The specific case is about a 30-year-old Kurd who fled to Germany in 2015. In 2016 he applied for asylum, which was rejected in 2017. The man, who has a passport valid until 2026, was threatened with deportation. In April 2017, however, he married a German woman. Since then, the couple have been running a joint household in Paderborn, in which the woman’s children also live. The Kurd passed his German test shortly after marriage, got a job at the Finke furniture store and now works for the Höffner furniture store. He received a residence permit for humanitarian reasons, but wanted to carry out a so-called status change in January 2019 and applied to the city of Paderborn for a residence permit for family reasons.
For months, however, nothing happened. “The city didn’t want to decide and sit it out. It wasn’t until I lodged an administrative complaint against the clerk at the city that the matter got going ”, says Bruno Surrey, the Kurd’s Paderborn lawyer. The city finally rejected the application with reference to the rejected asylum application in September 2019. In addition, there is no legal claim because the man entered Germany without the required visa. The Kurd complained against this.
As can be seen from the judgment, the Minden Administrative Court sees no reasons to refuse the residence permit. On the one hand, the man is married to a German woman, and on the other hand, the plaintiff’s livelihood is secured through his employment. The 30-year-old also has a valid national passport.
The fact that the Iraqi entered Germany without the required visa does not contradict this. “There is also no current interest in expulsion,” the court wrote in its reasoning for the judgment.
In a statement, the city refers to the fact that the man had been in possession of a residence permit without interruption since 2017 after he had married a German. By rejecting the change of status, the person concerned had no material disadvantages. In addition, the city refers to a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of May 26th of this year, which made a landmark judgment for such cases, which in turn changed the previous administrative practice.
According to Bruno Surrey, the judgment is now final.
AZ. 7 K 3092/19
–