Spousal Reunification Refused — the One-Month Deadline to Sue

A decision from the German embassy, often with a terse statement of reasons, accompanied by the note: "You may bring an action within one month." A refusal in spousal reunification cases is one of the more frequent constellations I deal with. Here are the essentials, before you set the decision aside.

One month — and no extension#

The time limit for bringing an action against a visa decision is one month (§ 74 Abs. 1 VwGO — section 74(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure). It begins to run upon proper service of the decision together with a correct instruction on legal remedies (Rechtsbehelfsbelehrung). What is decisive is the instruction in your specific decision; in case of doubt, the start of the time limit should be examined precisely, rather than relying solely on the date of the letter.

It is also important to note: in the visa procedure there is no preliminary objection procedure (Widerspruchsverfahren). An action is brought directly against the refusal. Jurisdiction generally lies with the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin, since the German missions abroad are sued there.

The most common grounds for refusal#

In practice, three grounds come up again and again.

First, a missing language certificate, or one assessed as "not sufficient". For spousal reunification, level A1 is generally required (§ 30 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 AufenthG — section 30(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Residence Act). The statute and the case law, however, recognise exceptions, for instance in the case of certain health-related impairments, where the requirement would be unreasonable, or in particular privileged constellations. Whether such an exception applies must be examined on a case-by-case basis; if it is overlooked, that can be a starting point for the action.

Second, the objection that the applicant's livelihood (Lebensunterhalt) is not secured. The underlying calculation is not infrequently open to challenge. It must be examined whether all components of income were correctly taken into account and whether, in the individual case, the standard requirement may be dispensed with (cf. § 5 Abs. 3 AufenthG — section 5(3) of the Residence Act).

Third, doubts as to the marriage. The missions abroad conduct hearings and record any inconsistencies. With careful preparation — including that of the sponsoring person living in Germany — such doubts can often be dispelled in the court proceedings.

Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection: the suspension since 2025#

For sponsoring persons with subsidiary protection, the situation has tightened considerably in 2025. By virtue of the Act of 17 July 2025 (BGBl. 2025 I Nr. 173 — Federal Law Gazette), family reunification under § 36a AufenthG (section 36a of the Residence Act) is not granted, on the basis of § 104 Abs. 14 AufenthG (section 104(14) of the Residence Act), until the end of 23 July 2027. New registrations on the waiting list and new applications under § 36a are not possible during this period.

Sections 22 and 23 AufenthG, however, remain unaffected. Under § 22 Satz 1 AufenthG (section 22 sentence 1 of the Residence Act), a case of hardship may be asserted on compelling humanitarian grounds; the notification runs through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Here, however, candour is in order: the requirements are very high and the matter concerns narrowly confined individual cases. Just how narrow is shown by the figures — by mid-May 2026, several thousand hardship notifications had been received since the suspension, set against only a single-digit number of visas issued, some of them only in the context of court settlements.

It is, moreover, always worthwhile to examine whether the person living in Germany might possibly obtain a different residence title — for instance, the recognition of refugee status rather than only subsidiary protection — because this can reopen the path to family reunification. Which route holds up in the specific case depends on the circumstances, such as a serious illness, the age of the children, or the situation in the country of residence.

Inaction by the embassy and the action to compel#

If the embassy fails to decide on an application over a longer period, an action for failure to act (Untätigkeitsklage) comes into consideration once the statutory time limit has expired (§ 75 VwGO — section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure). It compels the authority to respond and can accelerate a procedure that would otherwise take a very long time.

If, on the other hand, the refusal decision is already in hand, the action to compel performance (Verpflichtungsklage) is the right route. It is directed at obliging the authority to issue the visa.

Prior approval by the foreigners' authority#

In many cases, before the visa is issued, the German foreigners' authority (Ausländerbehörde) must give its consent (§ 31 AufenthV — section 31 of the Residence Ordinance). This is a hurdle in its own right and at the same time a possible distinct point of contention. If the foreigners' authority refuses this prior approval, that can be challenged in parallel within the proceedings.

What you should compile before the initial consultation#

Helpful items are the embassy's decision (a photograph will suffice to begin with), the complete correspondence from the application procedure, including the application, the record of the hearing, and any requests for further documents, as well as your own residence title as the sponsoring person. Added to these are the marriage certificate together with its translation, any existing language certificate of the spouse, and proof of income for the past few months.

With these documents, it is possible, during the initial consultation, to assess whether an action has prospects of success and which items of evidence may still need to be obtained.