When the BFA may correct a clerical or calculation error under Section 62(4) AVG and when a substantive change requires a legal remedy.
Mag. Mirela Saric
Attorney at law · German and BCS
Mirela Saric assists clients in immigration matters with a clear structure: review the decision, secure deadlines, define the strategy and act quickly. She advises in German and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.
A clerical or calculation error in a BFA decision may be corrected under Section 62(4) AVG if the mistake is clear from the decision or its immediate context. The authority may correct an obvious inaccuracy in the document.
The correction power is narrow. It does not replace a new assessment of the threat prognosis and it cannot shorten an entry ban through a substantive change. The key question is therefore whether only the wording is wrong or whether the legal content is meant to change.
This article explains the boundary between correcting an obvious error and pursuing a legal remedy. The specific passage must always be assessed with the complete decision, the file and the procedural stage.
Answer one question. The initial orientation shows which documents and checkpoint should come first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The first classification separates an obvious error from a change to the substance of the decision.
Compare the incorrect passage with the rest of the decision and the documents directly connected to it. If the correct spelling or number is clear without a new assessment of the facts, a correction under Section 62(4) AVG may be available.
If the requested change concerns the threat assessment, the duration or another essential part of the entry ban, a simple correction is not enough. The available remedy, procedural stage and any open deadlines must be checked separately.
Keep the complete decision, service documents and the records referred to by the disputed entry. The comparison shows whether there is an obvious mistake or a substantive issue that requires another legal step.
Section 62(4) AVG refers to clerical and calculation errors and to equivalent inaccuracies that are evidently based on an oversight or solely on technically defective operation of an automated data-processing system. The authority may correct such errors on its own initiative at any time.
In an immigration decision, this can include a plainly inconsistent spelling or number. The correct version must already be established. The correction is meant to reproduce the decision that was actually made in an accurate form.
An inaccuracy can be corrected only when the mistake is apparent without a new legal assessment or evaluation of evidence. The decision itself or its immediate file reference must show which entry was intended.
If the authority would first have to reassess witness evidence, change the threat prognosis or balance the duration of the entry ban differently, the issue is substantive. That assessment exceeds the narrow function of Section 62(4) AVG.
Correction addresses an obvious inaccuracy. It is the relevant checkpoint when a word, number or technically caused entry plainly differs from the content that can already be identified in the decision.
If the requested change concerns the return decision, the threat prognosis, the duration or another essential statement, the appropriate legal remedy must be examined. The article on reasoning defects in an entry ban decision addresses substantive review of the reasons. The guide to the operative points of a BFA decision explains how to read the separate parts.
A request for correction should therefore not conceal a substantive challenge. Keep the decision, mark the precise discrepancy and state separately what substantive outcome is sought. The procedural stage and any applicable deadlines must be checked independently.
The complete decision, the service documents and the original record behind the disputed entry belong together in the first review. Earlier letters from the same authority, application documents and records showing the correct spelling or number can also be useful.
Arrange the material so that the discrepancy is visible in a short comparison. Also state whether the correction would only fix an entry or would change the operative part, duration or reasons of the entry ban.
Important: A correction under Section 62(4) AVG is not a substitute for challenging a substantively incorrect decision. If the requested change concerns the content of the entry ban, the appropriate remedy must be coordinated with the procedural stage.
Section 62(4) AVG permits an authority to correct clerical and calculation errors and equivalent inaccuracies that are evidently based on an oversight or solely on a technical defect. The particular entry must support that classification.
A mere correction cannot replace a new assessment of the duration. If the requested change depends on a different threat prognosis or proportionality assessment, the appropriate legal remedy must be examined.
A misspelled name can be an obvious clerical error. The decision and the immediately connected records must show which spelling was intended. The individual case still has to be assessed.
Keep the complete decision, proof of service, the incorrect passage and the record showing the correct entry. Separate the correction issue from any legal remedy against the substance.
In immigration law, deadlines and the right argumentation decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000