{"id":11092,"date":"2025-04-03T05:01:46","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T05:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=11092"},"modified":"2025-12-11T18:36:10","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T18:36:10","slug":"vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/vg-berlin-visit-visa-rejected-due-to-lack-of-intention-to-return-judgement-of-06-03-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"VG Berlin: Visit visa refused due to lack of intention to return (judgement of 06.03.2024)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Introduction: The importance of Schengen visas for international business relations and stays<\/span><\/h2>\n

Schengen visas are the key to smooth international business relations and private stays in Europe. With a Schengen visa<\/a><\/strong> business people from non-EU countries can enter the country easily for meetings, trade fairs or contract negotiations. Likewise, a Visit visa<\/strong> family members or friends to visit each other across borders and experience important events together. Especially for foreign companies<\/strong> it is essential that their employees or business partners can travel to the Schengen states at short notice if necessary. A rejected Visa application<\/strong> can therefore not only cause personal disappointment, but also delay projects and jeopardise business opportunities. It is therefore important to understand which requirements must be met - because if a Visa refused<\/strong>the planned stays fail and international relations suffer as a result.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Facts: Action by a Russian citizen for the granting of a visit visa<\/span><\/h2>\n

In this case, a Russian citizen had applied for a visit visa in order to enter Germany for a short-term stay. The Visit visa<\/strong> (a Schengen visa for visiting purposes) should enable him to make a private visit to Germany. The Visa application<\/strong> was, however, rejected by the German diplomatic mission abroad - in this case the responsible embassy. The main reason given by the authority for the rejection was doubts about the Intention to return<\/strong> of the applicant. The applicant considered this decision to be unfounded and lodged an appeal against it with the Berlin Administrative Court (VG Berlin)<\/strong> in court. He applied to the court for the visa to be granted and for the embassy's refusal to be cancelled. On 6 March 2024, the VG Berlin (case no.: 12 K 364\/23 V) ruled on the case and dismissed the Russian citizen's claim. This means that the court confirmed the legality of the visa refusal. The reasons for the decision are analysed in more detail in the following section.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Reasons for the decision: Why was the visit visa refused?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Doubts about the intention to return:<\/strong> The court's decision centred on the question of whether the applicant could credibly demonstrate that he would return to his home country after his visit to Germany. The Intention to return<\/strong> of the applicant was not sufficiently substantiated in the view of the embassy. The VG Berlin clarified that, according to the EU Visa Code, an Schengen visa<\/strong> may only be issued if there is no reasonable doubt that the traveller will leave the Schengen area again in due time after the planned stay. The authorities are not obliged to be absolutely certain that the applicant will return - it is sufficient if Reasonable doubt<\/strong> his willingness to return. Such doubts existed in the present case. The circumstances of the plaintiff gave rise to indications that a Positive return prognosis<\/strong> complicated. The Russian citizen had apparently No strong ties<\/strong> in his home country that would reliably induce him to return.<\/p>\n

Economic and family ties:<\/strong> The court analysed the applicant's economic and family situation, as these factors are decisive in determining whether someone is likely to return. The plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that he had a firm professional base in Russia. He was either without a regular job or had only a low income and no permanent employment contract. A stable Economic commitment<\/strong> - for example in the form of a secure job or own business activities - was not evident. Special Family ties<\/strong> to the home country were missing or were not sufficiently documented. The claimant was unmarried and had no dependent children in Russia (at least such obligations were not proven). Although relatives (such as parents or siblings) probably lived in Russia, such family contacts are often not sufficient in themselves to establish a Intention to return<\/strong> beyond doubt. In the view of the authority, the lack of close family obligations and no financial roots in the home country suggest that the applicant would theoretically be less deterred from extending his stay unlawfully or remaining permanently in the Schengen area. The VG Berlin judged the embassy's assessment to be comprehensible: In view of the lack of rootedness<\/strong> of the claimant in Russia justifies the assumption that his willingness to return is not sufficiently guaranteed.<\/p>\n

