Legal basis and significance of the entry and residence ban
After § Section 11 (1) Residence Act (AufenthG) a foreigner who has been expelled, returned or deported from Germany, neither re-enter the federal territory nor stay here. He may also - even if he would actually have a legal claim - be entitled to no new residence permit issued can be used. This is referred to as a Entry and Residence Ban. This ban is intended to prevent people whose residence has been terminated from returning immediately or obtaining a new residence permit. It is effective across the border, by also preventing the issuing of visas by embassies for as long as the ban is in force.
It is important to know that such a ban always limited in time must be granted. The length of the period is stated in the notification and usually begins on the day of departure. Maximum periods are specified by law: In standard cases, the ban is usually maximum five years. In the case of serious criminal offences or particular threats to public safety, it can be up to ten years last. Only in extremely exceptional cases - for example in the event of an acute threat to internal security (e.g. suspected terrorism) - can a ban be imposed. unlimited be issued. In principle, however, the entry and residence ban is not intended to lifelong banishment be, but serve the purpose of Enforce legal obligation to leave the country and the persons concerned voluntary departure to move.
Entry bans after a rejected asylum application - BAMF's discretionary powers
In certain constellations, it is already possible while an entry and residence ban may be ordered in the course of an asylum procedure. § Section 11 (7) sentence 1 AufenthG grants the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) the authority to impose an entry and residence ban on a foreign national, if his or her asylum application was rejected as „manifestly unfounded. Further requirements are that none subsidiary protection was granted, No prohibition of deportation were determined in accordance with Section 60 (5) or (7) AufenthG, and that No residence status (e.g. through another procedure). In short: This regulation is aimed in particular at asylum seekers from so-called safe countries of origin or to cases of obvious abuse of the asylum system. Here, the BAMF should - in addition to rejecting the asylum application - have the option of issuing a Return and re-entry ban to pronounce.
The important thing is: The BAMF has discretionary powers here. This means that it is not obliged, to impose an entry ban in every such case, but it can depending on the circumstances of the individual case. This Discretionary scope is granted by law in order to give the authorities the opportunity to react appropriately on an individual basis. For example, the BAMF can take into account whether the person concerned has special reasons or circumstances that speak against a long ban - or, conversely, whether there are reasons that require a strict approach.
Note for the practice: If an asylum application is rejected as manifestly unfounded (often the case for asylum seekers from safe countries of origin), the BAMF often simultaneously issues the Threat of deportation with a short departure period and orders a temporary ban on entry and residence. The period of this ban begins when the person concerned leaves the country. The BAMF often differentiates between the two: If the person leaves voluntarily within the set period, a shorter period is set (e.g. 6 or 12 months). Must she be forcibly deported, the authorities usually set a significantly longer deadline (often 30 or 36 months). This is intended to create an incentive to leave the country voluntarily.
Judicial control: Appeals and legal action against entry bans
Those affected can appeal against the order of an entry and residence ban by Proceed legally - initially with Contradiction (if provided for in the federal state) and then with Action before the administrative court. The legality of the block is reviewed in court proceedings. However, it is important to understand that the court will review the Discretionary decision the authority Check only to a limited extent may. The administrative judges do not replace the authority's discretion with their own („court has no own discretion“); they merely control, whether the authority has exercised its discretion correctly.
The legal jargon here recognises various Errors of judgement:
-
Discretionary non-use: The authority did not recognise at all that it had a margin of discretion and did not carry out an individual assessment.
-
Misuse of judgement: Although the authority weighed up the situation, it took irrelevant or inadmissible considerations into account (e.g. arbitrary reasons were taken into account or essential aspects were disregarded).
-
Exceeding discretionary powers: The authority has exceeded the legal limits of discretion, for example by setting an unacceptably long deadline that goes beyond what is permitted.
-
Discretionary reduction to zero: This is a special case when, according to the law and the circumstances only one decision can be considered lawful. The scope for discretion is then reduced to „zero“. In our context, this could mean, for example, that the circumstances are so worthy of protection that the authorities no longer have any room for manoeuvre and the entry ban must be lifted or limited to a minimum duration.
The administrative court examines, for example: Did the BAMF take all relevant circumstances of the individual case into account? Did it observe the purpose of the regulation (e.g. the general preventive effect, i.e. the deterrence of others, but also the individual interests of the person concerned)? If New developments did these have to be included in the assessment?
Important: New facts until the last oral hearing must be taken into account in administrative proceedings. This means that even if the BAMF decided correctly at the time of its decision, the decision can be recognised as unlawful in legal proceedings, if significant new circumstances have arisen in the meantime in favour of the person concerned, that would have required a different exercise of discretion.
Case study: Training place vs. entry ban
To illustrate what such a balancing act can look like, let's take a look at a court case that was originally decided in 2016 but remains interesting, especially in light of the current legal situation:
Facts of the Case A young woman from Montenegro travelled to Germany in the summer of 2015 and applied for asylum. As Montenegro is recognised as Safe country of origin and there were no asylum-relevant reasons for fleeing, the BAMF rejected her asylum application shortly afterwards. as manifestly unfounded rejected. In connection with the rejection, the authority ordered a Temporary ban on entry and residence to: In the event of voluntary departure the duration of the lockdown was 10 months from departure determined; should it come to a Deportation the ban would apply from the date of deportation. 30 months (2½ years) is effective. This different time limit should - as usual - favour voluntary continuation.
