Naturalization Rejected 2026: Objection & Deadlines

Anyone who receives a rejecting naturalization decision has, under § 70 VwGO, as a rule one month to lodge an objection (Widerspruch) — in writing, in electronic form, or recorded in person (zur Niederschrift) at the authority that issued the decision. In ten of the sixteen federal states, the preliminary procedure (Vorverfahren) has been abolished in whole or in part — there the path leads directly to an action before the Administrative Court, likewise subject to a one-month deadline under § 74 VwGO. The default value in dispute (Auffang-Streitwert) under § 52 para. 2 GKG is 5,000 euros. For entitlement-based provisions such as § 9 or § 10 StAG, the action to compel (Verpflichtungsklage) is the correct type of action; for discretionary decisions under § 8 StAG, it is the action for a fresh decision (Bescheidungsklage), with judicial review of discretion limited to whether the statutory limits were exceeded or discretion was exercised in a manner contrary to its purpose (§ 114 VwGO). All procedural steps are described here descriptively only — the individual strategy belongs in legal hands.

A naturalization can fail on three groups of provisions. Each has its own logic and its own density of judicial review.

Entitlement requirements under § 10 StAG not met. The main path to naturalization requires, among other things, five years of lawful habitual residence, a B1 language certificate, the citizenship test, a clarified identity, the ability to secure one's own livelihood, a commitment to the free democratic basic order, and no conviction above the de minimis threshold of § 12a StAG. If one of these requirements is missing, the authority rejects the entitlement — it has no discretion in this respect. Points frequently affected are: livelihood not secured throughout (receipt of SGB II or SGB XII benefits without the exemption provision at the end of § 10 para. 1 no. 3), identity documents not furnished to the authority's satisfaction, convictions above the de minimis threshold, and a language certificate not evidenced at B1 in all four skills.

Grounds for exclusion under § 11 StAG. § 11 StAG excludes naturalization by legal entitlement where there are factual indications of extremist activities directed against the free democratic basic order, of activities against the security of the Federal Republic, or of violent activities with foreign-policy significance (no. 1), where the declaration of allegiance is classified as demonstrably false (no. 1a), where a particularly serious interest in expulsion under the Residence Act (AufenthG) exists (no. 2), or in the case of polygamy or conduct that violates the principle of equal treatment (no. 3). The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) elaborated on the interpretation of no. 1, for example, in its judgment of 20 March 2012 (case no. 5 C 1.11): for the exclusion it suffices that an assumption is supported by factual indications, without a criminal conviction being necessary; a credible showing (Glaubhaftmachung) of having turned away from earlier activities can lift the exclusion.

Negative discretionary decision under § 8 StAG. Anyone who does not achieve naturalization by legal entitlement under § 9 or § 10 StAG can invoke the residual provision of discretionary naturalization under § 8 StAG. There the authority has latitude in its decision: it may reject even where the requirements are met, if no sufficient discretionary considerations speak in favor of naturalization. Judicial review of this discretionary rejection is limited under § 114 VwGO — see section 7.

A rejecting naturalization decision regularly consists of three parts.

The operative part (Tenor, also: Verfügung) contains the formal decision — typically "The application for naturalization into the German nationality is rejected" — and the decision on costs (regularly: the applicant bears the costs of the procedure).

The statement of grounds (Begründung) sets out which provision the rejection is based on, which requirements are, in the authority's view, not met, and what assessment of the facts underlies this. In entitlement procedures the statement of grounds is, as a matter of obligation, confined to the missing statutory elements; in discretionary procedures the authority must additionally set out the discretionary considerations — otherwise there would be a discretionary error that is subject to judicial review.

The instructions on legal remedies (Rechtsbehelfsbelehrung) indicate the admissible remedy (objection or action) and state the deadline as well as the competent body. Faulty instructions on legal remedies regularly extend the deadline to one year under § 58 para. 2 VwGO. The instructions are therefore the first point that legal examination regularly looks at.

