(GERMANY) — Germany’s Federal Administrative Court has held that deportation (Dublin transfer) to Greece can be lawful for certain non‑vulnerable applicants already holding protection in Greece, lowering the practical barrier for returns in a category of cases that had often been blocked by lower courts due to reception conditions.
The ruling’s real-world impact is immediate: healthy, single, able‑bodied men who were registered in Greece and later applied in Germany may face faster responsibility determinations under the Dublin system, with courts more likely to reject arguments that hardship in Greece automatically reaches the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment. At the same time, Germany’s political decision to pause returns into mid‑2026 alters case timing and enforcement in the short term. A separate, contemporaneous set of U.S. DHS/USCIS posture changes underscores that humanitarian protection regimes can tighten quickly, even when the legal frameworks differ.
Warning: A court finding that returns are “generally permissible” does not end the analysis. Many cases still turn on individualized vulnerability evidence and updated country-condition records.
1) The German Court Ruling (Federal Administrative Court)
On April 16, 2025, Germany’s Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) in Leipzig ruled that Germany may transfer certain protected persons back to Greece, even when Greece has already granted them international protection. The decision is widely read as a turning point for Dublin transfers to Greece.
The legal test: Article 4 EU Charter / Article 3 ECHR
The court framed the core question under Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Both prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment. In Dublin cases, that prohibition can block transfers when the receiving state’s conditions create a real risk of such treatment for the person being transferred.
German administrative courts had often treated Greece’s documented gaps in housing and benefits as sufficient, in many cases, to stop transfers. The Leipzig court narrowed that approach for a defined group.
The “Bread, Bed, and Soap” minimum threshold
Presiding Judge Robert Keller articulated a minimum humanitarian baseline that has been summarized as “bread, bed, and soap.” The point is not comfort. It is the court’s view of the minimum material conditions that must be realistically attainable to avoid “extreme material hardship.”
In practical terms, German courts applying this threshold may ask whether a person can, on return to Greece:
- access some form of emergency accommodation or basic shelter,
- maintain basic hygiene, and
- obtain minimal food support, including through informal work or municipal assistance.
The court reasoned that, for healthy, single, able‑bodied men, the record supported a finding that they could typically avoid the most extreme forms of destitution. That conclusion is what makes the decision consequential for similar cases.
Who the ruling is aimed at
The decision is aimed at a narrower set of applicants than the headlines suggest. The court emphasized a profile it viewed as most able to cope: non‑vulnerable, healthy adult men, without dependents, and without medical or protection-related impediments that would foreseeably prevent survival-level self‑support.
That focus matters for litigation strategy. If an applicant can show vulnerability—medical needs, disability, severe trauma, parenting responsibilities, or other individualized risk factors—the “bread, bed, and soap” framing may not resolve the case.
2) Implementation Context and Policy Shifts (2025–2026)
Even after the court’s legal green light, Germany’s practice has not been linear. The federal government’s implementation choices shape what happens to people in proceedings day-to-day.
Germany’s pause: what it means procedurally
Germany announced a temporary suspension of deportations/transfers to Greece on December 12, 2025, set to last until June 12, 2026. A pause typically does not erase Dublin responsibility findings. It often changes timing and enforcement discretion.
During a pause, common procedural effects include:
- Delayed physical transfers, even when the legal basis remains.
- Case handling shifts, with authorities continuing to issue decisions while holding off on execution.
- Backlog pressure, as files accumulate for later action.
- More litigation over deadlines, including transfer-period extensions and tolling arguments.
Deadline: The pause window runs from December 12, 2025 through June 12, 2026. People with pending Dublin steps should track transfer notices and appeal deadlines closely.
EU Asylum and Migration Pact and coordination dynamics
Germany linked its pause to an “overall compromise” tied to implementation of the EU Asylum and Migration Pact and diplomatic coordination with Greece and Italy. The practical message to applicants is this: policy coordination can change the pace of returns even when court standards permit them.
The compromise has been described as processing certain applications locally in Germany “until new EU‑wide rules take full effect in mid‑2026.” That phrasing signals a transition period, not a permanent shift. It may affect where a case is heard, how quickly an interview occurs, and whether a person can stabilize housing while waiting.
After the pause ends: realistic scenarios
When a pause expires, outcomes typically fall into a few lanes rather than one uniform policy:
- Resumption with screening: Transfers restart, but authorities apply case-by-case checks for vulnerability and updated conditions.
