{"id":13112,"date":"2026-01-31T12:46:15","date_gmt":"2026-01-31T12:46:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/?p=13112"},"modified":"2026-02-02T11:01:13","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T11:01:13","slug":"humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/humanitarian-visa-and-admission-declaration-according-to-22-residence-act-berlin-court-obliged-to-re-decide-quickly\/","title":{"rendered":"Humanitarian visas and admission declaration pursuant to Section 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin obliged to issue a new decision quickly"},"content":{"rendered":"

VG Berlin (41st Chamber), Ref. 41 L 763\/25 V, decision of 06.01.2026<\/p>\n

The decision of the Administrative court<\/a> Berlin<\/span><\/span> of 06.01.2026 (Ref. 41 L 763\/25 V) is a prime example of the current practice in urgent visa legal protection in connection with admission programmes and Humanitarian visas<\/a>. The Chamber orders the respondent by way of a temporary injunction to make a new decision on the visa applications of the applicants by 13 January 2026, taking into account the legal opinion of the court - but rejects any further decisions (in particular the immediate granting of visas).<\/p>\n

The decision is particularly instructive for those affected and counsellors on three points:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    A \u201eright to immediate visa issuance\u201c cannot usually be enforced in summary proceedings - especially not without a security check having been carried out.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Even if a Declaration of acceptance<\/a> (bridging list), this is not an administrative act according to the Chamber, but an internal administrative act.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/span>What was the procedural issue?<\/span><\/h3>\n

    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 \u201evisa immediately\u201c 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.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>Why not issue a visa in summary proceedings?<\/span><\/h3>\n

    The Chamber clarifies that a \u201eweighing of consequences\u201c 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.<\/p>\n

    In terms of substance, the entitlement to a visa fails primarily because the security check was not carried out. Even if a declaration of acceptance in accordance with Section 22 of the Residence Act is available, the court believes that the examination of compelling or weighty grounds for refusal (interest in deportation, security concerns) remains central. The Naturalisation<\/a>- or residence discourse becomes clear here: the court emphasises that the official security assessment cannot be replaced by a court's own assessment, and that the personal interview or the orderly process of the Foreign representation<\/a> remains necessary.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>In short: No \u201evisa by court order\u201c without a security check.<\/span><\/h3>\n

    Why the new decision could still be enforced<\/p>\n

    The actual breakthrough lies in the claim for a decision: The applicants were able to credibly demonstrate that the negative decisions contain legally significant errors - not necessarily because the Authority<\/a> \u201ematerially wrong\u201c, but because the reasoning is not sufficient to review the decision in a court of law.<\/p>\n

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

    <\/span>Key message: Declaration of inclusion is generally not an administrative act - but obligation to state reasons in the light of effective legal protection<\/span><\/h3>\n

    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<\/span><\/span> and those affected (here) only indirectly via the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ)<\/span><\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

    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).<\/p>\n

    And yet: The court emphasises that there is no \u201elegal vacuum\u201c 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.<\/p>\n

    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 \u201econtrasting case\u201c 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 \u201erenewed affirmed political interest\u201c - without explaining the special circumstances in such a way that comparability or factual differentiation can be examined.<\/p>\n

    The court does not say: \u201eThen you must include everyone.\u201c 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.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>Urgency and deadline: Why until 13 January 2026?<\/span><\/h3>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

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

    <\/span>What the Chamber expressly does not order<\/span><\/h3>\n

    The application to secure GIZ's ongoing support services (accommodation, food, medical care) in court and to demand \u201eeffective measures\u201c 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.<\/p>\n

    <\/span>Practical takeaways for clients<\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      The realistic goal in summary proceedings is often a new decision, not the granting of a visa.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Without a security check, \u201evisa immediately\u201c is hardly enforceable - even in humanitarian constellations.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      <\/span>Notes for legal practice<\/span><\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. \n

        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.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      2. \n

        Reasoning attack: Do not just argue \u201eunreasonably\u201c, but work out specific reasoning deficits and comparative cases (Art. 3\/Art. 19 para. 4 as a test framework for arbitrariness limit).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      3. \n

        Consider the security component: Without a sound factual basis for the security check, the court will not anticipate a substantive entry decision.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      4. \n

