Constitutional Court declares Afghanistan admission freeze unconstitutional

For months, an Afghan mother and her two minor sons had been waiting in Pakistan for their They waited in vain for a visa to Germany because the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) had declared all admission commitments from the so-called human rights list invalid with the stroke of a pen. With its decision of July 22, 2026 (Case No. 2 BvR 319/26), the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has now clearly rejected this practice: A blanket admission freeze, issued without individual case review, violates the rule of law and the prohibition of arbitrary action. This is a blow to the thousands of people affected and their families. For families in Germany, this is an important milestone – even if the outcome of their legal proceedings is far from decided.

What was the trial about?

The complainants are on the human rights list, one of the programs through which Germany intended to admit particularly vulnerable Afghans after the Taliban seized power in August 2021. After the Federal Foreign Office rejected their visa applications, citing a blanket "declaration of abandonment" issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, urgent applications to the Administrative Court and the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg were unsuccessful. Only the constitutional complaint – based on a model template from the Society for Civil Rights (GFF) – brought about a breakthrough. According to the GFF, around 30 other similar cases involving Afghan nationals are currently pending before the Federal Constitutional Court, meaning that the decision has far-reaching implications beyond this individual case.

Why did the German government want to end the reception programs?

In their coalition agreement of early 2025, the CDU/CSU and SPD agreed to end the resettlement programs for vulnerable people from Afghanistan "as far as possible"—during the election campaign, the CDU had announced this as a reversal of policy. In December 2025, the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) subsequently declared all resettlement commitments based on the human rights list "invalid and expired." By the time of the snap federal election at the end of February 2025, a total of approximately 36,000 people had entered Germany through the various programs; since then, the decision to abandon the programs has almost always resulted in the rejection of new visa applications.

What admission programs are available – and what are the legal differences between them?

The question of whether affected individuals have an enforceable right to a visa depends crucially on the legal basis of the respective program. The Federal Admission Program is based on Section 23 Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act (AufenthG) ; here, the Berlin administrative courts have recognized that the issued admission commitment constitutes an administrative act that confers a legal entitlement to the issuance of a visa, as long as it was not unlawful or effectively revoked. The Human Rights List, the Bridging List, and the Local Worker Procedure, on the other hand, are based on Section 22 Paragraph 2 of the Residence Act . According to this, a Granting a residence permit when the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) has "declared admission to safeguard the political interests of the Federal Republic of Germany" – according to current case law, a purely political discretionary decision not subject to judicial review. Lawsuits filed by those affected by these programs have therefore regularly failed.

Why does the blanket ban on admissions violate the prohibition of arbitrariness?

The Second Senate does not fundamentally alter this jurisprudence: Neither the extraterritorial duty to protect life ( Article 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law ), nor the protection of legitimate expectations ( Article 2, Paragraph 1, Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law ), nor the general principle of equal treatment ( Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law ) establishes an individual right to admission. A different principle, formulated in an official headnote, is decisive: "In a state governed by the rule of law, the executive branch is never 'completely free'" —even with considerable political discretion, it remains bound by the general prohibition of arbitrariness under the rule of law, which the Federal Constitutional Court derives from the principle of equal treatment in conjunction with the rule of law. While the Federal Ministry of the Interior may still subsequently withdraw from a program, the Senate ruled that this decision must, "in each individual case," take into account and consider the individual interests of the person concerned. A declaration issued "without regard to the individual case" does not meet these requirements.

What does this decision mean for those affected?

The BMI's blanket decision to reject visa applications does not constitute a visa refusal – the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg must now reconsider the application. The family decides. The mandate from Karlsruhe is clearly defined: The The court must clarify what decision the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) reaches in its case-by-case review. Important for those affected: the content of this balancing of interests itself remains exempt from judicial review. "The weighting of individual interests and the manner in which they are considered are not subject to judicial review," the Senate clarifies – as a political government decision, it is accountable solely to Parliament. The ruling therefore does not force a positive outcome, but merely a legally sound procedure. Until the conclusion of the proceedings, the Federal Republic is at least "constitutionally obligated" to ensure that the The family was not arrested in Pakistan and deported to Afghanistan.

What should those affected do now?

It is precisely at this point that it will be decided whether the Karlsruhe ruling will actually lead to a Whether a visa will lead to a change of heart or remain a mere footnote. Anyone relying on an automatic change of mind by the authorities or waiting to see if the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) will conduct an individual case review on its own risks further months of uncertainty – especially if those affected, as in the initial case, are in a third country like Pakistan, where they face the threat of deportation to Afghanistan. It is equally risky to independently challenge the decision with the Federal Foreign Office (AA) or the responsible authority. To argue before the immigration authorities : The decision requires a careful argument as to why no (sufficient) individual assessment took place in the specific case, and how a Legal proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court must be strategically planned without exceeding the narrow limits of what is essentially an unverifiable political balancing act. From our experience handling numerous admission procedures, we know that the Federal Foreign Office and Immigration authorities may continue to use blanket rejection justifications unchanged even after this ruling, until a The court may compel them to make improvements in individual cases. Anyone who has relatives on the human rights list, the bridging list, or in the local staff procedure and has received a rejection should therefore have it examined early on whether – based on the new Karlsruhe standard – a promising course of action can be derived from this, also with a view to a possible Family reunification , as soon as a family member is has received a visa .

Conclusion

With this ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court does not strengthen the substantive right of Afghan nationals to asylum, but rather the procedural requirements for a decision that blocks their path. Blanket political decisions without consideration of the individual case do not meet the requirements of the rule of law – this applies beyond the specific case at hand to all approximately 30 parallel proceedings pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. Whether this will ultimately lead to a Whether a visa will be granted will only be decided after a further review by the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg and the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Those affected should therefore obtain a thorough legal assessment of their own case before valuable time is lost.