Berlin Administrative Court hears IU cases: Judges deliver verdict against IU International University

On November 5, 2025, the oral hearing in the case between IU – University of Applied Sciences for International Students and the State Office for Immigration (LEA) took place before the 10th Chamber of the Berlin Administrative Court ( VISAGUARD had reported on the case ). Many students had hoped that the court would finally provide clarity – or at least find a compromise between the two sides. But the hearing showed one thing above all: the positions remain entrenched . And the dispute will likely continue to occupy Germany for a long time to come.

Negotiations without progress

It became clear at the very beginning of the meeting that the State Office for Immigration showed no willingness whatsoever to reconsider its approach to IU cases . A total of four senior case officers from the LEA appeared – an unusual turnout that signaled from the outset how uncompromisingly the authority pursues these procedures.

Despite the large number of LEA staff involved, there was little willingness to engage in dialogue. The agency's arguments remained inflexible and unwilling to reach an agreement . However, this was precisely what was to be expected: LEA Berlin apparently wants to send a clear signal on this issue and is prepared to pursue the conflict through all legal channels.

Key question 1: Do distance learning courses fall under § 16b of the Residence Act?

The central focus of the hearing was initially the fundamental question of whether a course of study qualifies as a course of study under Section 16b of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) even if substantial parts of it take place online. The judges made it clear early on that they viewed a genuine "distance learning" character rather critically . Although the chamber did not issue a definitive dogmatic ruling on this issue, the general sentiment was clear: In the court's view, a residence permit for the purpose of studying likely requires that a significant portion of the education takes place on campus. Purely or predominantly digital formats could therefore not be considered "on-campus study."

Key question 2: Do the new IU degree programs meet the attendance requirements?

The IU has adjusted its programs several times in recent months to comply with increased legal requirements. However, these changes did not convince the court . Based on a preliminary assessment, the chamber did not believe that the new IU models met the requirements of a traditional on-campus degree program . The crucial point appears to be whether students are required to be physically present on campus for the majority of their time – and the court tended to answer this question in the negative.

Another crucial point was whether students could at least be entitled to an extension of their residence permit based on the principle of legitimate expectation. After all, the LEA (State Office for Migration and Refugees) had issued visas for years without objecting to the hybrid study structure. However, the general consensus here was also rather negative. The judges indicated that a previously granted residence permit, as well as approval during the visa application process, does not guarantee permanent protection if, from the authorities' perspective, the legal requirements are no longer met. While a definitive ruling was not issued, the general sentiment was clear: enforceable protection of legitimate expectations is unlikely to be accepted.

The verdict: The IU loses

As a result, the Berlin Administrative Court ruled against IU . The university, or rather the students in question, lost the legal battle in this first round. However, the ruling itself makes it clear that the legal situation is by no means clear-cut. The court granted leave to appeal directly to the Federal Administrative Court . This is relatively rare – and shows that the court itself has considerable doubts as to whether the legal questions have actually been definitively settled. The judges seem to recognize that the significance of the case extends far beyond Berlin. The granting of leave to appeal directly to the Federal Administrative Court is a strong signal: the case will continue to occupy Germany for a long time. It is expected that the legal dispute will proceed through several instances – possibly all the way to the Federal Administrative Court or even to the European Court of Justice , since EU law issues concerning the REST Directive are involved. Unfortunately, this offers no relief for current IU students. The legal clarification will take a long time, while the immigration-related problems have immediate consequences. Those affected now will hardly benefit from the fact that the legal situation will be clarified by the highest court sometime in a few years.

Conclusion: A partial victory for the LEA – but not a final answer

With the Berlin Administrative Court's ruling, the LEA (State Office for Migration and Refugees) has initially had its course of action confirmed. However, the question of whether hybrid study models offered by IU (International University) actually do not fall under Section 16b of the Residence Act remains controversial. One thing is clear: the dispute will continue. And it will fundamentally influence the future of hybrid study models, the recognition of international educational qualifications, and the practices of immigration authorities. For students, the situation remains dire. The proceedings demonstrate once again that one cannot rely on short-term legal solutions.

VISAGUARD therefore continues to advise:

• Seek advice in good time .

• Check possible changes of study program ,

• and focus on realistic perspectives instead of hoping for years of legal battles.

We will closely monitor further developments and report on them continuously in this series.