"You submitted forged documents" – and that was all the notification said.

A client recently came to us with a rejection notice that, at first glance, seemed like a legal dead end. A German consulate general had rejected his visa application, ticking a box on the official form: "There are reasonable doubts about the reliability, the authenticity of the submitted documents, or their veracity." The only further explanation was a single sentence: "You have demonstrably submitted falsified or forged application documents."

That was all. No indication of which of the numerous submitted documents was meant. No specification of what the alleged forgery consisted of. No explanation of the basis for this serious finding. For the client, it was a shock – not for us. We see this pattern several times a month.

Not an isolated case – a structural pattern

The European Commission annually records the number of Schengen visa applications submitted and rejected worldwide. In 2024, there were over 11.7 million applications, with a global rejection rate of approximately 14.8 percent. Behind this average lies a significant disparity: analyses based on this EU data show that the rejection rate for applications from African countries was around 27 percent in 2023, and for Asian countries around 13 percent – compared to a global average of just 5 percent in 2013. Individual countries in Africa, South/Southeast Asia, and the Middle East have rejection rates of 40 percent, and in some cases, over 50 percent.

These figures say nothing about the legality of an individual decision – statistics are no substitute for case-by-case review. But they align with what we can report from our own experience: decisions based solely on a ticked box and a vague allegation of forgery are particularly common among clients from North Africa and Central Asia – according to our own, admittedly unrepresentative, but long-established case statistics, this applies to well over half of the cases from these regions. One reason for this is obvious: where register and document systems in the country of origin are less familiar to German case workers or more difficult to verify, the blanket formula of doubt is apparently readily available – and more convenient for the authorities than a concrete, verifiable finding.

What's in the form

The form used by visa offices for refusals lists sixteen possible reasons for rejection. Some are self-explanatory: If travel health insurance is missing, this can be immediately verified in the file. Other reasons are different – especially the allegation that documents are forged or factually inaccurate. This allegation can mean literally anything: a questioned signature, a perceived discrepancy in a database comparison, suspicions regarding the issuing authority in the country of origin – or simply an internal, undocumented assessment by the case worker. Without further information, the applicant and their family are left with nothing but guesswork.

What the administrative process reveals, once you see it.

In our proceedings, we regularly request that the court compel the authority to submit the complete administrative file – and in practice, we always receive this submission. What then comes to light is sobering: As a rule, it contains no reliable findings, but rather barely comprehensible, sometimes simply arbitrary assessments. Not infrequently, the responsible case worker has clearly not even bothered to clarify the facts – for example, by simply contacting the office that allegedly issued the forged document. It is precisely this gap that makes the lack of justification not just a formal, but a very concrete point of attack.

Why this is more than just a formality

One might object: The authority has given a reason, so what's the problem? The legal problem lies deeper.

According to the European Visa Code, a refusal decision must not only be communicated – it must also be justified . German administrative procedural law additionally requires that the justification disclose the essential factual and legal reasons that led to the decision. The European Court of Justice has also clarified that applicants must have access to a legal remedy that allows for effective judicial review of the refusal. However, it should be noted in all honesty that this ruling only concerns access to judicial review as such – not the substantive depth of the justification. It has demonstrably not changed the form-based practices of German missions abroad in the years since the ruling; the brief, standardized justification is as common today as before. The real leverage, therefore, lies not in this ruling, but in consistently challenging each individual decision in court and compelling the production of the case file.

Effective oversight requires that the basis for an accusation be comprehensible. If an authority merely ticks a box and repeats a sentence that essentially paraphrases the legal text, the affected party has no real means of defense. They cannot mount a targeted counter-argument because they don't know what they are arguing against. And a court can hardly review the decision on its merits if it is denied the same information as the applicant.

This is particularly serious in cases involving allegations of document forgery. It is one of the most grave accusations an authority can level against an applicant – with repercussions for future applications, as such entries are stored in shared European databases. Anyone making such an accusation must – in our view, which we consistently uphold in such proceedings – be able to provide substantial evidence.

What we do in such cases

Our strategy in these proceedings typically has two thrusts that reinforce each other:

• First, we challenge the lack of reasoning as an independent legal error and, through the court, compel the submission of the complete administrative file. As described, this often reveals that the accusation rests on shaky ground.

• Secondly, we counter the vague accusation with the client's actual record and, where possible, actively work to verify the authenticity of the disputed documents: a travel history, often developed over years and completely unblemished; officially certified or notarized documents; and established professional and family ties that make a return plausible in any case. In our current case, for instance, the client had previously obtained a visa several times, returned on time each time, had a regular income, property, and close family obligations in the country. None of this supported the blanket assumption of unreliability – and none of it is even mentioned in the official notice.

The chances of success depend largely on whether the authenticity of the document in question can be proven. In practice, this is usually relatively easy – for example, by presenting the original, confirmation from the issuing authority, or supplementary evidence – but in some cases, a separate document verification procedure is required. The willingness of the authorities to resolve a case even before the oral hearing also clearly depends on how far-fetched the accusation appears upon closer examination.

In our experience, little can be done preventively against this practice – even the most meticulously compiled, fully officially certified document folder does not reliably protect against a foreign mission resorting to item 12 of the form across the board. This makes the reactive approach all the more important: the consistent judicial review of each individual decision.

The message to those affected

A rejection notice that consists of a ticked box and a single sentence is not automatically the final word – and given the figures mentioned above, this affects a significant number of applicants, particularly from regions where rejection rates are already above average. Especially when the stated reason is both serious and vague, a closer look is worthwhile – and often, an appeal to the relevant administrative court is advisable. Anyone finding themselves in this situation should not accept the notice as final, but rather have it legally reviewed to determine whether the authority has fulfilled its own obligation to provide reasons.

This article describes an anonymized case study derived from our law firm's practice and reflects our own procedural experience. Information regarding origin, nationality, and identifying details has been deliberately omitted. The general statistics mentioned are based on data from the European Commission (Migration and Home Affairs) and its analysis in the Henley & Partners Global Mobility Report, January 2025; the practice-related information regarding frequency, case file size, and prospects of success is based on our own, non-representative experience.