Requirements for the discretionary decision on an entry and residence ban

In its ruling of 7 September 2021, the Federal Administrative Court has established important principles on the limitation of the entry and residence ban issued under the condition precedent of his deportation (Ref.: 1 C 46.20). The decision deals in particular with the question of which integration achievements are to be taken into account within the framework of the discretionary decision and, if applicable, lead to the illegality of the entry and residence ban imposed by the Federal Office for a period of 30 months.

The Federal Administrative Court makes the following statements:

  • A discretionary error in setting a time limit leads to the revocation of the entry and residence ban as a whole, which may then generally be reissued without discretionary error. (para. 10)
  • If, in the individual case to be assessed, circumstances that increase the interest in keeping the foreigner away from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is based on the law of averting danger, are just as unrecognisable as circumstances that are suitable to reduce the weight of this public interest, then, in a situation that has no special features compared to similar cases, there are no objections to limiting the deportation-related entry and residence ban to a period of 30 months. (para. 18)
  • The restriction of the aspects of private life to be taken into account, which are protected by Article 8 ECHR, to integration achievements to which a legal re-entry can realistically be linked, is justified by the special features of the deportation-related entry ban pursuant to § 75 no. 12 in conjunction with § 11 (1) Residence Act. When setting a time limit for such an entry ban, the protection of private life does not, as a rule, require that already low-threshold integration achievements be taken into account (such as the acquisition of language skills, attending school, passing an integration or support measure, performing a short-term temporary job, voluntary or social commitment, etc.) that do not provide a legal basis for legal re-entry. (para. 22) (para. 26)
  • The completion of qualified vocational training by the relevant point in time pursuant to § 83c in conjunction with § 77 para. 1 Asylum Act and § 75 no. 12 of the Residence Act, it appears appropriate, subject to any special features of the individual case, to set the duration of the entry and residence ban at half of the value determined in cases without recognisable special features, i.e. at a duration of 15 months in the case of an otherwise assessed 30 months, with regard to the economic ties of the foreigner to the federal territory that have been strengthened as a result and, secondly, with regard to the public interest in meeting the needs of Germany as a business location and in securing skilled workers. (para. 24)
  • The mere commencement of qualified vocational training without its successful completion does not, as a rule, justify a return perspective that outlasts the period of validity of the entry and residence ban. (para. 25)