.png)
Change of purpose in residence permit law: How freely can one switch between different residence permits?
The myth of the general prohibition of changing purpose
German immigration law stubbornly adheres to the notion that a chosen purpose of residence largely determines the further course of residence.
For example, someone who has come to Germany with a residence permit to study must generally leave Germany again if they later want to apply for a residence permit for a completely different purpose.
This notion is inaccurate in its general form.
Current immigration law does not contain a general unwritten prohibition against changing the purpose of residence.
On the contrary: Anyone who already holds a national visa or residence permit can, in principle, apply for a different residence permit in Germany, provided that there is no specific legal prohibition against changing the purpose of the permit and that the material requirements of the new residence permit are met.
The central provision is Section 39 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance.
Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance as the central starting point
Section 39 of the Residence Ordinance regulates cases in which a residence permit can be obtained or extended in the federal territory beyond the cases expressly provided for in the Residence Act.
Section 39 sentence 1 no. 1 of the Residence Ordinance (AufenthV) specifically refers to the fact that the foreigner possesses a national visa or a residence permit.
What is remarkable is what the regulation does not contain.
She does not say that the newly applied-for residence permit must serve the same purpose as the previous permit.
She also does not say that a change is only possible within the same chapter or the same type of stay.
This wording is unambiguous from our point of view.
Where the legislator wishes to prevent a change of purpose, he can expressly stipulate corresponding restrictions.
In the absence of such a regulation, a general additional prohibition on changing the purpose of a property should not be created through administrative practice or judicial development of the law.
The decision of the Federal Administrative Court 1 C 12.19
This interpretation is confirmed by a key decision of the Federal Administrative Court.
In its judgment of May 26, 2020 – 1 C 12.19, the Federal Administrative Court expressly stated that Section 39 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance can also allow for the reissuance of a residence permit for a different purpose .
The court's arguments are particularly convincing, based on the wording, systematic structure, and purpose of the norm.
The wording contains no restriction to the same purpose of stay.
The systematic position also argues against such a restriction.
Other sections of Section 39 of the Residence Ordinance contain explicit additional requirements for applications submitted within Germany. Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance, in particular, does not impose a comparable limitation.
The Federal Administrative Court also focuses on the purpose of the regulation.
Those who are already legally residing in Germany with a long-term residence permit should not be forced to leave Germany and undergo a new national visa procedure abroad without sufficient reason.
This settles the most important fundamental question at the highest court level.
The wording and systematic structure suggest a broad change of purpose.
In our view, the decision of the Federal Administrative Court confirms a general methodological principle.
It is not the foreigner who needs to find a special norm that expressly permits his change of purpose.
Rather, it should initially be assumed that Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance allows applications to be submitted within Germany.
It must then be examined whether a more specific standard restricts or excludes the specific change of purpose.
That is a significant difference.
In practice, the opposite argument is sometimes still used:
"Such a change of purpose is not provided for by law."
This argument is not convincing after the decision of the Federal Administrative Court.
The real question is rather:
Where is this specific change of purpose prohibited by law?
In the absence of such a specific restriction, Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance generally supports the possibility of applying domestically.
Long-term stay to long-term stay
In our opinion, the legal situation is particularly clear when changing from one long-term residence status to another long-term residence status.
For example, anyone who already has a residence permit and later applies for a different residence title generally falls within the scope of application of Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance.
It is not decisive whether the intention for the new purpose of residence existed earlier.
This is precisely what distinguishes Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance from other categories of cases.
The regulation primarily refers to the existing legal residence permit.
The Federal Administrative Court has expressly confirmed this broad interpretation.
This does not, of course, mean that the new residence permit must be granted automatically.
The applicant must meet all the material requirements of the new title.
For example, a student who wishes to switch to a residence permit for employment must meet the respective requirements for labor migration.
The crucial point is simply:
He does not necessarily have to leave Germany and start the visa process anew abroad simply because of the change of purpose.
Why a change from a short stay should be assessed differently
The change from a purely short-term stay to a long-term stay is a different matter.
Here, the control function of the national visa procedure comes into play much more strongly.
For example, someone who enters Germany with a Schengen visa for a visit and plans from the outset to stay permanently in Germany is not in the same legal situation as a person who has been living legally in Germany for years with a residence permit.
The Federal Administrative Court has repeatedly emphasized that the required visa is fundamentally determined by the actual intended purpose of the stay.
A Schengen visa for a short stay cannot therefore simply be used as a substitute for a national visa.
Section 39 No. 3 of the Residence Ordinance and claims arising after entry
This distinction becomes particularly clear when compared with Section 39 Sentence 1 No. 3 of the Residence Ordinance.
In certain cases, the legislator explicitly requires that the conditions for an entitlement to a residence permit arise after entry .
The Federal Administrative Court has interpreted this fact relatively strictly in its jurisprudence.
The crucial point is that the central characteristic of the claim actually arose only after entry into the country.
This requirement is not found in Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance.
The systematic comparison is therefore a strong argument for the wide reach of No. 1.
The legislator knows very well how to limit domestic applications to situations that arose only after entry into the country.
Where he has not made such a restriction, it cannot simply be read into it.
Explicit statutory restrictions on changing purpose
However, this does not mean that every change of purpose is permissible in every case.
The Residence Act contains various specific restrictions on changing the purpose of residence.