What was special about this case was that the Montenegrin woman had integrated well and was planning her future in Germany. At the time of the asylum decision, she was already attending a vocational school specialising in geriatric care. A short time later, she even managed to get a Training contract as a geriatric nurse, She completed internships in care homes and was involved in an integration project. In short, she had done nothing wrong, spoke German and was well on the way to gaining a professional qualification, which is also urgently needed in Germany.
However, none of this helped her at first: as her asylum application had been rejected, she no longer had a legal residence permit. Her application for a Residence permit for the purpose of training (Section 16a AufenthG, formerly Section 17 AufenthG) was rejected by the immigration authority - on the grounds that she had entered the country without the required visa. For the same reason, she also received No tolerance (temporary suspension of deportation) for training: People from safe countries of origin are subject to special restrictions, including an extensive deportation ban. Employment and training ban, if the asylum application was submitted after 31 August 2015. The authorities told her that she would first have to leave the country and complete the visa procedure from her home country. Ultimately, the woman was deported to Montenegro in June 2016 - despite her upcoming apprenticeship.
Legal proceedings: However, she lodged an appeal against the BAMF and the barring periods imposed with the Lüneburg Administrative Court. There, she sought to have the entry and residence ban associated with the asylum rejection cancel, alternatively at least the duration of the block to zero (i.e. to obtain an immediate cancellation of the deadline). Their argumentation: The authority had Discretion exercised incorrectly, their individual circumstances and their positive integration in Germany. not sufficiently considered have.
Judgement: Partial success due to incorrect discretion of the authority
The Lüneburg Administrative Court ruled in favour of the claim in part. It found that the order of the entry and residence ban in this case Discretionary and violated the plaintiff's right to the correct exercise of discretion. Specifically, the court criticised the fact that the BAMF had not special integration services of the young woman and her concrete Career prospects in Germany had not been taken into account.
During the hearing procedure, the woman had already stated that she wanted to train as a geriatric nurse in Germany. In the decision, however, this was deemed „interest not worthy of protection“ had been dismissed. At the latest when she was able to present a signed training contract and successfully completed internships, this - according to the court - would have been must be taken into account in the discretionary decision on the entry ban. These developments gave rise to a considerable personal interest in remaining in Germany legally or at least being allowed to return as soon as possible.
The court emphasised that although the General preventive purpose of Section 11 (7) AufenthG - namely to deter other asylum seekers from abusive applications - is a legitimate public interest. However Individual interests worthy of protection of the foreigner cannot be completely disregarded. In the present case, the plaintiff had, through her training opportunity and integration, a Tangible prospects for the future in Germany, which had to be weighed up. The complete disregard of these positive circumstances constituted a Misuse of judgement represent.
The consequence of the court's decision was that the BAMF's decision cancelled in this respect was issued. This means that the ban on entry and residence in the form stipulated was invalid. However, the applicant was not automatically granted free re-entry. Rather, she merely received a Entitlement to a new decision, this time free of discretionary errors by the authority. As explained above, the court cannot exercise its discretion itself and, for example, shorten the deadline on its own authority or set it to zero. It can only cancel the unlawful decision. In practice, this meant that the BAMF had to re-examine the case and take the applicant's training opportunities and other current circumstances into account when making the new decision. Include appropriately had to.
One Discretionary reduction to zero - i.e. the constellation in which no decision other than the lifting of the ban would be lawful - was not considered by the court to exist here. Theoretically, it could have been argued that, in view of the urgent need for skilled labour and their exemplary integration, the discretion was reduced to zero (and the only correct decision would therefore be to waive any ban). However, the VG Lüneburg was cautious: it only recognised an error in the consideration, but not that any blocking effect would be inadmissible from the outset. The court therefore upheld the plaintiff's claim to Reassessment taking into account all circumstances.
Legal situation and case law
Since the 2016 case described above, a lot has happened both legally and judicially. In recent years, Germany has New regulations on the right to stay created to mitigate cases such as the one above. In particular, at the beginning of 2020, the so-called Training authorisation (§ 60c AufenthG) was introduced. This regulation enables persons who are obliged to leave the country and who have taken up qualified vocational training to be granted a tolerated stay for the duration of the training under certain conditions. entire duration of the apprenticeship to obtain. With this type of training toleration, you are protected from deportation, can complete your apprenticeship and, if successful, even receive a residence permit afterwards (keyword „3+2 regulation“ - 3 years of training + 2 years of employment). However this does not apply without restriction: Anyone who comes from a safe country of origin and has submitted their asylum application after the cut-off date (August 2015) is subject to a statutory Ban on work and training during the asylum procedure. In such cases, a tolerated stay for training is ruled out as long as this work ban applies. In the example of the Montenegrin, despite the current § 60c regulation, she would presumably also not have been entitled to a tolerated stay for training, as she fell under the exclusion criteria for nationals of safe countries of origin.
