When residence titles under sections 55 to 57 Asylum Act may be reviewed despite a return decision and entry ban, and which evidence matters.
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.
A residence title based on reasons worthy of consideration may still require review despite a return decision. The applicable statutory basis, the personal situation and the effect of the existing decision must be kept distinct.
Section 55 Asylum Act concerns reasons under Article 8 ECHR. Section 56 covers particularly worthy cases, while section 57 covers residence titles for special protection. A return decision under section 52 FPG and an entry ban under section 53 FPG remain separate immigration measures. An application for a residence title does not automatically remove their effect.
This article helps you prepare: which ties, protection reasons, decisions and dates must be documented? For the basic distinction between the measures, see the separate overview of return decisions and entry bans.
Choose the main issue. The assessment shows which evidence and next steps fit your situation.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
First distinguish private and family life, special protection reasons, the applicable title basis and the effect of an existing decision.
For a residence title under section 55 Asylum Act, private or family life in Austria and the opposing public interests must be balanced on the basis of concrete circumstances. Children, actual care, a shared household, length of residence and integration each need supporting evidence.
Arrange the evidence chronologically and explain the effects that return would have on the relationships concerned.
Particularly worthy cases and residence titles for special protection follow different statutory requirements. Illness, care, dependency, violence or trafficking may be relevant depending on the facts, but an application needs current and meaningful documents.
Explain who is affected, which concrete danger or dependency exists and why the existing measure does not adequately account for that situation.
Section 55 Asylum Act concerns reasons under Article 8 ECHR, section 56 concerns particularly worthy cases and section 57 concerns residence titles for special protection. Each route has different requirements and evidentiary priorities.
Assess the personal situation together with the procedural status. A general reference to humanitarian considerations does not replace allocation to the applicable statutory basis.
Read the operative part, reasons and appeal information for the return decision and entry ban separately. An application under sections 55 to 57 Asylum Act does not automatically remove an existing measure and does not replace review of enforceability.
Collect service, finality, voluntary-departure period, entry-ban duration and new material circumstances. Shortening or lifting an entry ban under section 60 FPG is a separate issue.
The three residence titles based on reasons worthy of consideration have different points of connection. Section 55 Asylum Act puts the assessment of private and family life under Article 8 ECHR at the centre. Section 56 concerns particularly worthy cases. Section 57 covers special protection situations whose requirements must be established individually.
The concrete facts determine the route. Living together as a family, caring for a child, a long period of residence or a particular dependency can raise different legal questions. The authority must therefore assess the application according to the relevant provision and the procedural status.
Section 58 Asylum Act links these residence titles to procedural assessment steps. The mere existence of a return decision creates neither an automatic title nor an automatic bar to every further assessment. The effect of a decision depends on its wording and status.
A return decision under section 52 FPG and an entry ban under section 53 FPG must be read separately. The return decision concerns the obligation to leave. The entry ban regulates the time-based restriction on entry and residence. Both measures may appear in one decision, but they produce different legal effects.
An application under sections 55 to 57 Asylum Act does not remove these measures by itself. Before a further application, review service, appeal, finality, the departure period and the duration of the entry ban. The interaction between residence title and entry ban requires a separate assessment.
Section 60 FPG concerns the later lifting or shortening of an entry ban under the conditions stated there. This route is separate from the question whether a residence title based on worthy-of-consideration reasons can be granted. The two assessments may be connected, but neither replaces the other.
For Article 8 ECHR, section 9 BFA-VG requires the private and family interests to be weighed against the public interest in ending the stay. Concrete living arrangements matter: who lives with whom, who provides care, how long the relationships have existed and what actual consequences would follow from return?
Arrange marital and family status, custody, shared address, care, financial or personal dependency, school attendance, work, residence history and language skills in a coherent chronology. A list of documents does not yet show what each document proves about the relationship or integration.
For special protection reasons, medical, official or other evidence must be current. Translations, medical reports and confirmations should show the relevant period and explain why they matter for the residence title being sought.
Start with the full decision and proof of service. Mark each operative point: return decision, entry ban, departure period, any suspensive effect and appeal information. Then add a chronology of all applications, decisions, departures and new circumstances.
Only then can you decide whether the argument concerns Article 8 ECHR, a particularly worthy case or special protection. The review of the decision and appeal route remains a separate step if the appeal period is still open.
A complete application links each factual statement to evidence and explains its consequences for the individual. This makes clear which question the authority must answer and whether the return decision or entry ban must also be challenged.
Practice point: Read the return decision and entry ban separately, then assign the personal situation to the appropriate basis under sections 55 to 57 Asylum Act. This keeps the application, evidence and any appeal connected.
Subscribe to legal updates: Receive new articles and legal information from the firm through BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews.
A review may be possible depending on the legal basis and procedural status. The return decision is not automatically lifted or suspended by the application. The decision, service, finality and personal requirements must be assessed together.
No. Section 55 Asylum Act concerns reasons under Article 8 ECHR. Sections 56 and 57 have their own statutory requirements. The facts must therefore be assigned to the correct legal basis before evidence is developed.
An application does not automatically remove an entry ban. The effects of the return decision, entry ban and any residence title must be assessed separately under the decision and the applicable provisions.
Secure the full decision, proof of service, appeal information, earlier applications and decisions, and a chronology. Then add current evidence of family life, integration, medical circumstances or special protection reasons.
Which questions must be assessed separately when a residence title and entry ban meet.
The different functions of an obligation to leave and a re-entry restriction.
Decision, service and appeal route as separate assessment steps.
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