⚠ Note: From this point on, the subject is procedural steps that produce formal legal effects and not infrequently become irreversible through omissions. The following sections are a descriptive overview, not a set of instructions for action. A concrete assessment of the decision, the choice of remedy, the litigation strategy, and the discretionary argumentation belong in specialized legal hands. Anyone looking for a specialist lawyer for administrative law or migration law in their region can establish initial contact via the bar association search portals; in financially constrained situations, advisory assistance (Beratungshilfe) under the BerHG and legal aid for court proceedings (Prozesskostenhilfe) under §§ 166 ff. VwGO come into consideration. civitas. does not provide legal representation in procedural matters.

The preliminary procedure (Vorverfahren) is the pre-court review stage. It is not required in all federal states.

Deadline and form (§ 70 VwGO). The objection deadline is one month from notification (Bekanntgabe) of the decision. The objection must be lodged in writing, in electronic form, or recorded in person (zur Niederschrift) at the authority that issued the decision. The deadline is also observed if the objection reaches the objection authority (Widerspruchsbehörde), where such an authority differs from the issuing one. Anyone who misses the deadline may, under the narrow conditions of § 60 VwGO, apply for restoration to the previous status (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) — the hurdles for restoration are high.

Preliminary procedure required or excluded? Under § 68 para. 1 sentence 2 VwGO, the federal states may exclude or restrict the preliminary procedure by special legislation. The situation is heterogeneous by state: in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony, the preliminary procedure has been largely abolished — there the path leads directly to an action. In Saxony-Anhalt, Bavaria, Hesse, Berlin, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Thuringia, the preliminary procedure has been partly abolished or is optional. In Brandenburg, Bremen, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, and Schleswig-Holstein, the preliminary procedure applies as standard. Baden-Württemberg has regionally differentiated rules. The specific treatment in naturalization matters must be examined separately depending on the state ordinance — the instructions on legal remedies in the decision regularly give the correct answer. If an objection is lodged in a state without a preliminary procedure, the authority will as a rule reject the remedy as inadmissible and refer to the direct route of action; the action deadline runs already from notification of the original decision.

Suspensive effect (§ 80 para. 1 VwGO). An objection and an action for annulment (Anfechtungsklage) in principle have suspensive effect. In the case of a naturalization rejection as a burdensome administrative act, the suspensive effect is rarely relevant in practice, because a rejection does not oblige the applicant to take any active step — unlike, for example, a decision that orders a blocking period under § 35a StAG (cf. there the express order of immediate enforceability, Blocking Period § 35a).

Decision on the objection. The objection authority reviews the legality and expediency of the administrative act in a full review. It can grant the objection (abhelfen), reject it in whole or in part, or return the matter to the originating authority. Only the objection decision (Widerspruchsbescheid) opens the one-month action deadline under § 74 VwGO.

If the preliminary procedure is excluded or the objection decision has been issued, the route of action before the Administrative Court opens up.

Deadline (§ 74 VwGO). The action must be brought within one month of service of the objection decision — or, where no preliminary procedure was required, of notification of the administrative act. This deadline cannot be extended; if it is missed, only restoration under § 60 VwGO comes into consideration.

Jurisdiction. The Administrative Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; as to venue, under § 52 VwGO it is regularly the court in whose district the administrative act was issued — in naturalization cases usually the Administrative Court (VG) at the seat of the naturalization authority, which in the majority of cases corresponds to the court of the place of residence.

Type of action. Where a requested naturalization is rejected, the action to compel (Verpflichtungsklage) is the appropriate type of action, by which the claimant seeks a judicial order requiring the authority to issue the desired administrative act (naturalization). For entitlement-based provisions — § 9 StAG (spouses) and § 10 StAG (naturalization by legal entitlement) — the court may, where the matter is ripe for decision (Spruchreife), directly order naturalization (§ 113 para. 5 sentence 1 VwGO); where the matter is not ripe for decision, an order to issue a fresh decision is made "having regard to the legal view of the court" (§ 113 para. 5 sentence 2 VwGO). For the discretionary provision § 8 StAG, as a rule only the action for a fresh decision (Bescheidungsklage) with a fresh-decision operative part is possible, because the authority retains latitude in the exercise of discretion.

