A Tajik asylum seeker whom German security authorities considered a potential security risk spent months in church asylum in Wuppertal in 2024, delaying his transfer to Lithuania despite repeated asylum proceedings and concerns documented by German investigators.
The case of Ibroimdzhon K., alongside a separate 2023 church-asylum case involving an Iraqi man suspected of past Islamic State activity, highlights an increasingly difficult question for Germany: how should a humanitarian institution designed for exceptional hardship cases operate when the people seeking its protection are also subject to serious security concerns or repeated removal proceedings?
According to a recent FOCUS investigation, German security officials regarded K., a 44-year-old Tajik national, as a security risk. Tajik authorities had alleged that he attended an Islamic State training camp, an allegation German officials had reason to assess cautiously because of Tajikistan’s authoritarian government. But the concerns were not based solely on information from Tajikistan. FOCUS reported that German authorities had identified Islamist writings connected to the case and that the matter was discussed at North Rhine-Westphalia’s security conference.
The Case
But the concerns did not originate solely with Tajik authorities. FOCUS reported that German investigators had identified Islamist writings connected to K.’s case and that security officials considered the indications sufficiently serious for the matter to be discussed at North Rhine-Westphalia’s security conference.
K. had previously been transferred from Germany to Lithuania under the European Dublin system. He illegally re-entered Germany in July 2020 and was transferred to Lithuania again several months later. On December 6, 2023, he appeared at a reception center in Bochum and filed another asylum application, prompting prosecutors in Cologne to investigate his unauthorized entry.
By March 2024, K. had entered church asylum in Wuppertal. His wife and five children were meanwhile living in Erkrath, according to FOCUS. Publicly available reporting does not establish their precise immigration status, housing arrangements or level of public assistance, making it impossible to reliably calculate the family’s cost to the German state.
Authorities later attempted to remove K. again. Police ultimately encountered him outside the church premises and returned him to Lithuania for a third time. FOCUS reported his transfer but did not establish what happened afterward. His current whereabouts could not be independently determined.
The case does not establish that church asylum is inherently problematic. Rather, it raises questions about how an institution designed to address exceptional humanitarian circumstances functions when it is used by individuals whom security authorities regard as potential risks.
The individuals and congregations providing sanctuary are often ordinary Christians responding to perceived humanitarian need. They may believe that administrative procedures have failed to identify relevant facts or that removal could expose a person to serious harm. Their assistance can include accommodation, food, legal support and additional time for authorities to reconsider a case.
The broader policy question concerns the interaction between this presumption of good faith and individuals who may be able to use church asylum to delay or complicate enforcement procedures.
The intended function of church asylum
Modern German Kirchenasyl is not a separate legal status or a legally protected sanctuary from state enforcement. German law continues to apply, and police can in principle arrest or remove someone from church property.
Instead, church asylum is a humanitarian practice under which congregations temporarily shelter individuals facing removal while asking authorities to reconsider what they believe to be an exceptional hardship case.
Churches describe the practice as an ultima ratio, or last resort. Its limited scope is central to its moral and institutional justification. The Evangelical Church in Germany has likewise emphasized that church asylum is intended for individual hardship cases rather than as an attempt to undermine the asylum system. The policy implications become more complicated when church asylum involves individuals whom security authorities regard as potential risks.
In 2023, police entered the grounds of an evangelical congregation in Aldenhoven to arrest a 29-year-old Iraqi man whom local authorities said may previously have participated in fighting abroad as a supporter of the Islamic State.
Under European asylum-allocation rules, Croatia was responsible for his case. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, or BAMF, reviewed the church-asylum claim and concluded that no exceptional hardship existed.
The man nevertheless remained on the church property. Police later arrested him pursuant to a judicial order and transferred him to Croatia. ZEIT reported the case and the authorities’ stated security concerns.
The case illustrates the procedural complications that can arise even after authorities have rejected an exceptional-hardship claim and identified potential security concerns. The congregation did not create the underlying administrative difficulty. Rather, it operated within a system in which humanitarian, legal and security considerations can overlap.
Administrative capacity and case completion
Germany recorded 2,254 people in church asylum in 2025. In the same year’s church-asylum cases, 2,193 people reached the point at which responsibility for their asylum proceedings passed to Germany after the applicable European transfer deadline expired.
The federal government cautioned, however, that it does not record whether the deadline expired because of church asylum itself or because a transfer failed for another reason. Forty people from 2025 church-asylum cases also remained in proceedings when the figures were compiled. The figures come from a 2026 Bundestag response on church asylum and Dublin transfers.
The figures nevertheless illustrate the importance of transfer deadlines within Germany’s asylum system. Under the Dublin framework, responsibility for processing an asylum claim can shift to Germany when another European state was initially responsible but the transfer is not completed within the applicable period.
This issue exists within a much larger removal caseload.
As of June 30, 2026, 258,845 people in Germany were legally required to leave the country. Of those, 199,271 had a Duldung, meaning their removal was temporarily suspended, often for legal, practical or humanitarian reasons. The total therefore does not represent 258,845 people whom authorities could immediately deport. It does, however, illustrate the scale of Germany’s unresolved removal caseload.
In 2025, Germany carried out 22,787 deportations, including 5,377 transfers to other European states under Dublin procedures. Germany’s Federal Agency for Civic Education summarizes the deportation figures. Although new asylum applications declined, the administrative system continued to process pending cases, appeals and failed transfers. BAMF’s 2025 asylum statistics document the decline in new applications and the continuing caseload.
The resulting administrative burden is distributed across multiple institutions. Municipalities provide accommodation and social services. Immigration offices process applications and removal procedures. Courts review legal challenges. Police conduct removals. Security agencies monitor individuals considered potential threats. The consequences therefore extend beyond individual asylum cases to public budgets, local services and the state’s capacity to implement immigration decisions.
Presumptions of good faith and institutional vulnerability
Church asylum depends substantially on a presumption of good faith. Pastors and parish volunteers generally do not have access to intelligence files or the ability to independently verify foreign security assessments. Their decisions are typically based on humanitarian information, personal testimony and the belief that vulnerable individuals should receive additional scrutiny before removal.
That presumption serves an important humanitarian function. It can also create an institutional vulnerability when individuals use the protection and moral authority of a congregation to delay enforcement procedures. The relevant distinction is not between Christian and Muslim claimants. Christian mercy is not premised on religious similarity between a congregation and the person seeking protection.
The relevant distinction is between cases in which church asylum functions as a genuine last defense against serious hardship and cases in which it becomes one element in a broader effort to postpone a lawful transfer or removal. A current case involving Yazidi asylum seeker Delshad Issa in Stuttgart illustrates the humanitarian rationale for the institution.
Issa, 28, has lived in Baden-Württemberg for eight years, speaks German and had secured a vocational-training position, while his brothers have permission to remain in Germany. BAMF nevertheless ordered him transferred to Bulgaria, where he was first registered in the European Union.
His evangelical congregation believes church asylum is necessary to give authorities additional time to reconsider his case. Local supporters have also pointed to his Yazidi background and concerns about hostility toward Yazidis.
The Wuppertal and Aldenhoven cases raise a different institutional question: how should church asylum operate when the individual involved is also subject to serious security concerns or has repeatedly re-entered the asylum process?
The issue is therefore not whether humanitarian assistance should disappear. It is whether Germany can preserve the protective function of church asylum while developing procedures that prevent an exceptional humanitarian measure from becoming a mechanism for prolonged or repeated delay.
I never knew that this still existed, talk about a relic from a bygone age!