Aktualisiert am:
Administrative Court of Mainz, Judgment of March 25, 2022, Case No.: 4 K 476/21
Summary of the Decision
If a naturalization applicant cannot provide the official documents required to verify their identity and nationality under § 10 para. 1 StAG, their identity and nationality may also be sufficiently verified using other evidence. This may include statements or official documents from the applicant’s family members, even if they do not reside in Germany.
Case Description
In the present case, the plaintiff, who had been living in Germany since 2011, applied for naturalization in 2019 under § 10 para. 1 StAG. The competent authority rejected the application, arguing that the right to naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG only exists if the applicant’s identity and nationality are sufficiently verified, which was not the case for the plaintiff. After the plaintiff’s objection to the rejection of the application was unsuccessful, he filed a lawsuit against the decision on June 14, 2021.
Facts of the Case
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the authority to grant him German citizenship and overturning the rejection decision. The court found that the plaintiff had a right to naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG. The identity and nationality of the plaintiff were sufficiently clarified through the testimonies provided during the objection process.
Plaintiff’s Background
According to the plaintiff, he was born in Mogadishu in 1987 and holds Somali citizenship. After entering Germany in 2011, he applied for asylum, stating that he did not possess a passport or any documents proving his origin. In 2013, he was granted refugee status, and in 2016, he received a settlement permit. When he applied for naturalization in 2019 under § 10 para. 1 StAG, all requirements for naturalization were met, except for the verification of identity and nationality. The plaintiff was only able to provide a newly issued birth certificate and a confirmation of his nationality.
Verification of Identity by the Somali Embassy
To verify his identity, the plaintiff contacted the Somali Embassy in Berlin and received a birth certificate dated August 9, 2019, indicating his birth on January 1, 1987, in Mogadishu, along with a written confirmation of his Somali citizenship. The embassy employee based the citizenship confirmation on a conversation in Somali with the plaintiff, concluding that he must be from Somalia. The plaintiff submitted these documents to the defendant as proof of his identity and nationality.
Rejection of the Naturalization Application
After the plaintiff was heard regarding his application, the defendant rejected it on January 7, 2020. The plaintiff objected to the rejection, stating that he had relatives who could testify to his identity.
Testimonies to Clarify Identity
The plaintiff then submitted a notarized statement from a U.S. citizen who claimed to be his biological brother and a statement from a man with Swedish citizenship who claimed to be his maternal uncle. The latter also possessed a Swedish passport and a 1973 identity document issued in Mogadishu. Both statements were coherent and credible. The plaintiff argued that in cases of unintentional lack of evidence, as in a Federal Administrative Court ruling from September 23, 2020 (1 C 36/19), it is permissible to rely on other evidence if no public documents are available.
Rejection of the Objection
The defendant rejected the objection on May 5, 2021, stating that the offered witnesses were not suitable for verifying the plaintiff’s identity because their identities and statements could not be verified in Germany, as they resided abroad. Furthermore, their identities had not been verified according to German standards. The defendant also argued that the Federal Administrative Court’s decision from September 23, 2020 (1 C 36/19) was an isolated case that did not apply here, so the evidence offered could not be used to verify the plaintiff’s identity and nationality.
Standards of Identity Verification in Other Countries
The plaintiff countered that the standards for verifying identity and nationality in Sweden and the U.S. are comparable to those in Germany, and therefore the identity of the witnesses should be considered verified.
Filing of the Lawsuit and Court Judgment
On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the rejection decision with the Administrative Court of Mainz. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the authority to grant him German citizenship. The court found that the plaintiff had a right to naturalization under § 10 para. 1 StAG. The identity and nationality of the plaintiff were sufficiently clarified through the testimonies provided during the objection process.
Court’s Considerations
The court’s decision was based on a Federal Administrative Court judgment from September 23, 2020, Case No.: 1 C 36/19. The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the requirement for clarified identity and nationality under § 10 para. 1 StAG can be met not only by submitting a passport. Instead, it is necessary to balance the security interests of the Federal Republic of Germany with the interests and rights of the naturalization applicant. While a passport is the primary means of proof, if this is not possible, other public documents and any evidence permitted under § 26 para. 1 sentence 1, 2 VwVfG, such as unofficial documents or other evidence, are sufficient. As a last resort, identity can exceptionally be proven through the applicant’s own statements if these are substantiated through a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and the applicant’s entire submission.
Requirements for the Applicant’s Cooperation
The requirement to submit official documents can only be waived if the applicant has cooperated in clarifying their identity and nationality to the extent objectively possible and subjectively reasonable, as required under § 37 para. 1 sentence 2 StAG in conjunction with § 82 para. 1 AufenthG.
Authority’s Position on the Somali Embassy Documents
The court agreed with the authority that the plaintiff could not rely on the documents issued by the Somali Embassy in Berlin on August 6, 2019, to prove his identity and nationality. Somali passports issued since 1991 are generally not accepted by the German government, as they usually do not reliably confirm the identity of the person concerned. In this specific case, the embassy employee explicitly stated that the documents were issued based on a conversation with the plaintiff in Somali, with no further verification conducted.
Alternative Evidence
Given the lack of official documents, the plaintiff could use other evidence under § 26 para. 1 sentence 1, 2 VwVfG. The written statements of witnesses confirming the plaintiff’s identity were considered such evidence.
Equivalence of Domestic and Foreign Witnesses
The court found no need to distinguish between witnesses residing in Germany and those abroad. The identity verification standards in the U.S. and Sweden are comparable to those in Germany, so there was no reason to doubt the identity of the offered witnesses. Additionally, the data in the plaintiff’s uncle’s Swedish passport matched the information in his Somali identity document, reinforcing this conviction.
Source: Administrative Court of Mainz
Important Note: The content of this contribution has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, liability and warranty are excluded.
If you need legal advice, feel free to contact us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.
