Dublin transfer, return decision and entry ban: why responsibility under Dublin III and section 53 FPG must be assessed separately.
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.
Dublin procedure, transfer, return decision and entry ban are different review steps. This post explains why responsibility under Dublin III does not automatically answer the entry ban question.
The Dublin III Regulation governs responsibility and transfer in asylum proceedings. Whether a return decision or entry ban is issued alongside it is a separate legal question.
The post separates this specific issue from the existing core articles and shows which documents are useful for an initial legal assessment.
Answer one short question. The assessment names the most important next review points.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The first orientation shows which point should be reviewed now.
If a decision has already been issued, read the operative parts, reasons, service and appeal information separately. This shows whether an appeal, an application or a data review comes first.
For the entry ban assessment, section 53 FPG, the concrete risk assessment and proportionality are central.
While proceedings are pending, evidence and a clear chronology can be prepared. It is important to address the concrete allegation or review point, not only to argue generally against a possible entry ban.
Anyone planning travel, an application or employment should clarify old decisions, SIS references, departure evidence and pending proceedings in advance. Later correction is often harder than timely review.
A Dublin transfer concerns the responsibility of another member state for the asylum procedure. An entry ban under section 53 FPG concerns future re-entry. These levels must not be mixed.
In practice it must be checked whether the authority decides only on responsibility and transfer or also imposes return measures.
Important points are operative parts, responsibility, destination state, appeal information, reasons and references to a return decision or entry ban. Do not derive the issue from headings alone, but from the operative parts.
The post on subsequent asylum application and entry ban concerns a different situation after earlier decisions.
Objections to a transfer may have different legal bases from objections to an entry ban. Risk in the country of return, health issues and family life must be raised where they are legally relevant.
Practice point: In Dublin matters, the exact structure of the decision is decisive. Responsibility, transfer, return decision and entry ban must be read separately.
No. A Dublin transfer concerns responsibility for the asylum procedure. An entry ban is a separate immigration measure.
That depends on the concrete decision. The operative parts and reasons must therefore be read carefully.
The full decision, service information, previous asylum documents, family ties and medical evidence may be important where relevant.
Distinction from subsequent applications and return decisions.
When risks in the destination state require separate review.
The path from the BFA to the higher courts.
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