BVerwG 10 B 9/12, 10 B 9/12 (10 C 17/12)•Revision admitted on deportation ban under immigration law
BVerwG 10 B 9/12, 10 B 9/12 (10 C 17/12)Bverwg / Division 103 de jul. de 2012Granted
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Administrative Court held that the complaint against the denial of leave to appeal was admissible and well-founded. It admitted the revision under § 132(2) No. 1 VwGO because the case could further clarify the requirements of § 60(8) sentence 1 alternative 2 AufenthG, namely the exclusion of protection where a person has been finally sentenced to at least three years' imprisonment and poses a danger to the public.
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admission of revision for fundamental importance in a deportation-ban case under § 60 Abs. 8 sentence 1 alternative 2 AufenthG. Fundamental importance exists where the dispute can clarify unresolved prerequisites for the exclusion of protection, in particular the meaning of a final sentence to a term of imprisonment of at least three years and the associated danger to the public (consid. 2).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-07-03
Aktenzeichen: 10 B 9/12, 10 B 9/12 (10 C 17/12)
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 60 Abs 8 S 1 Alt 2 AufenthG 2004, § 132 Abs 2 Nr 1 VwGO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, 2. Januar 2012, Az: 4 Bf 26/09.A, Beschluss
Spruchkörper: 10. Senat
Abschiebungsverbot; Verurteilung zu einer Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe; Revisionszulassung
1 Die Beschwerde ist zulässig und begründet.
2 Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Sie kann dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht Gelegenheit geben, die Voraussetzungen des § 60 Abs. 8 Satz 1 Alt. 2 AufenthG (Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit wegen rechtskräftiger Verurteilung zu einer Freiheitsstrafe von mindestens 3 Jahren) weiter zu klären.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted for the case concerning § 60(8) sentence 1 alternative 2 AufenthG.
The complaint was admissible and well-founded; revision had to be admitted because the case raised a question of fundamental importance.
The case may allow clarification of the requirements for a deportation ban exclusion based on a final conviction to at least three years' imprisonment and danger to the public.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.