Government: Naturalization ban in cases of deception, even if the application is withdrawn.

Obtaining German citizenship is the final step toward successful integration for many highly qualified professionals , expats, and students from countries like the USA , Great Britain , or Canada. A flawless CV and trust in legally sound procedures form the foundation. However, what happens when irregularities occur during the process—for example, due to false or inaccurate documents or incomplete information—has long been a matter of legal ambiguity. A recent circular from the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (BMI) dated May 15, 2026, now clarifies unequivocally: Anyone who deceives during the naturalization process must expect draconian consequences— even if the application is later officially withdrawn.

What legal basis governs the new naturalization ban?

The legal tightening is based on the Act on the Designation of Safe Countries of Origin, which entered into force on December 24, 2025 (Federal Law Gazette 2025 I No. 364). With this Act, the legislator introduced the new Section 35a of the Nationality Act (StAG) . This provision aims to protect the integrity of the entire naturalization process and is intended to have a general deterrent effect.

The law stipulates a strict ten-year waiting period for re -naturalization . This waiting period applies in two fundamental scenarios: either after the legally binding revocation of a previously fraudulently obtained naturalization pursuant to Section 35a Sentence 1 Number 1 of the German Nationality Act (StAG), or if the authorities determine during the proceedings that an applicant has fraudulently deceived, threatened, bribed, or intentionally provided incorrect or incomplete information (Section 35a Sentence 1 Number 2 StAG).

Does the ten-year ban still apply after the application has been withdrawn?

Yes, and this is precisely the crucial tightening of the rules, which we as a law firm would like to expressly point out. The BMI circular clarifies that for the triggering of the ten-year waiting period under Section 35a Sentence 1 Number 2 of the German Nationality Act (StAG), it is irrelevant whether the naturalization procedure is still pending at the time of the official determination.

The decision regarding dishonest conduct can explicitly be issued even after the applicant has withdrawn their application . The Ministry justifies this with the clear intent of the legislature: If withdrawing the application were to prevent the ban, the applicant would always be able to circumvent the legal consequences of dishonest conduct. Therefore, anyone attempting to submit a forged language or integration certificate and hastily withdrawing their application when discovery is imminent will not escape the ten-year ban. Any new naturalization application submitted during this period must be rejected as inadmissible due to a lack of legitimate interest in a decision on the merits .

What information is considered "essential"?

Not every careless mistake leads directly to a ten-year ban on naturalization. The law requires that the dishonest conduct must relate to an "essential requirement" for naturalization , meaning aspects of objective relevance to the decision under Sections 8 to 11 of the Nationality Act. The Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) specifically emphasizes intentionally false or incomplete information regarding pending criminal investigations .

Since ongoing investigations pursuant to Section 12a Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Nationality Act (StAG) lead to a mandatory suspension of the naturalization process, this information is of central importance to the authorities. Anyone who conceals such proceedings – and this duty to tell the truth applies continuously until the naturalization certificate is actually issued – risks being found to be dishonest. The only exceptions are prior convictions below the procedural threshold of minor offenses pursuant to Section 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Nationality Act (StAG), unless the motives are antisemitic, racist, or contemptuous of humanity as defined in Section 12a Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Nationality Act (StAG).

What procedural consequences might be lurking in the background?

The authorities are swift in their enforcement. A declaratory judgment for dishonest conduct under Section 35a Sentence 1 Number 2 of the Nationality Act is immediately enforceable by law ; objections and appeals have no suspensive effect (Section 35a Sentence 2 of the Nationality Act). Furthermore, each disqualification period is immediately entered into the central register for decisions in nationality matters (EStA) at the Federal Office of Administration.

Even if those affected achieve partial success in expedited court proceedings pursuant to Section 80 Paragraph 5 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO), the blocking entry in the EStA register remains in place for the purpose of serving as a warning to the authorities until a legally binding decision has been reached in the main proceedings. As a law firm, we also emphasize that the authorities are obligated to file separate and consistent criminal charges pursuant to Section 42 of the Nationality Act (StAG) in such cases . Should naturalization be erroneously granted despite an existing blocking period, this administrative act is absolutely void due to a manifestly serious defect pursuant to Section 44 Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act .

Conclusion: How should skilled workers and employers behave?

The integrity of the naturalization process is more important than ever to German authorities. For highly qualified professionals from the USA , Canada, or the UK , this stricter administrative practice demonstrates that absolute transparency and legal precision in the application process are essential. A seemingly tactical retreat in the face of problems does not protect against a ten-year ban and serious criminal consequences. Employers and HR departments should make their foreign employees aware of these strict compliance requirements at an early stage. If there is any uncertainty regarding the facts to be disclosed or the investigations, it is strongly recommended to consult a specialized law firm preventively to avoid errors altogether.