Between desire and reality: When the study visa fails in the fast-track procedure
If someone wants to study in Germany, the right of residence initially sounds quite clear: anyone who has a place at university and fulfils the requirements, has a binding claim to the residence permit. But as clear as the legal text may seem, the practice is not.
The decision of the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg of 27 August 2025 is a vivid example of how a study visa requires more than just an admission and a blocked account. It shows how complex the concept of „plausibility“ has become in residence law - and how high the hurdles in interim legal protection actually are.
The initial situation: Appeal against the refusal in summary proceedings
The applicant wanted to enforce his visa by way of a temporary injunction. This is a common constellation: many applicants lose time due to long visa procedures, and when the start of the semester or deadlines approach, only provisional legal protection remains.
But the problem is structural:
A visa in summary proceedings always means a de facto anticipation of the main proceedings.
And that is precisely why the hurdles are high. The court must be convinced that the person concerned would be very likely to win in the main proceedings. „High probability“ is a standard that is rarely met in residence law.
The administrative court had rejected the application. The applicant lodged an appeal against this - unsuccessfully.
Why the court scrutinises so strictly: The logic of § 123 VwGO
Anyone initiating summary proceedings needs two things:
-
Reason for order - the urgency.
-
Right to order - the high probability of success in the main proceedings.
In the present decision, the OVG focuses on point 2. The question was:
Is it highly likely that the applicant is actually entitled to a study visa?
The court had to answer this question in the negative - because of the plausibility of the purpose of the stay.
The centrepiece of the decision: The plausibility check in accordance with Section 19f (4) No. 6 AufenthG
Section 16b AufenthG is a binding entitlement. However, case law has made this clear for years - and the OVG cites its own line from 2017 and 2019:
Authorities may (and must) check whether the purpose of the study is actually being pursued.
That means:
-
A genuine interest in studying must credible be.
-
The educational biography must conclusive appear.
-
There must be no evidence that other purposes are actually being pursued - such as economic motives, flight alternatives or family reunification.
In essence, it is about a forecast:
Will the person actually take up and pursue their studies - or will they use the visa for something else?
And this is precisely where the applicant has lost.
The authority's doubts - and why they work
The diplomatic mission had cited several points that appeared comprehensible to the court:
-
Broken educational biography
There is a period of around twelve years between graduating with a Bachelor's degree in 2013 and starting a Master's degree in 2025.
Why this subject? Why now? And at what stage?The applicant did not provide any convincing answers. A mere „I was 31 years old, that's normal“ was not enough for the OVG.
-
Question of family reunification
The applicant had originally applied for his wife and five children to join him.The court saw this as an indication:
It could not be ruled out that the study visit was primarily intended to enable the family to obtain a residence permit at a later date.The fact that the family had „not remonstrated“ in the meantime did not change this. The court considered this to be a subjective assessment, not an objective circumstance.
-
Language skills - too old, too little proven
C1 is required. The last certificate was from 2023 and there was no proof of maintenance or progress.The reference that he had worked as a German teacher was not considered verifiable evidence.
-
Scholarship was only a one-off payment
The categorisation as a „talented applicant“ by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung was double-edged.
This is because only one-off support was granted, not a permanent study grant. -
Regional situation and motives
According to the authority, the situation of Afghan nationals in Iran could increase the incentives to flee.
The OVG clarifies: The decisive factor is the current situation, not the situation three years ago at the time of the application.
None of these points was sufficient on its own. But taken together, a picture emerged that shattered plausibility.
A decisive aspect: Exercising discretion in accordance with Section 19f (4) No. 6 AufenthG
Even if the plausibility is not completely refuted, the authority may refuse the visa within the framework of Section 19f (4) No. 6 AufenthG.
The court emphasises: This discretion was exercised without error.
The applicant was unable to demonstrate any errors of judgement - neither:
-
Discretionary reduction to zero,
-
incorrect weighting,
-
still incorrect factual basis.
The complaint simply remained superficial on this key point. It only compared assessments - and that is not enough in summary proceedings.
The consequence: No anticipation of the main issue
As a result, the OVG once again emphasises its high standards:
-
A study visa can only be granted in summary proceedings if there is a chance of success in the main proceedings. Highly probable is.
-
This probability was not given.
-
The applicant therefore failed - irrespective of whether there were grounds for an injunction.
What does the decision mean in practice?
Particularly in the area of residence law, intensive plausibility checks are being carried out more and more frequently in visa procedures for students. The case shows an example:
What students need to consider
-
A comprehensible and complete educational biography is essential.
-
Long breaks must be well justified.
-
Language skills must be up-to-date and verifiable.
-
Any link between visas and family reunification is viewed critically.
-
Scholarships must be presented transparently.
What lawyers and advisors should know
-
The plausibility check is not only formal - it is material.
-
Authorities have a wide scope of judgement.
-
Summary proceedings are only promising if the file situation clearly speaks in favour of the application.
-
The argumentation must go beyond personal judgements.
A final tip for those affected
If you would like to apply for a study visa - or if your application has been rejected - you should make sure at an early stage that your educational history and motivation coherent, complete and verifiable are. Unclear points, long breaks, old language certificates or unclear family circumstances quickly lead to doubts on the part of the authorities.