        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 \u201eformally\u201c new, but can be reviewed by the court in terms of content.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace legal advice in individual cases.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        VG Berlin, decision of 06.01.2026 (41 L 763\/25 V): No entitlement to immediate visa issuance in summary proceedings without a security check. However: The court is obliged to issue a new decision quickly by 13 January 2026 because the rejection of a previously issued admission declaration in accordance with Section 22 sentence 2 AufenthG was not sufficiently justified on a case-by-case basis and an arbitrary review is otherwise not possible.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":13113,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3662],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-visum"],"yoast_head":"\nHumanit\u00e4re Visa und Aufnahmeerkl\u00e4rung nach \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin verpflichtet zu schneller Neubescheidung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"VG Berlin 41 L 763\/25 V (06.01.2026): Eilbeschluss zu humanit\u00e4ren Visa (\u00a7 22 AufenthG). Kein sofortiges Visum ohne Sicherheitscheck \u2013 aber Neubescheidung bis 13.01.2026.\" \/>\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\/humanitarian-visa-and-admission-declaration-according-to-22-residence-act-berlin-court-obliged-to-re-decide-quickly\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Humanit\u00e4re Visa und Aufnahmeerkl\u00e4rung nach \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin verpflichtet zu schneller Neubescheidung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"VG Berlin 41 L 763\/25 V (06.01.2026): Eilbeschluss zu humanit\u00e4ren Visa (\u00a7 22 AufenthG). Kein sofortiges Visum ohne Sicherheitscheck \u2013 aber Neubescheidung bis 13.01.2026.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/humanitarian-visa-and-admission-declaration-according-to-22-residence-act-berlin-court-obliged-to-re-decide-quickly\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-01-31T12:46:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-02T11:01:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1200\" \/>\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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Humanitarian visas and admission declaration according to \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin obliged to issue new decision quickly - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","description":"VG Berlin 41 L 763\/25 V (06.01.2026): Urgent decision on humanitarian visas (Section 22 AufenthG). No immediate visa without a security check - but new decision by 13 January 2026.","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\/humanitarian-visa-and-admission-declaration-according-to-22-residence-act-berlin-court-obliged-to-re-decide-quickly\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Humanit\u00e4re Visa und Aufnahmeerkl\u00e4rung nach \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin verpflichtet zu schneller Neubescheidung - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","og_description":"VG Berlin 41 L 763\/25 V (06.01.2026): Eilbeschluss zu humanit\u00e4ren Visa (\u00a7 22 AufenthG). Kein sofortiges Visum ohne Sicherheitscheck \u2013 aber Neubescheidung bis 13.01.2026.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/humanitarian-visa-and-admission-declaration-according-to-22-residence-act-berlin-court-obliged-to-re-decide-quickly\/","og_site_name":"Rechtsanwaltskanzlei\u00a0Tieben","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100054481000178","article_published_time":"2026-01-31T12:46:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-02T11:01:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":1200,"url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg","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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/"},"author":{"name":"helmer","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#\/schema\/person\/fbcf627706a8a6151cec2217af8c74b3"},"headline":"Humanit\u00e4re Visa und Aufnahmeerkl\u00e4rung nach \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin verpflichtet zu schneller Neubescheidung","datePublished":"2026-01-31T12:46:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-02T11:01:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/"},"wordCount":1145,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg","articleSection":["Visum"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/","name":"Humanitarian visas and admission declaration according to \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin obliged to issue new decision quickly - Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Tieben","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg","datePublished":"2026-01-31T12:46:15+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-02T11:01:13+00:00","description":"VG Berlin 41 L 763\/25 V (06.01.2026): Urgent decision on humanitarian visas (Section 22 AufenthG). No immediate visa without a security check - but new decision by 13 January 2026.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Botschaft_Islamabad.jpeg","width":800,"height":1200,"caption":"German Embassy Islamabad"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/humanitaere-visa-und-aufnahmeerklaerung\/#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":"Humanit\u00e4re Visa und Aufnahmeerkl\u00e4rung nach \u00a7 22 AufenthG: VG Berlin verpflichtet zu schneller Neubescheidung"}]},{"@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\/13112","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=13112"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13112\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13124,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13112\/revisions\/13124"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}