Travel plan and purpose of stay:<\/strong> A further aspect was the submitted Itinerary<\/strong> and the stated purpose of stay. The applicant stated that he wanted to travel to Germany for visiting purposes. However, the Circumstances of the intended stay<\/strong> be plausible and verifiable for the authorities. In the judgement, it became clear that the applicant was unable to provide a concretely substantiated travel plan that went beyond general information. Invitations or planned visit destinations must usually be named and, if necessary, documented (e.g. by means of an invitation letter from a host, hotel bookings, planned return flight dates). If the applicant has provided unclear or incomplete information here, this increases doubts as to the seriousness of the intended visit. In the present case, there was obviously a lack of convincing evidence of a Specific purpose of the trip<\/strong> and a temporary stay. The embassy was therefore entitled to assume that the stated reason for the visit was not sufficiently credible - which in turn, in the light of the circumstances as a whole, would have been the Visa refusal<\/strong> supported.<\/p>\n

Obligations of the applicant to provide evidence:<\/strong> The court emphasised that the Duty to co-operate<\/strong> The burden of proof for a Schengen visa application lies largely with the applicant. Anyone applying for a visit visa must, of their own accord, provide all required documents<\/strong> in order to fulfil the applicable requirements. This includes, for example, proof of income, certificates of employment, proof of property or other assets, letters of invitation from hosts and, if applicable, a formal declaration of commitment from an inviting party. In the case in question, the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to dispel the authority's doubts. In particular, no additional documents were presented that could substantiate his willingness to return after the embassy had questioned this. The VG Berlin clarified that it is the applicant's responsibility to convince the embassy of his Willingness to return<\/strong> and the legitimate purpose of the visit - if such evidence is missing or questions remain unanswered, the visa may be refused. A subsequent declaration in the court proceedings could no longer remedy the omissions in the application.<\/p>\n

Scope for assessment by the authority and judicial review:<\/strong> Finally, the Administrative Court emphasised the Scope for assessment by the visa authority<\/strong> when deciding on a visa application. Although the granting of a Schengen visa is not discretionary (it is subject to legal requirements), the authorities have a certain amount of leeway when assessing whether these requirements are met - particularly with regard to the credibility of the intention to return. The judges examined whether the embassy had individually assessed all relevant circumstances in the plaintiff's case and whether its decision was based on appropriate considerations. The VG Berlin came to the conclusion that the refusal of the visa lawful<\/strong> was that the authority had carefully investigated the facts of the case and had not made any irrelevant or erroneous assumptions. In particular, the embassy adhered to the general standards of the Visa Code and utilised its scope for assessment free of judgement errors<\/strong>. There was no reason for the court to intervene in the authority's assessment. In other words, as long as the embassy has made its decision comprehensibly and on the basis of the information available, it will not be corrected by the courts without further ado. Judicial review in such cases is restricted<\/strong> - the court does not replace the visa centre's assessment with its own, but only intervenes if there are obvious errors or violations of the law. As a result, the VG Berlin confirmed the visa refusal, as all the doubts and reasons given were in line with the provisions of the Visa Code.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Categorisation of the decision in practice: requirements, typical errors and role of the situation of origin<\/span><\/h2>\n

The decision of the VG Berlin provides important indications of this, which requirements must be met in practice for the issue of a Schengen visit visa<\/strong> and what mistakes to avoid. The judgement also shows how the Political situation in the country of origin<\/strong> can play an indirect role in visa decisions.<\/p>\n

Requirements for a successful visa application:<\/strong> In principle, the judgement makes it clear that a Visa application<\/strong> will only be successful if the applicant Entry requirements<\/strong> completely fulfilled and convincingly presented. For a visit visa, this means above all that the purpose and circumstances of the trip must be plausible and the applicant must firmly integrated in the home country<\/strong> be. Specifically, applicants should fulfil a number of Requirements<\/strong> fulfil or provide evidence of: This includes a permanent job or otherwise secure income, existing family obligations or social ties at home, detailed travel plans with details of destinations, length of stay and, if applicable, hosts, sufficient financial resources for the trip and travel health insurance. Economic and family roots<\/strong> in the home country is a key criterion - for example through property, ongoing studies or employment, spouses and children who remain in the home country, etc. The better these ties are documented, the more likely it is that a positive Return forecast<\/strong>. In addition, all formal requirements must be met (valid passport, complete and truthful information in the application form, biometric data, etc.). In its judgement, the Berlin Administrative Court confirmed that the lack of such proof can lead directly to rejection.<\/p>\n

