German Immigration law: If the foreign spouse does not obtain an A1 certificate, they must explicitly demonstrate their efforts to learn the language.

Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, 21.06.2022, Case No.: OVG 3 B 24/20

The judgment concerns a case in which a Ghanaian national (plaintiff) applied for a visa for family reunification with her German husband. This application was denied by the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Accra, as there were significant doubts about the plaintiff’s identity and her German language skills. The case then went before the Administrative Court of Berlin, which initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant, i.e., the Federal Republic of Germany, appealed the decision, and the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg overturned the original ruling and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Background and Application

The plaintiff had applied for a visa for family reunification. This application was initially denied by the German Embassy in Accra in April 2018. The rejection was based on the grounds that her identity had not been sufficiently established and that she could not communicate in German, even at a basic level, as required for family reunification according to § 28 of the Residence Act (AufenthG). In her appeal against this decision, the plaintiff admitted that her place of birth was incorrectly stated in her birth certificate. In fact, she was born in A_____, which her father confirmed in a notarized statement.

Additionally, the plaintiff argued that she had been illiterate and had been attempting to learn German since 2015. Due to financial and family constraints, she was unable to attend a language course at the Goethe-Institut. Instead, she had been practicing German with her husband, and from September 2018, with the help of a neighbor. As evidence, she submitted a statement from her husband and handwritten notes.

Rejection by the German Embassy

Despite these explanations, the visa application was denied again. In the rejection issued in January 2019, it was stated that doubts about the plaintiff’s identity remained. Moreover, she had not provided additional documents to support her claims. It was also noted that her birth had only been registered in 2015 and that Ghanaian passports are often issued without thorough content verification. Lastly, the required proof of language skills had not been provided.

Lawsuit before the Administrative Court of BerlinLawsuit at the Berlin Administrative Court

Subsequently, the plaintiff and her husband filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court of Berlin. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to issue the visa. The court considered the plaintiff’s identity to be sufficiently clarified, as the husband had credibly explained the circumstances of the incorrect place of birth during the hearing, and the statements of persons interviewed by the trusted attorney had confirmed the plaintiff’s name. Regarding the German language skills, the court ruled that the plaintiff had made sufficient efforts to acquire basic German knowledge.

Appeal Proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg

The defendant appealed this decision. The argument was made that the plaintiff’s identity was still unresolved. In countries with unreliable documentation systems, such as Ghana, it is generally possible for individuals to prove their identity, particularly through the submission of reliable documents. However, in this case, it was to the plaintiff’s detriment that she and her family members had provided demonstrably false information, especially regarding her place of birth. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not demonstrated the necessary German language skills or made serious efforts to learn the language over a period of at least one year, as required.

Reasons for the Higher Administrative Court’s Decision

The Higher Administrative Court upheld the appeal and reversed the Administrative Court of Berlin’s ruling. It concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the issuance of a visa for family reunification. This was primarily justified by the fact that the plaintiff had neither sufficiently proven her identity nor her German language skills.

Doubts about the Plaintiff’s Identity

Regarding the plaintiff’s identity, the court found that the submitted documents were insufficient to dispel doubts. The incorrect place of birth stated in the birth certificate, along with contradictory statements regarding her date of birth and other personal details, contributed to these doubts. For instance, it was determined that the plaintiff’s father had provided the trusted attorney with an incorrect place of birth and possibly an incorrect date of birth. The fact that the plaintiff was only registered in 2015 raised further questions.

The plaintiff was unable to support her claims with additional documents, such as a baptismal certificate. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s statements about her childhood and place of residence did not align with the information she had provided during the visa application process. These conflicting statements further reinforced doubts about the credibility of the plaintiff and her family.

Insufficient Proof of Language Skills

The court emphasized that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the required German language skills. Although it is generally possible for individuals seeking reunification to acquire the necessary language skills through self-study or with the help of non-professionals, in this case, it was questionable whether the plaintiff’s efforts were actually suitable for systematically and promptly acquiring the required language skills. It was particularly noted that the plaintiff, due to her illiteracy and lack of English language skills, would have required professional support. The language lessons provided by her neighbor were deemed insufficiently substantiated.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff’s handwritten notes documenting her progress did not constitute sufficient evidence of serious efforts. The husband’s statement that the plaintiff had forgotten almost everything she had learned also supported the conclusion that her efforts were inadequate.

Outcome and Conclusion

Ultimately, the Higher Administrative Court concluded that the plaintiff had neither sufficiently proven her identity nor demonstrated the required German language skills. The documents and statements provided were contradictory, and the plaintiff’s efforts to learn the language were deemed neither systematic nor sustainable. Therefore, her lawsuit was dismissed, and she had no entitlement to the requested visa for family reunification.

The judgment highlights the high standards that must be met to prove identity and language skills in the context of visa applications. In cases where there are uncertainties regarding the origin and personal data of the applicant, reliable documents and serious efforts to acquire language skills are essential.