Dispute over church asylum for Afghans in Berlin escalates: clashes between BAMF and churches

Since the beginning of the year, the Berlin Senate has received 77 notifications of church asylums in the capital. The Senate Department for the Interior and Sport confirmed this in response to an inquiry by this newspaper. A total of 101 people have been sheltered in Berlin churches as a result. It is unknown how many of these people are still in church asylum, it said.

Last week, the case of three Afghans who had been taken in by the Trinity Congregation in Berlin-Steglitz caused a stir. According to the church, they are converted Christians. They had filed their initial asylum applications in Sweden – where they were supposed to remain under EU law. However, the men moved from there to Hamburg and finally to Berlin. These are so-called Dublin cases: people whose asylum procedures would be the responsibility of the EU state where they were first registered.

Since the Afghans have now received church asylum in the Berlin community, a dispute has erupted between the governments of the city-states. The Berliner Zeitung reported on an exceptionally stern letter from the First Mayor of Hamburg, Peter Tschentscher ( SPD ), to his counterpart Kai Wegner ( CDU ). At its core, the issue is who should get the Afghans out of the church.

Hamburg had requested assistance from the Berlin police, but this request was rejected – because the Berlin Senate is fundamentally opposed to violating church asylum. Meanwhile, the capital is claiming that the Hanseatic League is responsible . And they are clearly having a hard time breaking into church premises in another federal state.

Berlin pastor reports on contacts with BAMF

In general, federal states handle church asylum differently. For example, last year Hamburg expelled an Afghan man from a church to Sweden after the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected his so-called hardship application. The church used this as a justification for the man's safety being threatened if he were deported from Sweden to Afghanistan. This was the first violation of church asylum in Hamburg.

The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) made a similar decision in the case of Afghans in the Berlin church. The Tiergarten District Court issued search warrants as a result. However, the pastor of the Protestant congregation, Gottfried Martens, complains that the office had examined the hardship files from a formal legal perspective and explicitly failed to examine their content. The BAMF did not address his church's "substantive arguments." As a general rule, the vast majority of files are rejected.

Martens told the Berliner Zeitung that his congregation primarily cares for Afghan Christians. Because of Sweden's "rejection practices," they face deportation to Afghanistan. In the required hardship dossiers, the church states that the individuals have "seriously converted to the Christian faith" and would therefore be in mortal danger in Afghanistan. Church asylum in Germany is intended for such cases: It is intended to protect against life-threatening situations in the home country, including health risks, and makes deportations considerably more difficult.

According to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the number of church asylum cases has recently increased significantly throughout Germany. According to the report, 2,386 cases were registered last year. In 2023, the number was 2,065—around 300 fewer.

Pastor Gottfried Martens has had frequent contact with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) regarding hardship dossiers. When another EU member state rejects an asylum application, the office responds that it cannot and will not review the foreign authorities' decision on the merits as long as Germany is not responsible. In the current case, this means that the office must formally adhere to the decision of the authorities in Sweden. Martens describes the BAMF's response as follows: "You can write 20 pages about the person—it doesn't matter to us. We don't review the merits, but merely formally establish that the asylum application has already been rejected in Sweden. That's why we reject the hardship dossier."

His congregation also accepts refugees whose asylum applications have not been rejected by another state. The church then explains why deportation could constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. "The BAMF's response, when it is reviewed, is always the same," says Martens: "These arguments do not convince us." Martens cites a rejection rate of 99 percent. In the vast majority of cases, the BAMF does not conduct any review at all, but rather leaves files pending until the transfer deadline has expired. At that point, Germany is responsible for the asylum procedures.

"Only when a federal state puts pressure on individual cases is an investigation carried out – and then the result is always the same," says the pastor. That's exactly what Hamburg did. "It put pressure on the BAMF to review our files. And then we knew right away what the outcome would be."

BAMF on church asylum: “Overwhelmingly” no hardship cases

The dispute over the Afghans in the Berlin community gives an insight into how strained the relationship between the churches and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) appears to be. Both sides accuse each other of not taking hardship files seriously.

The BAMF declined to comment on the three Afghans—or individual cases in general. However, they are aware of the accusation that the Federal Office usually fails to make decisions on the merits of the dossiers. In fact, a BAMF spokesperson told this newspaper that in around 30 percent of cases, either no dossier is received by the office at all or it is not received within the deadline.

If the dossier arrives at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), it is often submitted "shortly before the expiration of the transfer deadline." This contradicts a 2015 agreement between the Federal Office and the Christian churches in Germany. According to the agreement, the document must be submitted as early as possible before the expiration of the transfer deadline, says the BAMF spokesperson. Failure to do so "significantly complicates a decision on the merits," and "it can then largely no longer be guaranteed."

The BAMF emphasizes that the agreement on church asylum is intended exclusively for cases related to the Dublin Regulation. It concerns the jurisdiction for examining an asylum application. The grounds for church asylum must be supported by "new evidence" or "circumstantial evidence" that goes beyond what has already been established in the Dublin procedure.

According to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the reported individuals are "overwhelmingly" not considered hardship cases. The dossiers "mostly cite the same reasons that were already examined under the regular Dublin procedure." They also point to deficiencies in asylum procedures in other countries, such as Sweden. The BAMF calls this "systemic criticism of the Dublin procedure." And emphasizes that, according to the agreement on church asylum, this too is "not permissible as a hardship case."

Meanwhile, the Berlin Senate intends to maintain its stance on church asylum even if the BAMF rejects the application. "Out of respect for the churches," the Interior Ministry stated, "and for the historically developed church asylum as an expression of a Christian-humanitarian tradition," there will be no "repatriations from the premises of religious communities." This applies at least as long as the men are staying on the premises of the congregation. "If the review process is negative and those affected are found outside the premises of the religious community, repatriation can take place," it states.