Typical errors in visa applications:<\/strong> The case reveals some common sources of error that visa applicants should definitely avoid. It is a classic mistake, Insufficient documentation<\/strong> or omit important evidence altogether. For example, some applicants fail to enclose an official employer's certificate or payslips to prove their employment - an omission that is quickly interpreted as a lack of economic ties. Mistakes are also made with invitations: If no formal letter of invitation or declaration of commitment is submitted, the authorities can easily doubt the real purpose of the visit or the financing of the stay. Another mistake is Unrealistic travel plans<\/strong> for example, a very long stay (close to the 90-day limit) without a convincing explanation as to why the journey has to be so long. Such applications look suspicious and give the impression that the applicant may have other intentions. It is also critical if information in the application is contradictory or vague, e.g. different information about your own employment or the host's identity. Inaccuracies or lack of transparency<\/strong> in the visa application almost always lead to enquiries or immediate rejection. After all, you are allowed to the importance of the intention to return<\/strong> should not be underestimated: Anyone who takes this aspect lightly and fails to provide evidence of their roots inevitably risks rejection due to a lack of willingness to return. In short, the most common mistakes are a lack of evidence, unclear reasons for travelling and underestimating the strict assessment criteria - all of which must be avoided.<\/p>\n

Influence of the political situation in the country of origin:<\/strong> Although each visa application is examined individually, the general conditions in the country of origin<\/strong> into the judgement. The judgement of the Berlin Administrative Court must be seen in a special context: The applicant was a Russian citizen and at the time of the application the political situation in Russia was tense (including in the wake of the Ukraine war and the domestic political situation). Such circumstances can have an indirect impact on the visa decision. Political crises, war or economic emergencies<\/strong> in the home country increase the risk, from the authorities' point of view, that visitors could use the step into the Schengen area to leave permanently or apply for asylum instead of returning. In the case of Russia, factors such as mobilisation for military service, travel sanctions and uncertain economic prospects play a role. Visa centres know that in such situations the Motivation to leave the country<\/strong> is very high for some applicants and the Ties to the home country<\/strong> can be correspondingly weaker. For this reason, applications from countries with problematic situations are often scrutinised particularly critically. In its judgement, the Berlin Administrative Court ostensibly only assessed the personal circumstances of the applicant, but these are always set against the background of the Origin situation<\/strong>. In practice, this means that applicants from countries with a difficult political or economic situation must be all the more careful to ensure that their Intention to return<\/strong> credible. It is important to show that, despite the situation in the home country, there are sufficient incentives to return there - be it family obligations, job security or other personal reasons. The decision signals that the Overall political situation<\/strong> is not an official reason for refusal in the Visa Code, but the Assessment<\/strong> of the individual probability of return.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Specific recommendations for visa applicants and inviting companies to avoid refusals<\/span><\/h2>\n

In conclusion, the judgement and general practice can be summarised as follows concrete recommendations<\/strong> derive how visa applicants and the companies accompanying or inviting them Avoid rejections<\/strong> can:<\/p>\n

