Family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection under the new government is almost zero.

Those living in Germany with subsidiary protection status long for one thing above all: the swift and safe reunification with their families . However, the reality one year after the consequential suspension of regular family reunification reveals a dramatic development. Many affected individuals placed their hopes on the statutory hardship clause, intended as a humanitarian safety valve. A recent look behind the scenes of bureaucratic practice and new figures from the German Bundestag now reveal, however, that this avenue is almost entirely blocked in practice. For affected families, this means that a standard application offers virtually no chance of success, and strategic legal support is more crucial than ever.

What is the Federal Government's justification for its current practice regarding family reunification ?

The legal basis for suspending family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is enshrined in Sections 36a and 104 Paragraph 14 Sentence 1 of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) . When this stricter regulation was introduced, it was consistently emphasized that the possibility of considering hardship cases remains unaffected . The legislator refers in this regard to Section 104 Paragraph 14 Sentence 2 of the Residence Act, according to which the general humanitarian admission procedures under Sections 22 and 23 of the Residence Act remain applicable. The Federal Government formally argues that individual case reviews continue to take place. However, a recent response from the Federal Government to a parliamentary inquiry in the German Bundestag (Verbatim Record of the 85th Session of June 24, 2026, p. 10406) reveals how this practice actually works: To date, exactly ten visas have been issued nationwide under the hardship provision of Section 22 Sentence 1 of the Residence Act. This vanishingly small number shows that the bureaucratic hurdles are almost impossible to overcome without specialized legal intervention.

Why is the hardship clause according to § 22 of the Residence Act almost ineffective in practice?

The main reason for the de facto standstill of family reunification lies in an extremely restrictive internal directive from the Federal Foreign Office regarding the application of Section 22, Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act. The German missions abroad (embassies and consulates) interpret the vague legal terms "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "political interest" so narrowly that normal applications to overcome family separations are routinely rejected. The administrative practice appears to aim at rejecting applications outright at the administrative level, instead of adequately considering the constitutional protection of marriage and family under Article 6 of the Basic Law. Without proof of truly exceptional, individual circumstances, the procedures remain at a dead end.

What role do the courts play in family reunification?

The German government's statistical analysis contains a detail that is crucial for our legal practice: Of the ten visas issued , eight were obtained through court settlements. This implies that, in the vast majority of successful cases, the Federal Foreign Office only relented after the Berlin Administrative Court became involved. While the Berlin Administrative Court stated at the end of last year that it had no fundamental objections to the temporary suspension, it has signaled a clear willingness to overturn administrative decisions in extreme individual cases. The fact that families must first pursue the lengthy and often costly path of litigation paints a bleak picture of the current decision-making practices of German embassies.

What are the prerequisites for a successful court settlement?

For proceedings before the Administrative Court to result in a successful settlement, serious special circumstances and exceptional hardships must be substantiated in each individual case. General anxieties about separation are insufficient for the judges. In practice, decisive factors include an exceptionally long period of separation between family members , acute and demonstrable danger to children or spouses remaining abroad, and serious physical or psychological impairments that are demonstrably exacerbated by the separation. As a law firm, we repeatedly observe that the Federal Foreign Office often seeks a settlement at the Berlin Administrative Court simply to prevent a landmark ruling that would officially declare its restrictive administrative practices unlawful.

Conclusion

The political promise that hardship cases regarding family reunification for those granted subsidiary protection would be fairly reviewed under the new government has proven to be an illusion in practice. Internal directives from the Federal Foreign Office have raised the hurdles under Section 22, Paragraph 1 of the German Residence Act so high that the regular administrative process almost invariably results in a rejection. However, the fact that 80 percent of the few successful visa applications are based on court settlements shows that those affected are not without recourse. This requires precise, legally sound preparation from the outset and an unwavering willingness to pursue legal action before the Berlin Administrative Court. We support families in fully documenting these stringent legal requirements and exerting the necessary legal pressure on the authorities.

hrrf was the first to report on this matter.