Value in dispute (§ 52 GKG). In the absence of a specific economic valuation, naturalization matters regularly use the default value in dispute of 5,000 euros under § 52 para. 2 GKG. The court costs are calculated from the value in dispute (around 480 euros for three court fees at first instance), as are the lawyer's procedural fees under the RVG. Case law of the Higher Administrative Courts (OVG) on the value in dispute in specific naturalization constellations is not cited in detail in this article, since it is not uniform across the federal states.

Identity dimension under BVerwG 1 C 27.24. In identity disputes — that is, where the authority regards the identity as not sufficiently clarified and rejects on that basis — the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), in its judgment of 18 December 2025 — 1 C 27.24, specified a tiered model (Stufenmodell) of identity evidence. Primarily, the passport of the country of origin must be produced; only in the case of objective impossibility or subjective unreasonableness may further evidentiary tiers be drawn upon. This current BVerwG line structures the judicial examination of identity-based rejections in appellate and revision practice.

For administrative acts with an ordered immediate enforcement — for example, the determination of a blocking period under § 35a StAG — § 80 para. 5 VwGO opens the application for an order or restoration of suspensive effect at the competent Administrative Court. The urgent application is admissible even before the action is brought.

Compulsion constellation — § 123 VwGO instead of § 80 para. 5 VwGO. § 80 para. 5 VwGO is tied to the suspensive effect of an objection and an action for annulment (§ 80 para. 1 VwGO) and therefore fits only the annulment constellation — that is, where a burdensome, immediately enforceable measure (such as the determination of a blocking period under § 35a StAG) is to be suspended. The rejection of a naturalization, by contrast, is a compulsion constellation: the applicant wants to move the authority to grant a benefit — naturalization — not to ward off an intrusion. Interim legal protection here would systematically run via the interim order under § 123 VwGO; § 123 para. 5 VwGO expressly delimits the two remedies — the interim order does not apply in the cases of §§ 80, 80a VwGO and is thus the residual remedy for interim legal protection outside the annulment constellation. Such an application requires an entitlement to the order (Anordnungsanspruch) and a ground for the order (Anordnungsgrund), which under § 123 para. 3 VwGO in conjunction with § 920 para. 2 ZPO must be credibly substantiated; because a provisional naturalization would anticipate the main proceedings, it comes into consideration only in narrowly limited exceptional cases. Which route of urgent legal protection is open at all in the individual case is a question to be assessed by a lawyer.

In the case of a naturalization rejection itself, urgent legal protection is typically not the appropriate instrument: the decision rejects, but does not create any immediately enforceable burden. The rejecting administrative decision is challenged by an objection or an action; the main proceedings are the standard route. The position may be different where further consequences threaten from the rejection — for example, consequences for the residence title — which, with their own enforceability, suggest urgent legal protection. These constellations are highly individual and belong in a lawyer's assessment.

§ 8 StAG is the discretionary provision. The naturalization authority does not decide on the basis of bound law, but by weighing all the circumstances. Judicial review is limited under § 114 VwGO: the court examines whether the authority exceeded the statutory limits of discretion and whether the discretion was exercised "in a manner not corresponding to the purpose of the authorization." The court does not make its own decision on the merits; it can only require the authority to make a fresh decision having regard to the legal view of the court.

Classic discretionary errors. From the case law on discretionary administrative acts, four categories emerge — failure to exercise discretion (Ermessensnichtgebrauch: the authority fails to recognize that discretion exists), exceeding discretion (Ermessensüberschreitung: a decision outside the statutory limits), misuse of discretion (Ermessensfehlgebrauch: extraneous considerations), and disproportionality of discretion (Ermessensdisproportionalität: a violation of the principle of proportionality). Which constellation is present in the specific decision — and whether it can be challenged in court — is a question of the individual discretionary reasoning. That assessment belongs in legal hands.

Supplementation during ongoing proceedings. Under § 114 sentence 2 VwGO, the authority may supplement discretionary considerations during the court proceedings. This changes the dynamics of the proceedings — a rejection that was originally sparsely reasoned may be cured by subsequently submitted considerations, provided they support the original decision.

