Humanitarian visas and admission declaration pursuant to Section 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin obliged to issue a new decision quickly

VG Berlin (41st Chamber), Ref. 41 L 763/25 V, decision of 06.01.2026

The decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of 06.01.2026 (Ref. 41 L 763/25 V) is a prime example of current practice in urgent visa protection in connection with admission programmes and humanitarian visas. By way of a temporary injunction, the chamber obliges the respondent to make a new decision on the applicants' visa applications by 13 January 2026, taking into account the court's legal opinion - but rejects any further decisions (in particular the immediate granting of visas).

The decision is particularly instructive for those affected and counsellors on three points:

1. A „right to immediate visa issuance“ cannot usually be enforced in summary proceedings - especially not without a security check having been carried out.

2. Even if there was a declaration of admission (bridging list), this is not an administrative act according to the Chamber, but an internal administrative act.

3. However, the cancellation of an admission declaration once it has been issued cannot take place in a legal vacuum: The court requires sufficient, case-specific justification in order to enable (at least) arbitrary judicial review - especially in seemingly comparable cases.

What was the procedural issue?

The applicants wanted to have an earlier interim decision by the Chamber amended (analogous to Section 80 (7) VwGO). The aim was - in essence - the obligation to issue visas for entry, primarily in accordance with Section 22 sentence 2 AufenthG, alternatively in accordance with Section 22 sentence 1 AufenthG (and other catch-all or auxiliary constructions). This „visa immediately“ application was unsuccessful. The court did not see any significant change in circumstances that would support an amendment in accordance with Section 80 (7) VwGO (by analogy) and did not make use of the option to amend the decision ex officio.

The decisive factor is that the appropriate lever for the request for a new decision on the visa applications (new decision) was not Section 80 (7) VwGO, but a new application under Section 123 VwGO. And it was precisely in this respect that the summary proceedings were successful.

Why not issue a visa in summary proceedings?

The Chamber clarifies that a „weighing of consequences“ typically plays a role in the context of Section 80 (5) VwGO - but not as a substitute for the substantiation of a high degree of probability in the case of an interim injunction pursuant to Section 123 VwGO, which would also effectively anticipate the main proceedings in this case.

In terms of substance, the entitlement to a visa fails primarily because the security check was not carried out. Even if there is a declaration of admission in accordance with Section 22 Residence Act, the examination of compelling or weighty reasons for refusal (interest in expulsion, security concerns) remains central from the court's point of view. The discourse on naturalisation and residence becomes clear here: the court emphasises that the official security assessment cannot be replaced by the court's own assessment and that a personal interview or the orderly process via the diplomatic mission abroad remains necessary.

In short: No „visa by court order“ without a security check.

Why the new decision could still be enforced

The actual breakthrough lies in the claim for a decision: the applicants were able to credibly demonstrate that the refusal notices contained legally significant errors - not necessarily because the authority was „materially wrong“, but because the reasoning was not sufficient to review the decision in a court of law.

The focus is on the question of how the authority or the Federal Ministry of the Interior to refrain from a declaration of admission previously submitted as part of the bridging list in accordance with Section 22 sentence 2 AufenthG.

Key message: Declaration of inclusion is generally not an administrative act - but obligation to state reasons in the light of effective legal protection

The court categorises the declaration of admission as an internal administrative act (no administrative act pursuant to Section 35 VwVfG, no direct external effect), among other things because the communication is typically sent internally to the Federal Foreign Office and those affected (here) only indirectly via the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) The applicant must be informed of the fact that there is no legal entitlement and that the prospect of admission may be cancelled if political reasons no longer apply.

Consequence: The withdrawal/revocation provisions of Sections 48, 49 VwVfG are not relevant and also not applicable by analogy (no unintended regulatory gap, no comparable interests in the absence of an external effect).

And yet: The court emphasises that there is no „legal vacuum“ in a decision to turn away. Precisely because of Art. 19 Para. 4 GG (effective legal protection) and Art. 3 Para. 1 GG (equality), the chamber demands at least an arbitrary review. Arbitrariness is narrowly defined: unjustifiable, without comprehensible reasons, irrelevant - and only given if the decision would not be justifiable from any conceivable point of view.

The crux of the matter in this specific case: the Chamber cannot review this arbitrariness threshold because the reasoning is not sufficiently transparent/related to the individual case. There is a „contrasting case“ which, in the opinion of the court, requires an explanation: On 22 December 2025, an Afghan judge entered the country with his family, who was also on the bridging list. The authority merely referred to an individual case decision and „renewed affirmed political interest“ - without explaining the special circumstances in such a way that comparability or factual differentiation can be examined.

The court does not say: „Then you must include everyone.“ But it does say: If you (re)affirm the political interest in one case and flatly deny it in other cases, you must give reasons so that a court can examine whether this differentiation is objectively justifiable.

Urgency and deadline: Why until 13 January 2026?

The reason for the order is strongly based on the real danger situation: Afghan nationals in Pakistan are in a tense situation, with a concrete threat of arrest and deportation to Afghanistan. The Chamber refers to the situation as known to the courts and also relies on the relevant constitutional court line. The unpredictability of the situation in Afghanistan and the question of how long accommodation and protection mechanisms (safe house) are actually viable must also be taken into account.

Against this background, the court limits the temporary injunction to what is necessary: a quick, legally viable new decision by 13 January 2026.

What the Chamber expressly does not order

The application to secure GIZ's ongoing support services (accommodation, food, medical care) in court and to demand „effective measures“ against deportation by Pakistani authorities was unsuccessful. The reasons for this include the lack of a basis for a claim, doubts about the legitimacy of the claim and the vagueness of such a request in the context of a temporary injunction.

Practical takeaways for clients

1. The realistic goal in summary proceedings is often a new decision, not the granting of a visa.

2. Without a security check, „visa immediately“ is hardly enforceable - even in humanitarian constellations.

3. If the authority withdraws a previously communicated admission perspective, the justification is crucial: Transparency, reference to the individual case, comprehensible reasons for differentiation from comparable cases.

Notes for legal practice

1. Application strategy: Make a clear distinction between (a) issuing a visa and (b) claiming a decision. The second route is often the more resilient urgent legal protection.

2. Reasoning attack: Do not just argue „unreasonably“, but work out specific reasoning deficits and comparative cases (Art. 3/Art. 19 para. 4 as a test framework for arbitrariness limit).

3. Consider the security component: Without a sound factual basis for the security check, the court will not anticipate a substantive entry decision.

4. Use deadlines: If the court sets a deadline for a decision, you should actively address the file/basis for the decision and the core of the reasoning in parallel so that the new decision is not merely „formally“ new, but can be reviewed by the court in terms of content.

Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace legal advice in individual cases.