Family and private life: arguments against a disproportionate entry ban

Where close family or private ties exist over a longer period, this is a strong argument against a disproportionate entry ban. The authority and the courts must weigh your interest in family and private life against the public interest. The more established the tie, the higher the threshold for a long entry ban.

Document these ties carefully. Evidence of family, a shared household, work and length of stay gives the balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR a concrete foundation.

Where the ties have existed only for a shorter time, they still feed into the balancing exercise but tend to carry less weight. It is all the more important to present the ties concretely and comprehensibly. A stable partnership, a permanent job or training that has begun can carry weight even within a shorter period.

Highlight how an entry ban would specifically affect your private and family life. The balancing exercise depends on a concrete account of your life situation.

If your ties in Austria are limited, the family and private life argument carries less weight. That does not mean an entry ban has to be accepted. Other points then move to the foreground, such as whether the risk assessment is sound and whether the duration of the entry ban was set proportionately.

Examine the reasoning of the decision closely. Often it is possible to argue against the assumption of a danger or against the duration of the ban even without close ties in the country.

If the length and strength of the ties cannot be placed easily, an orderly stocktaking helps. Gather all evidence of stay, family, work and social contacts. From this a clearer picture emerges that forms the basis for the balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR.

On this basis it can be assessed which arguments carry the most weight. A careful review of the individual case provides clarity about the next steps.