Livelihood not secured. § 10 para. 1 no. 3 StAG requires that the applicant be able to provide for the livelihood of themselves and dependent family members without recourse to benefits under SGB II or SGB XII. The requirement may be waived under the conditions at the end of no. 3 — for example, where the applicant is not responsible for the receipt of benefits. The rejection practice under this clause is heterogeneous; in judicial practice the question of what counts as "not responsible for" is frequently relevant — illness, child-rearing phases, and care obligations are regularly recognized grounds; the procedural details lie outside the scope of this article.

Criminal record. Convictions above the de minimis threshold of § 12a StAG (90 daily units [Tagessätze], three months' probation, educational measures) are in principle a ground for exclusion. Pending criminal proceedings regularly lead to a suspension of the naturalization procedure until final and binding clarification — a rejection on account of pending proceedings without a conviction is not the standard in authority practice. Anyone rejected on account of a conviction should have it examined whether a § 12a constellation or a § 8 discretionary relief applies.

Doubts about the declaration of allegiance. Under § 10 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 StAG, a commitment to the free democratic basic order of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) is required. Doubts may arise from earlier public statements, memberships in monitored associations, or social-media activity. § 11 no. 1a StAG additionally excludes naturalization where the declaration of allegiance is demonstrably false. The interpretation of the allegiance clause has not been conclusively examined by the courts following the recent reform steps.

Doubts about identity. The clarification of identity under § 10 para. 1 no. 4 StAG is a regular stumbling block in constellations where civil status documents from the country of origin are not available in the form required by the authority. The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), in its judgment of 18 December 2025 — 1 C 27.24, specified the tiered model of identity evidence (cf. section 4) — the authority may not, without more, permit a fallback to alternative documents where the passport of the country of origin is objectively obtainable or reasonably obtainable. The older judgment of 9 September 2014 — 1 C 10.14 on identity deception likewise remains relevant to the interpretation of the identity requirement.

B1 language certificate not in all modules. A DTZ result with B1 in only three of the four skills is not sufficient. Likewise, a Goethe/telc/ÖSD certificate covering fewer than all four modules does not satisfy § 10 para. 1 no. 6 StAG. Detailed treatment is provided in the B1 Language Certificate article; relevant to the litigation situation: anyone who has already submitted B1 certificates and is nevertheless rejected by the authority should have the reasoning examined precisely — it may be a matter of currency (recency), provider recognition, or completeness of the modules.

→ Note on conversion logic: The structured application with civitas. minimizes formal sources of error that frequently trigger rejections. Anyone who has not yet submitted an application can check the requirements for naturalization — ten minutes, no sign-up.

Principle, § 154 VwGO. In administrative litigation, the unsuccessful party bears the costs. Anyone who prevails with their action has a claim for reimbursement of costs against the authority; anyone who fails bears the costs themselves.

Partial success, § 155 VwGO. Where both sides partly win and partly lose, the costs are set off against each other or divided proportionally. If the action is withdrawn, the claimant bears the costs.

Basis of costs. The court fees are based on the value in dispute under the GKG; at a default value in dispute of 5,000 euros, three court fees typically arise at first instance. Added to this are the lawyer's procedural fees under the RVG, which also depend on the value in dispute — the procedural fee, the hearing fee, and the settlement fee together typically amount to a low four-figure sum. Specific amounts differ according to the course of the proceedings, the taking of evidence, and settlement efforts; a blanket statement is not possible.

Advisory assistance and legal aid. Anyone who cannot bear the procedural costs from their own means can apply for advisory assistance (Beratungshilfe) under the BerHG for out-of-court advice and legal aid for court proceedings (Prozesskostenhilfe, PKH) under §§ 166 ff. VwGO for the action. The requirement is regularly economic need and sufficient prospects in the main proceedings; the court examines the prospects in the main proceedings summarily in the PKH procedure. Applications for advisory assistance are made to the local courts (Amtsgerichte); PKH applications are made to the Administrative Court within the framework of the action.

