VGH München, Beschluss v. 12.02.2024 – 19 ZB 23.1976
Background of the Case: Permanent Residence Permit and Residence Permit
The plaintiff, a Kenyan national born in 1982, applied for a permanent residence permit, alternatively the extension of his residence permit. After a failed asylum procedure, he initially received a temporary suspension of deportation (Duldung) and later a residence permit to exercise his right of access to his daughter. This residence permit was extended several times, most recently until January 2021. In November 2020, the plaintiff again applied for an extension of the residence permit but only received a certificate of fiction (Fiktionsbescheinigung). In September 2021, the plaintiff submitted another application for a permanent residence permit according to § 26 (4) of the Residence Act (AufenthG) or for a residence permit under § 25b of the Residence Act.
Rejection of the Application and Appeal
In May 2023, the defendant rejected the plaintiff’s applications for the extension or issuance of a residence permit and ordered his departure by June 2023. The administrative court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit against this decision in October 2023. The plaintiff then filed an appeal, arguing that the first-instance judgment was erroneous and there were serious doubts about its accuracy.
Reasons for the Rejection of the Permanent Residence Permit
The court clarified that the requirements for the issuance of a permanent residence permit under § 26 (4) in conjunction with § 9 (2) of the Residence Act were not met. One of the requirements is that the plaintiff must have held a residence permit for at least five years. Since the plaintiff had not had a valid residence permit since January 2021 and only possessed a certificate of fiction, the required residence duration could not be achieved. The time under the certificate of fiction could not be counted towards the necessary five years, as the application for the extension of the residence permit was rejected.
Special Circumstances in the Case of the Residence Permit
The requested extension of the residence permit was also denied, as there were no legal or factual obstacles to the plaintiff’s departure at the relevant time. In particular, it was determined that the plaintiff did not maintain regular personal contact with his daughter, who turned 18 in November 2023. Therefore, there was no family community within the meaning of Article 6 of the Basic Law (GG) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that would have justified the plaintiff’s stay.
No Special Legal Difficulties or Fundamental Importance
The court rejected the appeal as there were neither special legal nor factual difficulties nor any fundamental importance to the case. The Federal Administrative Court’s case law is clear that the relevant time is the date of the oral hearing. As the plaintiff did not have a valid residence permit at that time, there was no entitlement to a permanent residence permit or the extension of the residence permit.
Source: VGH München
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. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.