Business Immigration Demands a Plan
The plaintiff Ali had unsuccessfully applied for a residence permit to run his GmbH from inside Germany. He complained so much the case went up to the OVG Berlin-Brandenburg (re OVG 11 N 34.14 of 5 January 2017). The core discussion inside the case is how to show the success for potential business immigration – §21 I AufenthG.
The potentiality of being successful in Germany was the only requirement of §21 AufenthG – so the plaintiff. Ali claimed to be commercially integrated already. He is already financially secure and is independent of the company’s income. Ali has previously invested 700 k€ in different companies. He also produced a substantial credit line of a Turkish bank. Court holds these facts as irrelevant for an application for self-employment because the business is to be able to provide for his income. Any previous investment does not matter because the applied activity has to generate sufficient profits and nothing else.
Also Ali would be financially independent because he owns three mortgage-free condominiums having a worth of 196 k€. The court confirmed Ali having so many condominiums. However, this does not describe how he will earn his livelihood from his planned business. The law expects the livelihood to be achieved from the business’ earnings and not from wealth. The court held that §21 AufenthG requires that the business applied for will generate turnover to cover his private needs.
He considered himself to be integrated into the German way of life for three years. The court held against that, because in previous years, he only visited Germany on Schengen visas and based on this, he is not integrated.
The plaintiff had the opinion that the authorities had no right to demand the presentation of a business plan. The court ruled differently; a business plan is required. Ali never presented a business plan which shows exactly what he plans to do in Germany. His business plan did not describe the planned production and the projected ways of sale and distribution. The specific business address has not been mentioned. The place of production as well as the production plants were not introduced. It could not be reenacted in the case decider's and also in the judge's mind how the emission protection issues were to be considered, or if a permission even existed.
Since neither the authorities nor the judges were presented facts or a story that could be objectively tested, the plaintiff Ali gave no merits to his case. These facts forced the authorities to decide against his expectations.