Residence applications will soon be decided using AI.

A single erroneous data entry in the digital system, a discrepancy in job title on LinkedIn, or incomplete automated data collection – and the visa application stalls. What sounds like a futuristic scenario is already a tangible reality in German authorities. With the new AI Migration Administration Act (KIMVG), the German government is paving the way for comprehensive digitalization and automation in immigration law. While politicians promise to accelerate application processes for foreign skilled workers , students, and employers, in practice, the hurdles for applicants are increasing. As a law firm specializing in visa law, we guide highly qualified academics, expats, and international companies through the thicket of German immigration law on a daily basis. We see firsthand how automated preliminary checks increase the pressure on applicants and what dangers faulty algorithms pose.

What does the new AI Migration Administration Act regulate in terms of residence law?

The law grants authorities such as immigration offices , German diplomatic missions abroad, and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) comprehensive legal authority for the first time to use intelligent analysis and evaluation systems. This primarily concerns not only asylum procedures but also, and significantly, the Residence Act (AufenthG). Through a revised version of Section 86 of the Residence Act and the introduction of Sections 90d and 90e, the legal framework is established to analyze application data across multiple files, identify patterns, and harmonize processing standards nationwide. The authorities are permitted to use historical case data to train AI models and conduct automated pre-evaluations.

Particularly problematic is the legally mandated automated internet check in cases of justified doubt regarding application information . If there are uncertainties concerning a skilled worker 's qualifications, salary, or actual field of activity , algorithms are permitted to search publicly accessible online traces and compare them with the files. Although the legislator emphasizes that the final decision must legally remain with a human case worker, official practice paints a different picture: Under the extreme work pressure in government agencies, case workers tend to uncritically follow automated risk assessments.

What parallels exist with the European systems EES and ETIAS?

The shift to data-driven control mechanisms is by no means limited to Germany. At the European level, comparable automated matching structures are in place, such as the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the ETIAS system (European Travel Information and Authorisation System) . Anyone entering Europe visa-free from third countries like the USA , Great Britain , or Canada , or applying for a residence permit , is automatically recorded and checked at the external borders and in the databases.

The interplay between EES, ETIAS, and the new national AI powers under Section 90d of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) means that data discrepancies—such as different spellings of names, changing employer details, or inconsistencies in entry history—immediately trigger system-wide alerts. This automated pre-sorting can result in applications remaining stuck in review loops for months without the applicant being informed of the specific reason.

Why do AI-based exams pose risks for professionals and employers?

Algorithms work with historical data and fixed specifications. They quickly reach their limits when it comes to the modern, flexible career paths of top talent. A classic example involves IT specialists or managers from the USA or the UK: A salary structure that deviates from German averages, or English-language employment contracts with non-standard job titles, can be incorrectly interpreted by the software as a risk signal.

If an algorithm flags an application negatively, significant consequences can ensue: delays in issuing residence permits for employment under Section 18b of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) or EU Blue Cards under Section 18g of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) , official inquiries, or even threatened rejections. For HR departments, this means uncertain onboarding processes and, in the worst-case scenario, the loss of urgently needed skilled workers . Those who rely on the case worker to automatically recognize the algorithm's error in this situation are often disappointed.

How does professional legal support protect against faulty AI decisions?

To avoid misjudgments by official algorithms from the outset, simply filling out standard forms is no longer sufficient. A successful residence permit application today requires the proactive and legally sound preparation of all documents. We ensure that supporting documents, contracts, and websites are coordinated in such a way that they offer no vulnerability during automated queries under Section 90e of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) or during subsequent human review.

Should an application nevertheless be blocked by an automated system, we will intervene immediately. Through documented interventions, targeted legal opinions, and direct contact with the heads of the authorities, we will remove applications from automated blocks and ensure the promised individual review by qualified personnel. We are familiar with the unwritten administrative practices of immigration authorities and will ensure that your application is processed quickly and in accordance with the law.

Conclusion: Human expertise protects against algorithmic errors.

The new AI-driven migration administration law will fundamentally change the visa process. While authorities are focusing on efficiency, the risks of unplanned delays are increasing for foreign professionals , expats, and companies. Automated checks and online verifications leave no room for inconsistencies in application documents. A legally sound application, prepared by experts, is the only sure way to avoid algorithmic pitfalls and obtain the desired residence permit quickly.