.png)
Case study: Remonstration and willingness to return
Practical tip from a lawyer: What to do if your visa was rejected due to "lack of intent to return"?
.jpg)
Share:
June 15, 2026
What is the problem with Schengen visa rejections?
Most Schengen visa applications are rejected due to a "lack of intent to return". In these cases, the authorities do not believe that the applicant would leave Germany after the visa expires.
A lack of willingness to return is a particular problem from poorer countries (from which much illegal immigration takes place), such as those in Africa and Asia.
The reasons given for the lack of willingness to return are often extremely superficial. Most often, it is just a boilerplate statement referring to "danger to public order and safety" or "high migration pressure".
Here's how lawyers solve the problem:
Previously, it was possible to "remonstrate" against Schengen visa refusals. However, the remonstration procedure was abolished in 2024; today, a lawsuit must be filed directly with the Berlin Administrative Court within one month.
From a purely legal standpoint, it is unfortunately difficult to argue against a lack of intent to return, as the Visa Code grants the authorities considerable discretion (even in court).
Only those applications are truly promising in which the applicant possesses sufficient financial resources to credibly demonstrate that they would not immigrate illegally or would not benefit from doing so. A job and family (wife and children) in their home country are also strong arguments.
Ultimately, in Schengen visa cases involving a lack of intent to return, lawyers attempt to reach a settlement in court (the so-called Berlin Settlement), in which they offer to cover the costs of the proceedings if the visa is granted. However, this only works if the applicant is demonstrably reputable.
A. Facts
What had happened?
The client is a Pakistani national. Her son lives in Germany, is employed there, and recently became a father. The client intended to visit her son and her newborn grandchild on short notice and applied for a Schengen visa pursuant to Section 6 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) at the German Embassy in Islamabad. The client appeared in person at the embassy on the appointed date, submitted all required documents, and awaited an interview regarding her purpose of travel and intentions to return. However, no personal interview took place. Her documents were accepted without comment and filed, without the client being given the opportunity to provide supplementary explanations or further evidence of her intention to return.
Approximately two weeks after submitting the application, the client received a rejection notice. The notice was only rudimentarily completed; the form merely contained a checkmark in the box labeled "Danger to public safety and order." The reason given, stated tersely in a single sentence, was that the embassy had doubts about the client's intention to return, and therefore the application was being rejected.
Hoping to still be able to visit her son and grandchild, the client then commissioned a lawyer specializing in visa procedures from VISAGUARD.
B. Legal solution
How did the VISAGUARD lawyer resolve the case?
The appointed VISAGUARD lawyer initially filed a timely and formally correct appeal against the embassy's rejection. In the grounds for the appeal, the lawyer argued, in particular, that the proceedings suffered from a significant procedural defect: the client had neither been heard in person nor given the opportunity to substantiate her intention to return or to submit evidence. By failing to hold a hearing, the embassy had violated its obligation to comprehensively and properly investigate the circumstances relevant to the decision ( § 24 para. 1 VwVfG ).
Furthermore, the lawyer argued in detail that there was indeed a genuine intention to return. New evidence was submitted to support this argument, in particular:
an uncancelled employment contract of the client in Pakistan,
a lease agreement in the client's name for an apartment in Islamabad,
Proof of an existing private pension insurance policy,
as well as a sworn statement from the client confirming her intention to return to Pakistan immediately upon expiry of her visa.
Contact Us
Do you have questions about residency law? Are you looking for a lawyer specializing in German immigration and visa law? We are happy to assist you with residency proceedings before embassies, immigration authorities, and administrative courts. Contact us to book an online appointment with a German immigration lawyer!
Nevertheless, the embassy again rejected the remonstration, referring to its original decision and failing to adequately consider the evidence submitted.
Due to the unsuccessful appeal, the VisaGuard lawyer then filed a lawsuit with the Berlin Administrative Court ( Section 113 of the German Code of Administrative Procedure ). During the court proceedings, it was again comprehensively explained that the original visa application process already contained serious procedural errors and that the negative prognosis regarding the client's intention to return was neither comprehensible nor adequately substantiated. The Berlin Administrative Court essentially followed the lawyer's arguments: It determined that the client was entitled to a proper hearing and fair treatment in the visa application process. The failure to hold a hearing was a serious violation of procedural principles and infringed upon the right to be heard. Furthermore, the subsequently submitted documents were suitable and sufficient to demonstrate an existing intention to return. The embassy's doubts had neither been specified nor substantiated.
Consequently, the court ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to grant the client the requested visa. The decision became legally binding. The visa was subsequently issued by the embassy, and the client was able to enter Germany to visit her family.
C. Conclusion
What can be learned from this case?
This case study demonstrates that visa applications can fail due to significant procedural errors if the authorities violate their duty to investigate the facts of their case and their obligation to grant a hearing. In particular, the failure to hear the applicant and the lack of consideration of relevant evidence rendered the rejection unlawful.
The careful and substantive analysis of the facts in the appeal process and – after an unsuccessful appeal – in the court proceedings was crucial to the success. This case underscores the importance of competent legal representation in visa proceedings and simultaneously demonstrates that a legally assisted appeal and legal assertion of clients' rights can be effective.
You might also be interested in
You might also be interested in
[1] Judgment: Regarding the means of proof concerning the intention to return (return tickets, proof of financial means in the country of residence, proof of employment, bank statements and property ownership, as well as proof of integration in the country of residence), see Berlin Administrative Court, judgment of 26 October 2012 - 22 K 30.12
[2] Judgment: on the scope of the discretionary power regarding the intention to return, see BVerwG, judgment of 17 September 2015, 1 C 37.14 ; VG Berlin, judgment of 21 February 2014, file no. VG 4 K 232.11 V
[3] Visa Handbook: Cancellation and revocation of Schengen visas, 76th Supplement, as of 03/2023