Federal Administrative Court: Rejected asylum application prevents the granting of a residence permit, but not the extension

A recent ruling by the Federal Administrative Court on July 24, 2025, brings clarity to a previously controversial question of residence law: Can a residence permit be extended even if an asylum application has since been rejected as manifestly unfounded? The answer from Germany's highest administrative court is: Yes – such an extension is possible.

Background of the case

The plaintiff, a Turkish citizen, had entered Germany as a child through family reunification. His residence permit expired in 2015. An extension was initially denied , among other things due to security concerns: There was evidence of his previous membership in an Islamist organization, and criminal investigations were also ongoing. However, the plaintiff subsequently distanced himself from these claims.

During an attempted deportation, the plaintiff filed an asylum application – this was later rejected as " manifestly unfounded " ( Section 30 of the Asylum Act ). The defendant therefore took the view that the residence permit could no longer be extended pursuant to Section 10, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Residence Act. However, the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court overturned this ruling, stating that the extension of an existing residence permit was different from a new one, so Section 10, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 did not apply. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to an extension.

Decision of the Federal Administrative Court

On July 24, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig confirmed a crucial part of this argument: The blocking effect of Section 10, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the Residence Act applies only to the issuance , but not to the extension, of a residence permit. This is evident from the clear wording. The court thus clarified that rejected asylum applications—even if they were deemed manifestly unfounded—do not automatically prevent the extension of an existing permit.

However, the court also found that the conditions for the requested extension under Section 35 of the Residence Act were not met in this specific case. The court could not decide whether a discretionary extension (Section 34 (3) of the Residence Act) was possible, as the lower court had not made sufficient findings on this point. The case was therefore referred back to the Higher Administrative Court.

What does this mean for those affected?

The ruling is of great practical importance: Anyone who has or has had a residence permit and has since filed an unsuccessful asylum application cannot automatically consider this circumstance an obstacle to an extension. The crucial distinction here is between the granting and the extension: The ban on the permit under Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Residence Act only applies to new grants. Nevertheless, all other requirements for an extension (e.g., passport requirement, means of subsistence, no grounds for expulsion) must still be met.

Conclusion from VISAGUARD

This ruling strengthens legal certainty for many people whose residence status has been jeopardized by the rejection of an asylum application. However, it also demonstrates that every decision depends heavily on the individual case. Those affected should seek legal advice in a timely manner to assess their chances of extending their residence permit.

Source: Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 24 July 2025 – BVerwG 1 C 2.24

More on the decision: bverwg.de