1. Where there is an armed conflict that is not nationwide, the prognosis of danger required under Section 60 (7) sentence 2 of the Residence Act must be based on the foreigner’s actual destination in the event of a return. This will regularly be the foreigner’s region of origin. If the region of origin is out of the question as a destination because of the danger threatening the Complainant there, he can be expelled to another region of the country only under the conditions established in Article 8 of Directive 2004/83/EC (confirmation of the judgment of 14 July 2009 - BVerwG 10 C 9.08 - BVerwGE 134, 188 - para. 17, and the decision of 14 November 2012 - BVerwG 10 B 22.12 -).
2. In assessing whether extraordinary circumstances exist that are not the direct responsibility of the destination state of expulsion, and that prohibit the expelling state from deporting the foreigner under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, normally the examination should be based on the entire destination state of expulsion, and should first examine whether such conditions exist at the place where the deportation ends.
3. Poor humanitarian conditions in the destination state of expulsion may provide grounds for a prohibition of deportation only in exceptional cases having regard to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (here: denied for Afghanistan, following European Court of Human Rights, judgments of 21 January 2011 - no. 30696/09, M.S.S. - NVwZ 2011, 413; of 28 June 2011 - no. 831/07, Sufi and Elmi - NVwZ 2012, 681; and of 13 October 2011 - no. 10611/09, Husseini - NJOZ 2012, 952).
4. The national prohibition of deportation under Section 60 (5) of the Residence Act, with reference to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is not superseded by the prohibition of deportation under Union law pursuant to Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act.