We support the structured preparation of naturalization applications, review the formal completeness of the application materials, and track the authority status. civitas. does not undertake:

• legal representation in objection or action proceedings
• the drafting of statements of claim, pleadings, or legally shaped submissions
• the strategic assessment of individual decisions or the recommendation of a particular type of action
• the forecasting of prospects of success in a specific proceeding
• negotiation with the authority on behalf of the client in contentious procedural situations

Anyone considering legal remedies after the rejection of a naturalization application should turn to an admitted lawyer. Suitable specialist fields are administrative law, migration law, and nationality law; specialized firms can be found via the regional bar associations or via the directories of the German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein). In situations of economic need, advisory assistance (BerHG) and legal aid for court proceedings (§§ 166 ff. VwGO) come into consideration.

What deadline do I have after a rejecting naturalization decision?

The objection deadline under § 70 VwGO is one month from notification of the decision. Where the preliminary procedure is not required (abolished in whole or in part in ten of the sixteen federal states), the action deadline under § 74 VwGO runs directly from notification — likewise one month. Decisive for the deadline applicable in the specific case is the instructions on legal remedies in the decision.

Who decides on the objection?

The objection authority — regularly the next-higher administrative authority relative to the issuing body. It reviews the legality and expediency of the administrative act. It can grant the objection, reject it in whole or in part, or return the matter to the originating authority.

What does an action against a naturalization decision cost?

In the absence of a specific economic valuation, naturalization actions regularly use the default value in dispute of 5,000 euros under § 52 para. 2 GKG. From this value in dispute, court fees (around 480 euros at first instance) and lawyer's procedural fees under the RVG are calculated. Specific amounts differ according to the course of the proceedings.

Which type of action is the correct one?

Where a requested naturalization is rejected, the action to compel (Verpflichtungsklage) is the appropriate one; for entitlement-based provisions (§ 9, § 10 StAG), the court may, where the matter is ripe for decision, directly order naturalization. For the discretionary provision § 8 StAG, as a rule only the action for a fresh decision (Bescheidungsklage) is possible. The choice of the specific type of action depends on the content of the reasoning for the rejection and belongs in a lawyer's assessment.

Does an objection have suspensive effect?

Yes, under § 80 para. 1 VwGO. In the case of a rejecting naturalization decision, however, the suspensive effect has little practical significance, because a rejection does not oblige the applicant to take any active step. It is different for decisions endowed with immediate enforcement — for example, the determination of a blocking period under § 35a StAG.

What does the court examine in a discretionary rejection under § 8 StAG?

Under § 114 VwGO, the court examines exclusively whether the authority exceeded the statutory limits of discretion or exercised discretion contrary to its purpose. The court does not make its own decision on the merits; where the action is well-founded, an order to issue a fresh decision having regard to the legal view of the court is regularly made.

Can I submit the application again after a rejection?

Yes, as a rule a fresh application is possible once the requirements are met or the grounds for rejection have ceased to exist. The position is different in the case of the determination of a blocking period under § 35a StAG after deception — there a ten-year application bar applies (cf. Blocking Period § 35a).

What do advisory assistance and legal aid mean?

Advisory assistance (Beratungshilfe) under the BerHG enables out-of-court legal advice for reduced fees (an own contribution of typically 15 euros) in the case of economic need. Legal aid for court proceedings (Prozesskostenhilfe) under §§ 166 ff. VwGO enables the assumption of the procedural costs by the public treasury in the case of need and sufficient prospects in the main proceedings. Advisory assistance is issued by the local courts (Amtsgerichte); PKH by the Administrative Court in the ongoing action.

How long does an action take?

Actions in naturalization matters typically last between six months and three years at first instance, depending on the court, the state of the dispute, and the taking of evidence. A blanket statement on the duration of proceedings is not possible; the respective Administrative Court provides information on the regional procedural situation.

Does civitas. take over representation in the action?

No. In objection or action proceedings, legal representation is called for; while there is no mandatory legal representation (Anwaltszwang) under § 67 para. 1 VwGO in administrative-court urgent legal protection and in the main proceedings at first instance, legal representation is nevertheless the standard in practice in complex constellations.

→ Start your application with civitas. — structured preparation of new naturalization applications, with a document list and authority tracking.