Foreigners Law: Court Rejects Visa Application of a Chinese Woman for a Beauty Studio Due to Lack of Experience.

Administrative Court of Berlin, June 6, 2019, Case No. 35 K 240 18 V

Visa Application for Self-Employment as a Beautician in Germany

The plaintiff, a Chinese national, applied for a national visa in 2018 to pursue self-employment in Germany. She planned to run a massage studio with her mother and expand the business to include cosmetic and nail design services. The studio had been operated by her mother in the city of P. since 2015, offering various wellness massages. The plaintiff aimed to complement the business with additional services and eventually expand her activities in Germany. She also planned to complete training as a naturopath to later offer medical treatments as part of the studio’s services.

To support her visa application, the plaintiff submitted a partnership agreement, a business plan, her professional qualifications, proof of financial means, and health insurance coverage. The partnership agreement outlined that she and her mother would form a civil-law partnership (GbR), with each owning a 50% share in the business. The plaintiff herself planned to contribute €20,000 in cash and €50,000 in assets and serve as the managing director.

Visa Rejection by the German Consulate in Shanghai

The German Consulate rejected the visa application on September 28, 2018. The reasoning was that there was neither an economic interest nor a regional need for the activities planned by the plaintiff. Furthermore, it saw no positive impact on the economy and deemed the financing insufficient. This decision was based on the assessment of the responsible Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IHK), which also raised concerns about the feasibility of the venture. The co-defendant, responsible for the visa, therefore withheld approval.

In her lawsuit filed on October 1, 2018, the plaintiff sought to obtain the visa, arguing that she had extensive professional experience as a beautician, nail designer, and masseuse. She also stated that she had been self-employed in her profession in China for several years and had the necessary entrepreneurial expertise to run a business successfully in Germany. Additionally, she highlighted that there were few similar providers in the region, which she believed supported the viability of her business concept.

Court Also Saw No Economic or Regional Need

The Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit, ruling that the Consulate’s rejection of the visa application was lawful and that the plaintiff had no right to the visa. The court found that the requirements of § 21(1) of the Residence Act (AufenthG), which must be met for the issuance of a visa for self-employment, were not fulfilled in the plaintiff’s case. In particular, the court saw neither an economic interest nor a regional need for the plaintiff’s activities.

An economic interest under the law exists when the planned activity leads to significant investments and the creation of jobs. However, the court found no sufficient indication that the plaintiff’s venture would create jobs to a notable extent. The submitted documents revealed that the plaintiff’s mother’s studio had only two part-time employees, and those jobs had already been eliminated. While the plaintiff’s business plan hinted at the potential hiring of additional employees, possibly from the medical field, the court found this too vague. There was no concrete forecast for job creation.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s planned capital investment too small. Although the legislature had lowered the thresholds for issuing a visa for self-employment in the past, a certain level of investment is still necessary to justify an economic interest. The plaintiff’s planned capital expenditure, amounting to less than €1,000 per month, was deemed insufficient.

Plaintiff Lacked Entrepreneurial Experience and Sufficient German Language Skills

In addition to the inadequate investments and lack of job creation, the court also found the plaintiff’s entrepreneurial experience lacking. Although she had worked as a beautician and nail designer in China, she had no prior experience managing a comparable business. Her claim that she had been self-employed since 2014 turned out to be a misunderstanding during the proceedings. In reality, she had only operated a clothing store in China, which the court did not consider comparable to running a service-oriented business like a massage or beauty studio.

Another factor that weighed against granting the visa was the plaintiff’s limited German language skills. She could only present a language certificate for A1 level proficiency, which the court considered insufficient to run a business in Germany. Moreover, significantly better German language skills would be required for the planned naturopath training, which the plaintiff intended to pursue. The court doubted that the plaintiff could acquire the necessary language skills in the foreseeable future while simultaneously managing the business.

Finally, the court found no contribution by the plaintiff to innovation or research, which could have provided an additional reason for visa issuance. The proposed business concept – a combination of massages, beauty treatments, and nail design – was not innovative but rather reflected common offerings in the region. It was neither technically nor otherwise forward-looking. While the plaintiff’s planned naturopath training would have been a valuable addition, it could not be considered a decisive factor at the moment, as the plaintiff had not yet obtained the necessary qualifications.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the requirements for issuing a visa for self-employment were not met and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Source: Administrative Court of Berlin

If you need assistance with starting a business in Germany, we are happy to advise you.