Migration pressure and desire to return: Discriminatory arguments of the Foreign Office in court

In German administrative practice, applicants from certain countries of origin repeatedly encounter an invisible barrier. Despite complete documentation, the standard argument of the authorities is often: "Lack of willingness to return due to migration pressure in the country of origin." The same argument is frequently repeated in court by the Federal Foreign Office (Department 509) when appeals are filed against rejection notices under Schengen law or for temporary residence permits (e.g., for specialty chefs or short-term, quota-based employment ). But this practice is not only frustrating for skilled workers and employers, it is above all else: unconstitutional.

Individual case analysis beats general statistics.

The argument that there is no intention to return because a visa application originates from a country with "high migration pressure" violates the principle of equality ( Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the German Basic Law ) with regard to procedural discretion and the principles of due process. When authorities invoke the "migration pressure" of an entire country to deny entry to a single individual, no genuine assessment takes place. Instead, an impermissible generalization is made, based solely on statistical assumptions. However, the law stipulates that each applicant must be considered as an individual. This is a fundamental requirement of human dignity. A documented, time-limited purpose of stay must outweigh the general political or economic situation in a country of origin. If the willingness to return is denied solely on the basis of nationality, the legally mandated individual assessment of each case is lacking.

The constitutional violation behind the decision

The legal implications of this practice are enormous. If an authority admits that it bases its decision on nationality, it reveals a serious error in the exercise of its discretion.

• Procedural discretion abused: The authority's discretion is meant to assess the individual case, not to discriminate against entire nationalities across the board.

• Violation of Article 3 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law: Our Basic Law protects the individual from discrimination. No one may be disadvantaged because of their ancestry or their place of origin.

• Arbitrariness instead of the rule of law: An administration that prioritizes general considerations over concrete evidence (such as employment contracts) is acting unlawfully.

Arguments based on migration pressure are damaging to one's reputation.

This practice by the Foreign Office and its embassies not only harms those directly affected, but also Germany's economic standing . Companies desperately seeking skilled workers and who have already signed contracts are hampered by this discriminatory practice. When the state exercises its procedural discretion to the detriment of certain nationalities, it abandons the principles of constitutionality. A modern state governed by the rule of law must be able to look beyond the confines of statistical migration risks and assess the individual's merits and intentions.

Conclusion: Individual assessment is not optional, but mandatory.

Nationality must not be a criterion for exclusion. Anyone who meets the visa requirements and demonstrates a clear purpose of stay is entitled to a fair procedure. Anything else is a form of discrimination that has no place in a modern democracy.