Anyone seeking protection in Germany goes through a complex asylum procedure in which the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) checks which protection status is granted.
Depending on whether someone is recognized as a person entitled to asylum, as a refugee under the Geneva Refugee Convention or as a person entitled to subsidiary protection, there are very different legal consequences. This applies in particular to the question of when and in what form family reunification is possible. For many of those affected, this point is of central importance: can spouses, children or parents join them or not?
In this article, lawyer Björn Maibaum explains which forms of protection are provided for under German asylum law, what consequences they have for family reunification, why beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are at a disadvantage when it comes to family reunification, what legal options nevertheless exist and what role legal support plays in this.
What does entitlement to asylum, refugee status and subsidiary protection mean?
Anyone seeking protection from war, persecution or torture in Germany first undergoes an individual asylum procedure at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). This procedure determines whether and to what extent protection is granted. Asylum law recognizes three different forms of protection, which in practice have very different effects on refugees. One major difference is the different access to family reunification.
Subsidiary protection is regulated by law in Section 4 of the Asylum Act. Those who receive it are generally granted a residence permit for one year (residence permit in accordance with Section 25 (2) sentence 1, 2nd alternative of the Residence Act), which can be extended. There is access to integration courses, the labor market and medical care.
Nevertheless, many restrictions remain: A passport is not issued; instead, those affected only receive a so-called travel document for foreigners, which is often hardly suitable for traveling. Probably the biggest restriction for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is family reunification, which is hardly provided for, at least in principle.
Family reunification is a point at which many refugees are bitterly disappointed. They may feel safe, but only apparently so. This is because their spouses, children or parents are not allowed to join them and must continue to live in a country where their relatives may be threatened with torture or the death penalty. Instead of a legal entitlement to family reunification, as is the case for fully recognized refugees, family reunification is only possible for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in exceptional cases on humanitarian grounds. This is a bureaucratic and politically intended hurdle that can rarely be overcome in practice.
Since the so-called "refugee crisis" of 2015/16, more and more refugees have only been granted subsidiary protection. This applies in particular to people from civil war countries such as Syria. There is widespread criticism that this development is not only legally questionable, but also politically motivated. The more people receive only minimum protection status, the better the state can control and limit family reunification, for example, or suspend it altogether. This is a highly controversial instrument that can be used to restrict integration and humanitarian responsibility in a politically motivated manner.
For many of those affected, the real challenge only begins after the positive decision, if the BAMF makes a positive decision at all. They may have a roof over their heads, but their (nuclear) family is left out. The psychological and social consequences of this artificial separation are dramatic. Children grow up without both parents, spouses remain separated for years and even the integration of refugees living here is made massively more difficult. The legal differentiation may make political sense, but it is often incomprehensible from a human perspective.
Those who had to flee alone because their family members were unable to flee are protected from the reasons for fleeing in Germany. Family members such as children, spouses or parents (especially in the case of underage refugees) are still exposed to these reasons and the associated dangers.
As in many cases spouses, children or parents are left behind in their country of origin, refugees who have made it to Germany are usually in constant fear for the lives of their loved ones. While they themselves have found protection in Germany, their closest relatives continue to live in fear and danger. The psychological strain is enormous: parents who have not seen their children for years, children who grow up without a father or mother, couples who are torn apart by official decisions. It is not uncommon for those affected to report depression, sleep disorders and feelings of powerlessness.
The hope of at least being able to reunite with their family in safety is an existential anchor for many refugees. It is all the more distressing when they learn that German law makes this step almost impossible for those entitled to subsidiary protection.
In German residence law, family reunification is regulated in §§ 27 ff. of the Residence Act. A distinction is made there as to which protection status the person living in Germany has. The protection status then results in very specific, very unequal consequences:
This means that there must be a humanitarian reason for family reunification with beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and, if this is the case, family reunification is only possible to a very limited extent.
Article 6 of the Basic Law places marriage and the family under the special protection of the state. The same applies to Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Art. 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), which place family life and respect for family life under special protection. This means that family life is not just an emotional concern, but a fundamental and internationally protected right. Nevertheless, German residence law treats beneficiaries of subsidiary protection as second-class citizens and thus effectively puts them in a worse position, even though their threat situation is objectively no less dramatic than that of recognized refugees.
This unequal treatment enshrined in law has been criticized for years. The protection status of a refugee must not determine the dignity and unity of a family. Moreover, integration can hardly succeed without the family and in constant fear for the relatives. Furthermore, it is unacceptable in terms of human rights to grant refugees security but prevent their family life for an unforeseeable period of time or make it completely impossible.
In addition, family reunification is also desirable from an integration policy perspective. People who live together with their family are demonstrably more stable, more motivated and easier to integrate into society and the labor market. However, instead of seeing this fact as an opportunity, family reunification has repeatedly been declared a symbol of an alleged overburdening of the system in the political discourse of recent years, even though it only involves 1,000 visas per month, which often cannot even be exhausted.
The political debate surrounding family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection becomes particularly absurd when you consider the reality of the figures. Since the legal "reintroduction" of family reunification in August 2018, the number of visas granted nationwide has been limited to a maximum of 1,000 per month. This number is independent of how many applications are submitted, how dramatic the situation of those affected is or how long they have been separated. In many months, this upper limit is not even reached because the procedures take too long (on average almost two years), documents are missing or bureaucratic hurdles are insurmountable.
