General preventive deportation: Risk for migrant workers in criminal cases

Deportation as a deterrent? In its ruling of March 24, 2025 (Case No. 1 C 15-.23), the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) reapplied the legal concept of general deterrent deportation under Section 53 of the Residence Act and clarified its limits. The significance of general deterrent deportation should not be underestimated, especially for international students and skilled workers . The ruling confirms that serious criminal offenses can lead to deportation (regardless of the expiration of the residence permit ) even without an individual risk of recidivism – as a deterrent to other foreigners. The ruling is significant for holders of work-related residence permits (such as the Blue Card or ITC Card ), as the interests of deportation do not always prevail in a balancing of interests, even in cases of good professional integration.

The concept of general preventive expulsion

The concept of deportation for general deterrence is not new, but has been pursued by the Federal Administrative Court for years. General deterrence is a term from criminal law and means that the focus is not on the perpetrator, but on the general public.

In principle, deportation under Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act only occurs if the offender poses an individual danger . This is assumed, for example, if multiple offenses have been committed, i.e., if there is a so-called risk of recidivism. Therefore, a criminal offense in itself does not necessarily lead to the loss of a residence permit. A comprehensive assessment must be carried out in accordance with Section 53 Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act, weighing the interests of the individual remaining in the country. Factors such as personal and economic ties, law-abiding behavior, hardship cases, and consequences for the family must be weighed against the expulsion interests under Section 54 of the Residence Act .

The legal concept of general preventive deportation also includes the impact on other foreigners in the balancing of interests: the balancing of interests should then be to the detriment of the foreigner if the failure to take a reaction under immigration law to his misconduct would not effectively deter other foreigners from committing comparable offenses.

What was it like here?

An Iranian national – an architecture student in his home country – was sentenced in 2019 to two years and three months in prison for a drug offense . Subsequently, the responsible authority revoked his residence permit . In the court proceedings, the Bremen Administrative Court ruled that the conditions for deportation as a general deterrent were met.

It assumes a "behavioral effect of deportation on other foreigners" if "other foreigners are impressed by a deportation." This was affirmed even though the plaintiff was not involved in a criminal milieu and was only convicted for a single instance of running errands. The court leaves no doubt that the effect of the deportation order is intended to send the signal that certain criminal offenses will lead to the uncompromising loss of the right of residence in Germany . The Higher Administrative Court of Bremen upheld the decision, as did the Federal Administrative Court.

Importance for skilled workers and international students

The decision reached by the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) regarding a migrant with a humanitarian residence permit affects people with work- or training-related residence permits even more significantly. While refugees have the last resort of obtaining a deportation ban under Section 60 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), no such "lifeline" exists for individuals with residence status under Sections 16 to 21 of the Residence Act . Furthermore, these residence permits are strictly purpose-bound, which means that weighing the pros and cons of revoking a residence permit can more easily work against a labor migrant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision makes it clear once again that holders of work-related residence permits must always consider the risk of losing their permit if they are accused of a crime. The intended effect on other foreigners can have surprisingly severe consequences under immigration law, even in cases of otherwise good professional and social integration. The findings in criminal proceedings can therefore be crucial for subsequent or concurrent immigration proceedings.

For this reason, it is absolutely essential for foreign professionals facing criminal proceedings to also seek advice on immigration law.

Judgments

• VG Bremen (first instance) Judgment of 14.04.2023 - 2 K 1366/21 ( Juris , paywall)

• Higher Administrative Court of Bremen (second instance) judgment of 30.08.2023 - 2 LC 116/23 ( Higher Administrative Court of Bremen , freely accessible)

• Federal Administrative Court (third instance) judgment of 24 March 2025 - 1 C 15.23 ( Federal Administrative Court , freely accessible)