When an indefinite entry ban needs close reasoning and why current risk assessment and Article 8 ECHR matter.
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.
An indefinite entry ban seriously affects future planning. It is not only about the next journey. It may burden family life, work, residence prospects and later applications.
For that reason, the authority must give comprehensible reasons for duration and proportionality. Earlier facts do not automatically justify every future consequence. What matters is the current risk assessment in the specific case.
This post explains which points should be checked with an indefinite or exceptionally long entry ban.
The short assessment shows whether reasoning, current developments or family life should be checked first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
With long duration, risk, passage of time and private ties must be assessed together.
With indefinite duration, the decision should explain why a time limited measure is not enough. General references to earlier problems do not replace a concrete assessment.
Check the operative part, reasons, factual basis and balancing separately.
Good conduct, work, family, therapy, education or stable life abroad may be relevant for the current assessment. It is not only about what happened earlier.
These points need documents and a clear chronology.
Section 9 BFA-VG and Article 8 ECHR require a balancing exercise. The stronger the ties, the more carefully the authority must explain why the measure remains proportionate.
Evidence is needed rather than a short statement.
Section 53 FPG requires a concrete risk assessment and the statutory basis for an entry ban. With indefinite or exceptionally long duration, the reasoning burden becomes especially important in practice.
The authority must explain why this exact duration is necessary. That concerns the reason for the ban, past conduct, the passage of time and the current situation.
The general post on duration and risk assessment explains the basic framework.
An earlier conviction, proceeding or allegation does not automatically explain the future. The question is whether a concrete risk may still be assumed today.
Good conduct, new ties, work, education, therapy, stable living conditions or long periods without incidents may matter. Every point should be supported by evidence.
For criminal-law related decisions, see the post on criminal conviction and risk assessment.
Where family, children, long residence or integration are involved, the authority must consider private and family interests. That balancing exercise is part of proportionality.
If circumstances have changed substantially after the decision, a later review under section 60 FPG may become relevant. Departure, the passage of time and new facts must be shown coherently.
The later path is explained in the post on lifting or shortening under section 60 FPG.
Newsletter: Notes on risk assessment, section 60 FPG and current developments are available in the Brandauer newsletter.
No. It must however be carefully reasoned and proportionate. The specific decision is decisive.
It may matter if it is evidenced and relevant to the current risk assessment or a later application.
Yes. Family and private ties can be important in the proportionality assessment. They must be described and evidenced concretely.
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