Nevertheless, there are repeated political calls to completely suspend or abolish family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, as if it were an uncontrolled gateway. Family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is becoming a political plaything, especially in the discussion surrounding the 2025 federal elections and the formation of a new federal government, although the very strict limit on the number of monthly visas would certainly not contribute to overloading the asylum system even if it were significantly increased.
Calls to completely stop family reunification for persons entitled to subsidiary protection are therefore not only cynical, but also factually incorrect. This is because there is neither a legal entitlement to family reunification nor a gateway for uncontrolled immigration. There is a politically desired bottleneck through which hardly anyone can pass anyway. Anyone who seriously talks about limiting or overstretching the situation is deliberately ignoring reality. This is not about numbers, but about people, about children, spouses, parents - about families whose fate is being dragged through bureaucratic waiting loops and political symbolic battles, even though families in particular enjoy special legal and fundamental rights protection. The result: thousands of affected people are still waiting for their relatives with no prospect of change.
According to Section 36a AufenthG, relatives of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection can receive a visa for family reunification if there are special humanitarian reasons that make family reunification appear urgent or necessary. The law does not conclusively define what this includes. The interpretation is at the discretion of the authorities, often without clear or uniform criteria.
Frequently recognized humanitarian reasons include
In theory, these reasons sound understandable. In practice, however, there are enormous hurdles, e.g. because extensive evidence (medical certificates, documents on the living situation, etc.) must be provided, which in many countries of origin simply cannot be obtained in time or in the required form.
The assessment of whether a humanitarian reason exists is often not objective or comprehensibly standardized. In practice, similar cases can lead to completely different results. In addition, the procedures are often very slow and even if there are clear reasons, it can take months or even years before the applications are decided.
Applications are rejected because the "humanitarian urgency is not sufficiently recognizable", even if the child has been separated from its parents for years. Or because the marriage is not considered "sufficiently stable", even though both spouses are demonstrably suffering from the separation. In other cases, those affected simply lack the strength or confidence to initiate further application proceedings.
The monthly cap of 1,000 visas for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection also means that family reunification is not guaranteed even if there are humanitarian reasons. Ultimately, this is not an enforceable right.
It must not be forgotten that many of these people fled war, violence and terror. Not because they wanted to, but because they had to. The fact that they of all people are de facto denied the right to a family not only contradicts humanitarian values, but also the spirit of Article 6 of the German Basic Law, which places marriage and family under the special protection of the state.
Every application for family reunification on humanitarian grounds must be prepared with the utmost care. The personal history, family ties, risk situation and emotional strain must be explained in detail and convincingly. Even if the chances of success in individual cases often seem slim: The pressure on the authorities increases the more clearly and professionally the individual fates are made visible.
In view of the many legal hurdles and political restrictions, family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection often seems like a distant dream. However, even if the path is rocky, there are ways to realize family reunification with beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. And those affected should be aware of these, not least because the individual situation, family ties and humanitarian circumstances may well be legally relevant. It is crucial to seek sound legal support at an early stage. Lawyer Björn Maibaum is a specialist lawyer for migration law and advises and represents people in precisely these situations throughout Germany.
In principle, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection can also attempt to apply for spouses or minor children to join them via the so-called contingent procedure in accordance with Section 36a of the Residence Act. In special constellations, e.g. if a minor child is entitled to subsidiary protection and would like to join their parents, there are even better chances of success, as the best interests of the child are given special consideration here. Humanitarian reasons such as a serious illness, the separation of young children from their parents or the need for protection in the country of origin can also form the basis for a successful application.
However, the procedures are extremely complex, the requirements are high and even small formal errors can lead to failure. Legal advice is therefore strongly recommended. Lawyer Björn Maibaum knows from many years of practice both the legal leeway and the practical hurdles - from making appointments with the foreign representation to the correct application to the argumentative substantiation of the special circumstances. In many cases, it is possible to facilitate family reunification through targeted legal preparation and convincing justification of the application, even if the chances initially seem slim.
Another important point is the legal review of the BAMF's original decision. It is not uncommon for refugees to be granted subsidiary protection, although they would actually be entitled to recognition as refugees under the Geneva Refugee Convention. This protection status would then automatically allow them regular family reunification. In such cases, it may be worth taking legal action against the BAMF's decision before the administrative court, provided the relevant deadlines have not yet expired. Here too, a sound legal assessment by an experienced lawyer is essential. Attorney Maibaum carefully examines whether the BAMF decision is correct and accompanies his clients through the often lengthy but worthwhile legal proceedings.
For many families, legal action is often the last hope, but also the last chance. A lawsuit should therefore not be rushed, but should be well documented, legally secured and strategically prepared. Especially in proceedings that are characterized by political pressure and official discretion, it makes a decisive difference whether you fight alone or have an experienced specialist lawyer at your side.
We kindly ask you to contact us by email.
We are also happy to help you by phone Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m..
For legal advice appointments and Requests for new mandates, we kindly ask for a brief description of the situation by e-mail, stating your name and the phone number.
We are also happy to arrange consultation appointments via "MS Teams".
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Facebook. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from hCaptcha to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from Turnstile to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Instagram. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from X. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information