Tips for visa applicants:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n

    Complete documentation:<\/strong> Make sure that you all necessary documents<\/strong> enclose with your visa application. This includes proof of employment (employment contract, employer's letter, payslips), financial means (bank statements, savings books), property ownership or tenancy agreement, marital status (marriage certificate, birth certificates of children) and previous trips (visa stamp in passport). The more comprehensive and plausible your documents are, the better you will be able to Anchoring in the home country<\/strong> prove it.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    Credible travel plan:<\/strong> Create a clear, credible travel plan<\/strong> before. State when and where you are travelling to and the purpose of your stay. If you are travelling for a visit, it is advisable to include a letter of invitation from the host with details of the relationship (e.g. relationship, friendship or business partnership) and the duration of the visit. If possible, enclose booking confirmations for outward and return journeys. and return journey<\/strong> to emphasise that you have firmly planned to leave the country.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    Emphasise the intention to return:<\/strong> Work out explicitly, why you will return safely to your home country<\/strong>. Point out any firm commitments, such as an ongoing employment relationship, children who are studying or relatives in need of care that you have to look after. If you already have travelling experience and have always returned home in accordance with the regulations, mention this. Any information that your Willingness to return<\/strong> should be brought to the attention of the embassy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    Truthful and consistent information:<\/strong> Fill out the application carefully and truthful<\/strong> from. Inconsistencies or contradictions between your details and the supporting documents will almost inevitably lead to rejection. You should therefore check all documents for consistent information - your period of employment, your income, the purpose of the trip and the travel dates must form a coherent overall picture. If in doubt, seek advice from an expert in order to Typical errors<\/strong> in the application.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    React correctly in the event of rejection:<\/strong> Should your Visa application rejected<\/strong> If you become a victim, stay objective and consider your options. In Germany, it is possible to appeal against the decision Remonstration<\/strong> You can write to the embassy to describe your case again, submit additional evidence and ask for a review. Use this opportunity by specifically addressing the reasons for the refusal and providing new evidence. If this is not successful either, you can take legal action. At this point at the latest, it is advisable to consult a lawyer specialising in immigration law. However, prevention is better<\/strong>: By carefully compiling your application from the outset, you significantly increase the chances that it will not be rejected in the first place.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Tips for inviting or accompanying companies:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • \n

      Support through invitation letters:<\/strong> As the inviting company (be it a German business partner or a foreign company wishing to send its employees to Germany), you should send the visa applicant a Formally correct invitation letter<\/strong> with it. The letter should clearly state the purpose and duration of the trip, the relationship with the traveller (e.g. business relationship, training, meeting) and the assumption of any costs. Such a letter lends weight to the visa application and shows the embassy that the visit officially agreed and required<\/strong> is.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Declaration of commitment and assumption of costs:<\/strong> Check whether a Declaration of commitment<\/strong> is necessary. This is often required for visit visas, especially if the applicant is not in a very strong financial position. With a declaration of commitment, the inviting company or person assures the immigration authority that they will cover all the costs of the stay (living expenses, accommodation, any health costs, return journey). For the embassy, this is an important indication that the stay is financially secure and that the visitor can leave the country at the end of the trip without becoming a burden on the public purse.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Clear communication of the purpose of the journey:<\/strong> Companies should clearly communicate the purpose of the visit and, if possible, provide evidence. If it is about a Business meeting, a trade fair, a training course or signing a contract<\/strong>If you are applying for a business visa, appropriate documents (e.g. invitation to the trade fair, seminar programme, schedules) should be prepared. The clearer the business reason, the less suspicion the authorities will have about the visa application. Provide the applicant with all the necessary documents to support your application. Business purpose<\/strong> underpin.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Emphasise the time limit:<\/strong> As a company, emphasise in all documents the Time limit<\/strong> of the stay. For example, the invitation letter may state that employee X will only be working in Germany for period Y and will then return to his workplace in his home country. If the visitor is taking part in a fixed project, state the end date. This information helps to Intention to return<\/strong> as they show that the visitor is needed back home at a fixed time.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    • \n