These may, for example, relate to certain training, study or temporary employment situations.
Such more specific regulations take precedence over Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance.
The proper legal review therefore takes place in two steps.
First:
Is it generally possible to apply for a residence permit in Germany according to § 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance?
Secondly:
Does the relevant provision of the Residence Act contain a restriction specifically on this change of purpose?
Only if such a specific block exists can it limit the general procedure.
False information on the Schengen visa
The situation is significantly different again if the original short stay was made possible by deliberately false information.
For example, in its judgment of November 16, 2010 – 1 C 17.09, the Federal Administrative Court dealt with a case in which a Schengen visa had been applied for for visiting purposes, although a permanent stay was already planned.
Such cases contain an additional element of deception.
This is not simply about a later change in the purpose of the stay.
Rather, the issue is that incorrect information may have been provided in the original visa application process.
In our view, this needs to be judged much more strictly.
Someone who lives legally in Germany with a long-term residence permit and later changes their life plans is acting completely differently from someone who deliberately obtains a Schengen visa while concealing the true purpose of their stay.
These cases must not be dogmatically conflated.
Deliberately providing false information can not only make it more difficult to apply for a residence permit in Germany, but can also trigger independent consequences under immigration law and, if applicable, criminal law.
Our rating
In our opinion, German residence law should be based on a far-reaching principle of freedom to change the purpose of residence within existing long-term residence permits.
Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance is broadly worded. The Federal Administrative Court expressly confirmed this interpretation in 1 C 12.19.
This leads to an important principle:
Changing the purpose of residence is generally possible, unless expressly restricted by law.
The mere statement by an immigration authority that a specific change of purpose is "not provided for" is not sufficient.
The legal basis is crucial.
The situation is different when switching from a short-term Schengen stay to a long-term stay.
The steering function of the national visa procedure must be taken into account here.
Cases where the short-term purpose of the stay was merely a pretext from the outset are particularly problematic.
These constellations contain an additional element of deliberate deception and must therefore be treated more strictly.
Implications for practice
Therefore, the questions asked in the consultation should not be abstract:
"Is a change of purpose permissible?"
The improved examination structure is as follows:
What residence permit does the person currently hold?
Is Section 39 No. 1 of the Residence Ordinance applicable?
Which new residence permit should be applied for?
Are the material prerequisites for this fulfilled?
Is there a specific legal restriction on changing the purpose of a property?
Is this a change between two long-term stays or a change from a short-term stay?
Were any incorrect details possibly provided in the original visa application?
It is precisely this differentiated examination that prevents the application of a supposed general prohibition on changing the purpose of residence, which German residence law does not recognize in this form.
About the author
Mirko Vorreuter, LL.B., Dipl.-Jur., is a lawyer and specialist in immigration law, as well as the founder and owner of VISAGUARD.Berlin . During his studies, he specialized in German residence and immigration law and has since handled and managed more than 1,000 visa and residence permit applications.
In addition to his legal practice, Mirko Vorreuter works as a specialist author and content creator in the field of German immigration law. Besides his legal training, he holds the academic degrees of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) and Diplom-Jurist (Dipl.-Jur.).
He is a member of Corporate Immigration Lawyers Germany (CILG), the Working Group on Migration Law within the German Bar Association (DAV), and the Republican Lawyers' Association (RAV).
List of sources
[1] Section 39 of the Residence Ordinance (AufenthV), in particular sentence 1 no. 1 and no. 3, Laws on the Internet.
[2] Section 5 paragraph 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), visa requirement.
[3] Section 6 paragraph 3 of the Residence Act (AufenthG), national visa.
[4] Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of 26 May 2020 – 1 C 12.19, ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:260520U1C12.19.0.
[5] OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, Judgment of 20 March 2019 – OVG 11 B 5.17.
[6] VG Aachen, Judgment of 10 February 2010 – 8 K 2258/08.
[7] VG Schleswig, Judgment of 25.09.2017 – 1 A 106/14.
[8] VG Potsdam, Judgment of 12 January 2016 – 8 K 2622/14, earlier opposing view.
[9] VG Potsdam, Judgment of 31.05.2017 – 8 K 2926/14, earlier opposing view.
[10] Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of 16 November 2010 – 1 C 17.09.
[11] Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of 11 January 2011 – 1 C 23.09.
[12] BR-Drs. 731/04, Explanatory Memorandum to the Residence Ordinance, in particular to Section 39 of the Residence Ordinance.
[13] General Administrative Regulation on the Residence Act of 26 October 2009 – AufenthG-VwV.
[14] Berlin State Office for Immigration, Procedural Guidelines for Residence in Berlin – VAB, current version.
[15] Federal Foreign Office, Visa Handbook, Information on national visas and residence permits.
[16] Bergmann/Dienelt, Ausländerrecht, 15th ed. 2025, commentaries on § 5 AufenthG and § 39 AufenthV.
[17] Kluth/Heusch, BeckOK Ausländerrecht, Commentary on § 39 AufenthV.
[18] Decker/Bader/Kothe, BeckOK Migrations- und Integrationsrecht, Kommentarung zu § 39 AufenthV.
[19] Hailbronner, Ausländerrecht, Loose-leaf commentary, § 5 AufenthG and AufenthV.
[20] Fritz/Vormeier, Joint Commentary on the Residence Act – GK-AufenthG.
