Immigration Law: On Identity Verification in the Naturalization Process

Administrative Court of Stuttgart, 14.02.2017, Ref.: 11 K 5514/16

A foreigner who has lawfully resided in the country may be naturalized upon request if they are capable of acting under Section 37, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 or legally represented, have not been convicted of an unlawful act, or had a measure of improvement and security ordered against them due to their incapacity, have found their own apartment or accommodation, and are able to support themselves and their dependents, cf. § 8 Paragraph 1 StAG. Additionally, Section 10 StAG sets out further requirements, particularly regarding the time requirements.

Identity Verification is Also a Prerequisite for Naturalization

It is clear, however, that this can only succeed if the applicant’s identity is unequivocally established. This is best evidenced by official documents from their home country (preferably civil status documents with a photo). Suitable documents include not only the birth certificate and passport but also documents such as a driver’s license, employee ID card, or even a school certificate.

In the following case, the Administrative Court of Stuttgart clarifies that recognition as a refugee only has binding effect under Section 4 Sentence 1 AsylVfG a.F. (now §6 Sentence 1 AsylG) to the extent that all state authorities must assume asylum eligibility, but not a clarified identity. The same applies to an issued permanent residence permit. Its legal effect only extends to the legality of permanent residence, not to any details about the person.

Plaintiff’s Entry and Asylum Status

The plaintiff, an Eritrean national, claimed to have been born in 1968 in Asmara, Eritrea. He entered the Federal Republic of Germany on April 21, 1980, where he initially lived with a foster family. The plaintiff applied for asylum, but his first application was rejected. However, after a subsequent application, he was recognized as an asylum seeker by the Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees through a court order. On December 4, 1984, the plaintiff finally received a positive asylum decision and has held a permanent residence permit since January 29, 1985. However, the decision granting him asylum status was revoked on March 7, 2003. The Federal Office determined that the conditions for recognition as an asylum seeker under Section 51, Paragraph 1 of the Aliens Act (AuslG) were no longer met.

Naturalization Application and Educational Background

After entering Germany, the plaintiff attended elementary and secondary school and began an apprenticeship, which he dropped out of in his second year. On February 10, 2014, the plaintiff applied for naturalization in the German state. According to the Federal Central Register, there were no entries about the plaintiff as of June 18, 2014. In September 2014, he made a declaration of allegiance to the city of Stuttgart and informed them in October 2015 that he had begun retraining as a „metal technology specialist in assembly technology.“ From July 2015 to July 2016, he received unemployment benefits. The plaintiff emphasized that his identity was clear, as he had always provided the same personal details since his arrival. His uncle, who arrived with him, also made no differing statements. He had lived under the same personal details in Germany for over 35 years.

Difficulties in Obtaining a Birth Certificate

The city of Stuttgart requested that the plaintiff provide a birth certificate from Eritrea. The plaintiff deemed this unreasonable. He referred to a communication from the Eritrean Embassy in Berlin dated October 21, 2014, which stated that a birth certificate required an Eritrean ID card, which he did not possess. Additionally, he would have to name three witnesses, each at least 40 years old and also possessing an Eritrean ID. These conditions could not be met. Since he was born before Eritrea’s independence, obtaining a birth certificate was particularly challenging. He also stated that he was not baptized and could not provide a baptism certificate. To obtain Eritrean documents, he would have to pay a retrospective „development tax“ of two percent of his net income to the Eritrean state, which he considered illegal.

On December 10, 2015, the plaintiff made a sworn affidavit stating that his name was J.H. and that he was born in Asmara in 1968. However, the city of Stuttgart rejected the naturalization application in a decision dated March 18, 2016, arguing that since the revocation of his asylum status in 2004, the plaintiff had been obliged to obtain a national passport, which he had not yet done. Therefore, his identity remained unverified.

Objection and Sworn Statement by the Mother

On March 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed an objection to the rejection notice. His mother, who claimed to have been born in 1933 in Asmara, submitted a sworn statement on July 26, 2016, confirming that the plaintiff was her son, born in 1968 in Asmara, from her marriage to Mr. H.A. However, the Stuttgart Regional Council rejected the objection in a decision dated August 10, 2016, stating that resolving open identity questions is a necessary prerequisite for naturalization and essential for examining the naturalization requirements under Section 10 and Section 11 of the Nationality Act (StAG).

Filing of the Lawsuit and Oral Hearing

On September 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court of Stuttgart. He argued that he was born in 1968 in Asmara when Eritrea was still part of Ethiopia. Eritrea only became independent in 1993. The plaintiff stated that he lived in Asmara until 1980, then spent three months in Khartoum, Sudan, before finally fleeing to Germany. He reiterated that he did not possess identity papers from Ethiopia or Eritrea and was unable to obtain such documents. Only his uncle could confirm his identity. His mother had fled Eritrea years ago and did not have an Eritrean passport either.

In the oral hearing, the plaintiff stated that he began retraining in September 2015, which ended in January 2017. Before that, he had been employed through a temporary employment agency for two years and three months. Currently, he was unemployed but had applied to various companies. In 2000, he traveled to Asmara with his blue ID card to visit his parents.

Decision of the Administrative Court of Stuttgart

The Administrative Court of Stuttgart dismissed the lawsuit. It found that the decisions of the city of Stuttgart and the Stuttgart Regional Council did not violate the plaintiff’s rights. The plaintiff had no claim to naturalization because his identity was not established, which is a mandatory requirement under Sections 8 and 10 of the StAG. Although identity verification is not explicitly stated in the law, it is assumed. If suitable documents to prove identity are missing, the identity must be clarified at the latest by the time of the naturalization decision. Identity is considered established if there is no risk of confusion and the applicant’s personal details are clearly determined. The burden of proof for clarifying identity lies with the naturalization applicant.

The plaintiff’s identity had not been definitively established in previous proceedings. The 1984 decision of the Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees had no binding effect concerning identity. The 1985 refugee travel document also contained no verification of identity. Therefore, identity verification was imperative in the naturalization process. Since the plaintiff had not provided the necessary documents, his identity remained unverified. The sworn affidavits of the plaintiff and his mother were not official documents and were therefore insufficient.

The court ruled that naturalization could not proceed due to the unresolved identity issue. The plaintiff had no legal claims to naturalization under Section 10, Paragraph 1 StAG, or Section 8, Paragraph 1 StAG as long as his identity remained unverified. There is no legal provision for a hardship exception regarding the acquisition of identity documentation. The lawsuit was therefore dismissed.

Source: Administrative Court Stuttgart

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 to info@mth-partner.de

Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.