- Staggered resumption: Limited operational capacity produces a slow ramp-up, prioritizing certain profiles.
- Expanded vulnerability litigation: Applicants present stronger individualized evidence to distinguish themselves from the “non‑vulnerable” group.
For many applicants, the key question will be whether their record shows more than generalized hardship. Evidence tied to housing access, medical continuity, family unity, and documented barriers in Greece often becomes central.
3) Relevant U.S. DHS and USCIS Statements (February 2026)
Readers should avoid conflating systems. EU Dublin transfers allocate responsibility among EU states. U.S. law operates under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) with distinct humanitarian categories. Still, U.S. policy signals matter for refugees and humanitarian applicants globally, including those with travel ties to the Schengen area.
DHS refugee re-screening posture and custody implications
As described in the source content, a February 18, 2026 DHS memorandum reportedly authorizes ICE to arrest and detain certain lawful refugees who have not adjusted to permanent residence, pending mandatory re‑screening.
In the U.S. framework, a “refugee” is admitted under INA § 207, and may later adjust under INA § 209. Detention authority and custody review procedures typically arise under INA § 236 and related regulations. The practical consequence is not just re‑vetting. It is the loss of liberty during review, which raises urgent needs for counsel, custody redetermination requests where available, and careful document collection.
Warning: Any detention or re-screening action can move quickly. People affected should seek legal help immediately and avoid signing documents they do not understand.
USCIS “hold and review” and how holds function
The source content describes a USCIS policy memo effective January 1, 2026: Policy Memorandum PM‑602‑0194, titled “Hold and Review of USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from Additional High‑Risk Countries.”
In many USCIS contexts, a “hold” may show up as:
- interview postponements,
- extended background checks,
- a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID),
- or delayed adjudication while criteria are reassessed.
These tools are procedural, but they create practical hardship. They can disrupt work authorization timelines, family-based processing, and housing stability.
TPS termination as a return-focused indicator
The source content also notes termination of TPS for Yemen on February 14, 2026. TPS is governed by INA § 244. Termination generally triggers a wind‑down period, possible loss of work authorization after designated dates, and heightened travel risk.
TPS termination does not equal automatic removal for every person. But it often forces fast evaluation of alternatives, including asylum (INA § 208), withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3)), CAT protection, family petitions, or employment options.
Clear separation of systems
Germany’s Greece-transfer cases are about Dublin responsibility and European human-rights minimums. The U.S. actions described involve admission status, benefit adjudications, detention, and temporary protection under U.S. statutes and agency processes. The shared theme is administrative discretion tightening the day-to-day reality of protection.
4) Impact and Significance
Who is most affected
The primary affected profile in Germany is the one the court explicitly centered: healthy, single men with prior registration or protection in Greece. Many have precarious housing histories. That makes “ability to cope” factors decisive, including language skills, prior time in Greece, and any past access to shelter.
Why the ruling lowers the practical barrier
By adopting a low minimum threshold—“bread, bed, and soap”—the Federal Administrative Court effectively signaled to lower courts and authorities that generalized evidence of strained reception conditions may not be enough for that non‑vulnerable profile. That can reinforce the core Dublin logic: the first responsible state remains responsible absent an individualized rights bar.
Critiques and how they translate into case strategy
Critics argue that “minimum” standards can be detached from on‑the‑ground realities, including shelter shortages, administrative barriers to benefits, and reliance on informal work. For applicants, critiques are most useful when converted into evidence:
- medical records tied to functional limitations,
- proof of prior homelessness or violence exposure in Greece,
- documentation of failed attempts to access assistance,
- and expert reports on access barriers for specific subgroups.
In U.S. proceedings, a parallel principle often appears: adjudicators may require individualized showings rather than broad country narratives. The BIA has long treated risk assessments as fact-specific. See, e.g., Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987) (discussing individualized proof concepts in asylum adjudication). For chain-of-events theories under CAT, adjudicators also scrutinize each link. See Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006).
5) Official Government Sources and References
For verification, start with official domains and identifiers. Avoid screenshots and reposts without provenance.
- USCIS newsroom/policy materials: uscis.gov/newsroom Policy memo referenced: PM‑602‑0194 (effective January 1, 2026).
If you cannot locate a memo, check for an archived agency page, a press release referencing the directive, or a Federal Register notice where applicable. Attorneys may also request records through FOIA or agency liaison channels.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources: – AILA lawyer search
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