In the years that followed, the courts had several opportunities to specify the criteria and limits for entry and residence bans. One Important key decision was issued by the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) in the year 2021. Two related cases (Ref. 1 C 46.20 and 1 C 47.20) dealt with precisely this question, how integration achievements - in particular the start of vocational training - are to be taken into account when determining the period of an entry and residence ban.
The Federal Administrative Court made this clear: Simply starting a qualified vocational training programme is not enough, to justify a shorter blocking period. Only the Successful completion of the training programme is an important Return perspective, which is relevant under residence law. In other words, if the person concerned has already completed their apprenticeship and thus has a recognised qualification in hand, there are many arguments in favour of significantly shortening the duration of the entry ban - typically by around half. However, in the case of the plaintiffs, who had started but not yet completed their training during the court proceedings, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the Standard period of 30 months (2½ years) can be lawful as long as there are no other special circumstances. The court justified this by stating that a training programme that is still ongoing is a Endeavour to stay documented, but still no certain Prospects of staying for the future - after all, the training could still be cancelled or not successfully completed.
Nevertheless, the Federal Administrative Court emphasised that Integration services must always be included in the discretionary assessment are. Official decisions must not be schematically based solely on general preventive considerations. Rather, a Balancing of interests on the one hand: On the one hand, the public interest, the consistently enforce voluntary departure and keep unauthorised asylum seekers away; on the other hand the individual interest of the person concerned in a perspective possibility of return. The latter becomes more important if, for example, a permanent job or training position is already in prospect or if there are special humanitarian reasons.
A practical tip from the BVerwG judgement: If a foreigner has completed their qualified education only after the conclusion of the court proceedings successfully, he is not without rights. He can then apply to the responsible Submit an application to the foreigners authority, to subsequently shorten the ban period (Section 11 (4) sentence 1 AufenthG). The immigration authorities are responsible for deciding whether to lift or shorten an existing entry ban once the asylum procedure has been completed. This was emphasised once again in a recent decision by the Federal Administrative Court in November 2025: Once the asylum procedure has been finalised, responsibility for further decisions on entry bans is transferred from the BAMF to the local immigration authority. Anyone who can later present new reasons (e.g. successful integration in their home country, elimination of dangers, completed training, etc.) must contact the foreigners authority in order to obtain an early authorisation. Cancellation or shortening of the lockdown.
Most recently, case law has also Requirements of EU law at a glance: The EU Return Directive (2008/115/EC) stipulates that entry bans on Return decisions should be linked. An entry and residence ban is basically an addition to an expulsion or deportation order. German courts - right up to the Federal Administrative Court in 2025 - have made it clear that it is not possible to No „isolated“ entry bans which are imposed independently of an obligation to leave the country. In other words: Only if a foreigner has actually been obliged to leave the country (and this obligation is enforceable) can and may an entry ban be imposed as an accompanying measure. This aspect plays a role, for example, in cases in which someone has been deported but had to remain in the country due to a lack of deportation options - in this case, a pure title ban (ban on obtaining a residence permit) is not legally tenable without a real option to leave the country.
Conclusion
For the practice in November 2025 the following can be stated: An entry and residence ban under Section 11 of the Residence Act is a sharp sword for terminating residence, which serves to prevent illegal re-entry. However Authorities must check carefully when ordering this, whether special circumstances of the individual case Deviation from the rule areas. Especially with well-integrated foreigners, who have to leave the country but have started vocational training or have established other strong ties, a differentiated exercise of discretion is required. The current case law takes this into account by requiring that, Integration services and personal interests in remaining in the country to adjust. However, the importance of these integration services High requirements A mere endeavour is not always sufficient; in most cases, tangible successes (e.g. completed training) must already have been achieved in order to achieve a significant reduction in the period of ineligibility.
Those affected who have been issued with an entry and residence ban should Possibilities of appeal exhaust the time limits. An objection can be lodged and legal action taken within the time limits. The following applies, all positive circumstances - from family ties to health aspects to integration services - so that they can be taken into account in the procedure. And even after a final decision has been made, there is still the option of submitting an appeal if circumstances change. Shortening request at the foreigners authority.
For foreigners from safe countries of origin, the legal situation remains strict in some respects (e.g. labour ban and fast-track procedures), but here too the authorities and courts must treat each individual case fairly. The balance between Migration management and Individual fate is challenging - but the current rules and judgements show that both sides are being listened to: The enforcement of the obligation to leave the country on the one hand, and the chance of a new start under legal conditions on the other.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. This article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and according to the current state of knowledge (as of November 2025). Nevertheless, migration law is complex and subject to constant change. We can therefore no guarantee for the complete correctness or topicality of the information. This article replaces No legal advice in individual cases.
If you have a Legal advice If you have any questions about your residence status, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please call us at 0221 - 80187670 or write us an e-mail to info@mth-partner.de. We are a law firm in Cologne specialising in migration law and can provide you with competent support for your case. We wish you every success!
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
