How section 53 FPG connects unauthorised employment, individual responsibility and the risk assessment in an entry-ban case.
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.
Unauthorised employment can matter in an entry-ban case in two different ways: as a final administrative penalty under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Nationals and as being found in work that the third-country national was not allowed to perform under that Act. Those legal connections must be assessed separately for the affected person and for the later risk assessment.
Section 53(2)(1) and (6) FPG expressly refer to employment of foreign nationals. This does not create an automatic entry ban of any duration. The BFA must assess past conduct, the concrete risk to public interests and proportionality in an individual and reasoned decision.
This article explains the immigration-law assessment. Questions about an employer’s penalty, wage claims or criminal proceedings belong to separate procedures. For an initial review, the decision, authorisation, actual work and current personal circumstances are particularly important.
Answer one short question. The result shows whether the decision, role classification or risk assessment should be examined first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The concrete allegation, the decision and the available documents are central to a first assessment.
Read the operative part, the reasoning and the appeal information separately. Check whether the authority refers to a final administrative penalty under the Act on the Employment of Foreign Nationals or to being found in employment that was not permitted.
Keep the complete decision, the date of service and its attachments ready. Only then can the fact relied on for the entry ban be identified.
Arrange the activity, work location, period, instructions, payment and the companies involved in chronological order. The key points are what you did yourself and which authorisation or exception applied to that exact activity.
Documents from the employer side may complete the facts. The immigration assessment of the affected person cannot, however, be based only on a label or another person’s administrative penalty.
The conduct since the incident, a current employment solution, compliance with immigration requirements and personal ties may matter for the risk assessment. Support this development with dated documents.
An earlier allegation does not answer the future question in full. The authority must still assess the concrete circumstances and proportionality in a comprehensible way.
Section 53(2)(1) FPG covers, among other things, a final penalty for an infringement of the Act on the Employment of Foreign Nationals. Section 53(2)(6) FPG separately refers to a third-country national being found in employment that the person was not allowed to perform under that Act. Section 53(2)(6) contains its own exception where another job for the same employer would have been permitted and no impermissible change of purpose was required.
The two grounds therefore involve different evidence. Under section 53(2)(1), the content and finality of the administrative penalty matter. Under section 53(2)(6), the actual work, its authorisation and the statutory exception must be assessed. The decision should show which connection supports the authority’s reasoning.
The existing article on undeclared work and employment without authorisation explains the general interface. This article focuses on the more precise question of how personal responsibility and the future assessment must be connected.
The three reviews may be connected. Each has its own subject and its own evidence.
| Connection | Core question | Important documents |
|---|---|---|
| Section 53(2)(1) FPG Is there a final administrative penalty for an infringement of the employment rules for foreign nationals? | Penalty decision, finality, period of the conduct and specific infringement | |
| Section 53(2)(6) FPG Was the person found in work that they were not allowed to perform? | Authorisation, employer, activity, location, period and inspection record | |
| Risk assessment What risk does continued residence create and how long should the ban last? | Current conduct, new documents, ties, passage of time and reasons |
The authority must attribute the facts to the affected person specifically. This includes the activity, instructions, employer, payment, location and period. It may also be decisive which authorisation existed and which work it covered.
A company may employ several people and assign different tasks. Calling the work “undeclared” therefore does not replace an examination of the work actually performed. An employer’s penalty also does not automatically establish that the requirements of section 53(2)(6) FPG are met for the employee.
An employment contract, permit, job description, wage records, rosters, messages, inspection records and personal statements can assist the factual assessment. Arrange contradictions openly. A short chronology is often more useful than a general denial.
Under section 53(2) FPG, the BFA must take past conduct into account and consider the extent to which residence threatens public order or security or conflicts with other public interests under Article 8(2) ECHR. The authority must therefore move from the established employment fact to a concrete assessment of future risk.
The passage of time, conduct since the inspection, a clarified employment situation, current permits, compliance with conditions and the person’s general conduct may be relevant. Family life, private life, length of residence and professional prospects may also affect proportionality. The weight of each point depends on the findings in the individual case.
The duration of the entry ban requires its own reasons. Repeating the employment allegation does not explain either the assumed risk or the specific period. The article on entry-ban duration and risk assessment develops this general standard.
For the immigration-law review, affected persons should collect the complete BFA decision, any administrative penalty, the authorisation, the employment contract and a chronology of the work. Add documents about departure, residence, family, training and current employment where they are relevant to the risk assessment.
Employer documents may explain the actual activity and organisation. They can include the job description, working-time records, location, wage documents and communication about the authorisation. The documents should make clear which person took which action.
The BFA information page on return and immigration proceedings describes the administrative context of return decisions and voluntary departure. For the individual entry ban, the specific decision, its service and the facts stated in it remain decisive.
A work permit and immigration status are often treated as the same issue. A permit answers the labour-market question for a specific activity. It does not replace the review of an existing entry ban or return decision.
An incomplete chronology creates another problem. If the inspection, penalty, departure, later employment and current authorisation are not arranged in time, it remains unclear which fact actually supports the risk assessment.
A complaint or statement should identify the specific reasoning problem. Saying only that the person did not intend to breach the rules may not be enough. The central issue is whether the authority established the relevant facts correctly and balanced the personal circumstances.
Important: An employment finding and an entry ban are different decisions. Check whether the decision relies on a final administrative penalty, being found in unauthorised employment or additional facts. Responsibility, future risk and duration then each require their own reasoning.
Newsletter: You can receive developments on entry bans, return decisions and immigration deadlines through the BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews.
No. Section 53(2)(1) and (6) FPG identify specific employment-related connections. The BFA must assess the concrete facts, past conduct, risk to public interests and proportionality.
This cannot be answered in general terms. The authority must clarify the actual work, the authorisation and the person’s individual role. An employer’s penalty does not replace those findings.
Useful material may include the complete decision, permits, employment contract, job description, inspection records, evidence of conduct afterwards and documents about family, residence and current employment. The connection to the reasons in the decision is decisive.
The general immigration-law interface when employment is challenged.
How risk assessment, proportionality and duration are connected.
How evidence can be prepared specifically in appeal proceedings.
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