/2020, available in German here.
[15] Flüchtlingsrat Thueringen, Wohnsitzauflage, 5/2020, available in German here.
[16] All the information from this paragraph comes from: Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs, ‘Arbeitsmarktzugang für Geflüchtete’, available in German here.
[17] Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration, ‘Asylsuchende, geduldete und ausreisepflichtige Personen’, available in German here.
[18] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‘Duldung’, available in German here.
[19] Refugees Welcome Duesseldorf, ‚Welche Formen der Anerkennung gibt es für Flüchtlinge?‘, available in German here.
[20] The legal basis is § 34 Asylum Law and § 34a Asylum Law.
[21] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‘Abschiebung’, available in German here.
[22] Ibid.
[23] BAMF, ‘Aufenthaltsbeendigung’, 14 November 2019, available in German here.
[24] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‚Abschiebung‘, available in German here.
[25] BAMF, ‘Aufenthaltsbeendigung’, 14 November 2019, available in German here.
[26] Informationsverbund Migration und Asyl, ‚Abschiebung‘, available in German here.
[27] Netzpolitik.org, ‚Hunderttausende Euro, um Handys von Geflüchteten zu knacken‘, 24 May 2024, available in German here.
[28] Chris Köver, ‘Ausländerbehörden: Handy-Razzia zur Identitätsfeststellung wird bundesweiter Standard’ Netzpolitik.org (29 September 2025), available in German here.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Legal Tribune Online (LTO), Migrationsbilanz 2025: Fewer Asylum Applications, More Deportations (5 Jan. 2026), available here, and Answer by Parliamentary State Secretary Christoph de Vries dated January 27, 2026, to a question by Clara Bünger (Die Linke), Printed Matter 21/3928, 10.
[32] Answer by Parliamentary State Secretary Christoph de Vries dated January 27, 2026, to a question by Clara Bünger (Die Linke), Printed Matter 21/3928, 10.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Mediendienst Integration, ‚Abschiebungen und “freiwillige Ausreisen”‘, available in German here.
[36] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4448 , 3 March 2026, available in German here,70.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Migration in Zahlen, available in German here.
[39] Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (BMI), Federal Government Resumes Deportations of Convicted Offenders to Syria and Afghanistan, 23 December 2025, available here.
[40] Legal Tribune Online (LTO), Migrationsbilanz 2025: Fewer Asylum Applications, More Deportations (5 Jan. 2026), available here.
[41] Ibid.
[42] PRO ASYL, Deportation to Afghanistan Despite Known Human Rights Violations on the Ground, 23 July 2025, available here.
[43] German Institute for Human Rights, Four Years After the Taliban Takeover: Deportations to Afghanistan Are Unbearable (13 Aug. 2025), available here.
[44] Tagesschau, Deportations to Afghanistan: Reactions (30 Aug. 2024), Tagesschau.de, available here.
[45] German Bundestag, Response of Parliamentary State Secretary Daniela Ludwig of 7 January 2026, 21/3520, 7 January 2026, available here, 33.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49 Peter Hornung, Taliban-Mitglied leitet afghanische Botschaft in Berlin, ARD Tagesschau, 21 March 2026, available in German here.
[50] Federal Government Reply by the Federal Government to the small request by Clara Bünger, Dr. André Hahn, Gökay Akbulut, other MPs and the Die Linke group, 20/12385, 22 August 2024, available in German here, 2.
[51] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/14923, 21 March 2025, available in German here, 37.
[52] Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, ‚Asylentscheidungen und Klagen‘, 10 January 2025, available in German here.
[53] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by The Left, 20/15083, 3 March 2025, available in German here, 17.
[54] Ibid, 18.
[55] Federal Government, Response to parliamentary question by the Left, 21/4448 , 3 March 2026, available in German here, 20.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Mediendienst Integration, ‚Warum werden ausreisepflichtige Personen nicht abgeschoben?‘, available in German here.
[58] Federal Government, Response of the Federal Government to the minor interpellation by Clara Bünger, Anke Domscheit-Berg, Nicole Gohlke, other MPs and the Left Party group, 20/10576, April 18, 2024, available in German here, 44.
[59] Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb), The Duldung and the Tension Between the Obligation to Leave and the Right to Stay, bpb.de (29 Oct. 2025), available here.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid. For numbers on deportations from Germany between 2014-2024, see Statista, Number of Deportations from Germany from 2014 to 2024, de.statista.com (published Feb. 2025), available here.
[62] Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb), The Duldung and the Tension Between the Obligation to Leave and the Right to Stay, bpb.de (29 Oct. 2025), available in German here.
[63] Federal Government, Reply by the Federal Government to the minor interpellation by Clara Bünger, Anke Domscheit-Berg, Nicole Gohlke, other MPs and the Die Linke group, 20/11087, Deportations and departures in 2023 and the first quarter of 2024, 16 May 2024, available in German here, 22.
[64] Mediendienst Integration, ‚Warum werden ausreisepflichtige Personen nicht abgeschoben?‘, available in German here..