New evidence may matter.
Section 69 AVG requires a concrete ground. New facts or evidence must not have been usable earlier without fault and must be capable of changing the result.
Appeals
Reopening proceedings: new evidence against an entry ban
When new facts or evidence may justify reopening an entry ban case under Austrian administrative procedure.
Your contact person
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.
17 July 2026 · Mag. Mirela Saric, Attorney at Law
A final decision on an entry ban is not always the end of every legal step. If genuinely new facts or evidence appear, reopening under section 69 AVG may need to be checked.
The remedy is narrow. It does not replace an appeal that was not filed, and it is not a way to reargue the same points in different words.
Classify the remedy
Reopening, reinstatement or section 60 FPG?
Answer one short question to identify the first checkpoint.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Are there truly new facts or evidence?
The answer separates reopening, reinstatement and section 60 FPG.
All paths at a glance
Overview of all answers.
This sounds like a deadline issue.
If the problem is a missed deadline, reinstatement or service should usually be checked first.
Later changes require a different route.
If the facts arose after the decision, lifting or shortening under section 60 FPG may be the closer route.
When reopening may apply
When reopening may apply
Section 69 AVG allows reopening of a proceeding closed by decision if no ordinary remedy is available and a statutory ground exists. In entry ban cases, the key issue is often new facts or evidence that could not be used earlier without fault.
The new point must be relevant. It must be capable of leading to a different operative result, either alone or together with the existing file.
Deadline and authority must be checked
Deadline and authority must be checked
Under section 69 AVG, the request is generally filed within two weeks from knowledge of the reopening ground. After three years from the decision, the request is generally excluded.
The competent authority depends on the procedural stage. The deadlines and appeals topic page helps classify the procedural route.
Distinguish other legal steps
Distinguish other legal steps
Reinstatement concerns a missed deadline without fault. Reopening concerns new facts or evidence in the closed proceeding. Section 60 FPG concerns later lifting or shortening when reasons have fallen away or changed.
Mixing these routes costs time. Where service is unclear, the start of the deadline may need to be examined first.
Important: Reopening is not a second appeal. The request needs a concrete statutory ground, a deadline explanation and suitable evidence.
FAQ
Reopening an entry ban case
Is a better argument enough for reopening? +
No. A statutory ground is needed, such as new facts or evidence that could not be presented earlier without fault.
What deadline applies? +
Section 69 AVG generally requires filing within two weeks from knowledge of the reopening ground. The file should be checked for calculation.
How is this different from reinstatement? +
Reinstatement concerns a missed deadline. Reopening concerns new facts or evidence in the closed proceeding.
Topics
ReopeningNew evidenceAVGEntry ban
Entry ban, return decision, a running appeal deadline?
In immigration law, deadlines and the right argumentation decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Contact
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000