      Consideration of the applicant's home situation:<\/strong> Be aware of the possible concerns that may arise due to the Origin of the applicant<\/strong> and proactively address them. If your business partner comes from a country with a difficult situation (e.g. political conflict or high migration pressure), you can refer to the ongoing business relationship in their home country in your invitation. For example: Point out that the employee continues to hold a permanent position in your company abroad or that planned follow-up projects are taking place in the country of origin. This signals to the visa office that the visitor has a clear interest in returning<\/strong>because that is where his professional future lies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      These measures will increase both Visa applicants<\/strong> as well as the people accompanying them The company<\/strong> the chances that a Schengen visit visa<\/strong> is issued smoothly. The judgement of the VG Berlin<\/strong> of 6 March 2024 once again demonstrates how crucial careful preparation and a credible presentation of all circumstances are. Whoever typical errors<\/strong> and avoids the Requirements for a visa application<\/strong> seriously can look forward to international business trips and visits with more optimism. If in doubt, it is better to submit too much evidence than too little - because the Intention to return<\/strong> and seriousness of the travel plans must be clearly recognisable to the authorities. This helps to avoid visa rejections and valuable international contacts can be maintained as planned.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      In a recent judgement, the Berlin Administrative Court confirmed the rejection of a Schengen visit visa for a Russian citizen. The decisive factor was reasonable doubt about his intention to return due to a lack of economic and family ties. The case makes it clear that visa applicants must provide detailed evidence to demonstrate their willingness to return. Companies and applicants should avoid typical mistakes when applying in order to effectively prevent rejections.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":11619,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3662],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-visum"],"yoast_head":"\nVG Berlin: Besuchsvisum abgelehnt wegen fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht (Urteil vom 06.03.2024) - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"VG Berlin best\u00e4tigt Ablehnung eines Schengen-Visums wegen begr\u00fcndeter Zweifel an fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/vg-berlin-visit-visa-rejected-due-to-lack-of-intention-to-return-judgement-of-06-03-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"VG Berlin: Besuchsvisum abgelehnt wegen fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht (Urteil vom 06.03.2024) - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"VG Berlin best\u00e4tigt Ablehnung eines Schengen-Visums wegen begr\u00fcndeter Zweifel an fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/vg-berlin-visit-visa-rejected-due-to-lack-of-intention-to-return-judgement-of-06-03-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-04-03T05:01:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-11T18:36:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@mth_Tieben\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"helmer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"VG Berlin: Visit visa refused due to lack of intention to return (judgement of 06.03.2024) - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","description":"VG Berlin confirms rejection of a Schengen visa due to reasonable doubts about the lack of intention to return.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/vg-berlin-visit-visa-rejected-due-to-lack-of-intention-to-return-judgement-of-06-03-2024\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"VG Berlin: Besuchsvisum abgelehnt wegen fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht (Urteil vom 06.03.2024) - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","og_description":"VG Berlin best\u00e4tigt Ablehnung eines Schengen-Visums wegen begr\u00fcndeter Zweifel an fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/vg-berlin-visit-visa-rejected-due-to-lack-of-intention-to-return-judgement-of-06-03-2024\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2025-04-03T05:01:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-11T18:36:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"helmer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_site":"@mth_Tieben","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"helmer","Estimated reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"VG Berlin: Besuchsvisum abgelehnt wegen fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht (Urteil vom 06.03.2024)","datePublished":"2025-04-03T05:01:46+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-11T18:36:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/"},"wordCount":3043,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","articleSection":["Visum"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/","name":"VG Berlin: Visit visa refused due to lack of intention to return (judgement of 06.03.2024) - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","datePublished":"2025-04-03T05:01:46+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-11T18:36:10+00:00","description":"VG Berlin confirms rejection of a Schengen visa due to reasonable doubts about the lack of intention to return.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Auslanderrecht.jpg","width":1200,"height":600,"caption":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/vg-berlin-besuchsvisum-abgelehnt-wegen-fehlender-rueckkehrabsicht-urteil-vom-06-03-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ausl\u00e4nderrecht","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Visum","item":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/category\/auslaenderrecht-anwalt\/visum\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"VG Berlin: Besuchsvisum abgelehnt wegen fehlender R\u00fcckkehrabsicht (Urteil vom 06.03.2024)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","name":"Law firm Tieben","description":"Lawyer Tieben \/ Law firm Cologne","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization","name":"Law firm Tieben","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/logo.png","width":254,"height":52,"caption":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","https:\/\/x.com\/mth_Tieben","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/helmer-tieben-09570226"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3","name":"helmer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f3308295754604f18007cf9e14e5984d1b864d3edea19e3681ff8c9354cd73e8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"helmer"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11092"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11092\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11093,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11092\/revisions\/11093"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}