{"id":2080,"date":"2026-08-02T17:55:55","date_gmt":"2026-08-02T17:55:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/rechtsanwaltsblog\/?p=130"},"modified":"2026-08-03T10:06:31","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T10:06:31","slug":"auslanderrecht-ehegattennachzug-unrechtmasig-bei-ungesichertem-lebensunterhalt-der-familie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/en\/foreigners-law-spousal-reunion-unlawful-with-insecure-livelihood-of-the-family\/","title":{"rendered":"Spousal visa and secure livelihood: When the immigration authority may refuse"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Short answer<\/span><\/h2>\n

When spouses join a foreign partner, the livelihood of the entire family needs-based community must generally be secured \u2013 not just that of the joining person. If the income is not sufficient for the spouse and minor children, the immigration authority may refuse under Section 5(1) no. 1 of the Residence Act. When joining a German spouse, this generally applies not<\/b> (section 28(1) sentence 4 of the Residence Act).<\/p>\n

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.<\/b> This post explains the general legal situation and does not replace an assessment of your individual case. Whether an exception applies in your situation depends on figures, deadlines, and evidence that can only be evaluated individually. For this, please contact a lawyer specialising in migration law.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The letter from the immigration office \u2013 and what lies behind it<\/span><\/h2>\n

You are working. You earn enough to feed yourself. Nevertheless, the notice states: Your livelihood is not secured, the application is being rejected.<\/p>\n

That sounds contradictory, but it isn't. The authorities aren't just calculating for you alone. They are calculating for your family.<\/p>\n

The Federal Administrative Court ruled fundamentally on this question in 2010 (judgment of 16.11.2010, ref. 1 C 20.09). The plaintiff was a Turkish national who wanted to join his wife living in Germany. His own income now covered his personal needs \u2013 however, the family continued to receive benefits under Book II of the Social Code (SGB II) for his wife and minor son. The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg considered this to be sufficient. The Federal Administrative Court did not.<\/p>\n

His core message remains valid to this day: family reunification generally requires that the livelihood of family benefit community<\/b> can be funded without public welfare benefits.<\/p>\n

Since 2010, however, a great deal has changed around this core \u2013 the social benefit has a different name, deportation law has been rewritten, rules for skilled workers have been eased, and family reunification is currently suspended entirely for those with subsidiary protection. That is precisely what this article is about.<\/p>\n

<\/span>What does \u201esecure livelihood\u201c actually mean?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Briefly explained: Your livelihood is considered to be secured if you including sufficient health insurance coverage without recourse to public funds<\/b> be able to cover (\u00a7 2 section 3 sentence 1 of the Residence Act, AufenthG). It is not about a fixed minimum wage or a threshold in the law. It is about a comparison: needs on the one hand, available income on the other.<\/p>\n

And it is about a Prognosis<\/b>. The authority not only asks what the current situation looks like, but also whether it is foreseeable that no entitlement to basic security benefits will arise in the future either. In doing so, it may look back at past income development. The Court of Justice of the European Union has expressly declared such a prognosis to be permissible and has approved basing it on the income of the last six months prior to the application (ECJ, judgment of 21.04.2016, C-558\/14 \u2013 Khachab).<\/p>\n

What matters is the flip side: whether benefits are actually applied for plays no role. It is enough that a Claim<\/b> this would exist (Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 26.08.2008, docket no. 1 C 32.07).<\/p>\n

<\/span>Who counts? The benefit unit<\/span><\/h2>\n

Here lies the core of the 2010 decision \u2013 and the most common error in consulting.<\/p>\n

The term \u201esubsistence of the foreigner\u201c in section 2 (3) of the Residence Act refers to social law. And under Book II of the Social Code (SGB II), calculations are not made per capita, but for the benefit unit<\/b>: spouses and unmarried children under the age of 25 living in the same household (\u00a7 7 para. 3, \u00a7 9 SGB II). If the total requirement is not covered, each person is deemed to be in need of assistance on a pro rata basis.<\/p>\n

Two further provisions confirm this overall assessment:<\/p>\n