How a subsequent asylum application may interact with an existing return decision and entry ban, and why new facts are decisive.
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.
Under section 2(1) no. 23 AsylG, a subsequent application is a further application after an earlier application has been finally resolved. Where a measure ending residence already exists, the new filing alone does not determine the right to remain. New decision-relevant circumstances and the procedural position are decisive.
Since 12 June 2026, section 12 AsylG governs the right to remain where an enforceable and final measure ending residence exists. Under the statutory conditions, the Federal Office may withdraw that right. An entry ban under section 53 FPG remains a separate measure to be assessed.
The current assessment needs three separate questions: What was covered by the earlier asylum procedure? What is new since then? Which measure, service event and suspensive effect appear in the current decision?
Answer three short questions. The assessment shows which documents and next steps fit this topic.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The assessment must separate new decision-relevant circumstances, the earlier submission and any pending deportation date.
Under section 12(3) AsylG, a decision-relevant change in the material facts may matter for the right to remain. Explain precisely what is new since the last decision: events, evidence, risk situation or personal circumstances.
Sort documents by date and explain why they were not available earlier or not in this form. A new filing alone does not replace this assessment.
Section 2(1) no. 23 AsylG defines a subsequent application as any further application after an application has already been finally resolved. If the material facts have not changed, the earlier decision and the current legal effect must be assessed together.
Compare the earlier submission with the new application. This shows whether there is a new decision-relevant core or whether the existing measure ending residence remains the starting point.
Section 12 AsylG governs the right to remain where an enforceable and final measure ending residence exists. That right may be withdrawn in specified situations. Where there is no right to remain, a complaint generally has no suspensive effect under section 18(1) BFA-VG.
Keep the deportation date, current letters, service dates and the exact filing time ready. Whether an application to remain or another procedural step is required depends on the specific decision.
Section 10 AsylG provides that the decision on an application for international protection is to be combined with a measure ending residence where the statutory conditions are met. A return decision is governed by section 52 FPG. Filing a subsequent application does not by itself cancel an existing measure.
Section 12 AsylG is central to the right to remain. Where an enforceable and final measure ending residence exists, the Federal Office may withdraw that right under the statutory conditions. Section 12(3) AsylG also provides protection where deportation would create a real risk under sections 50 or 51 FPG or Article 8 ECHR, or where new circumstances have changed the material facts in a decision-relevant way. Section 68(1) AVG separately concerns applications seeking to change a decision that is no longer open to appeal and their rejection on grounds of res judicata, unless a special rule or statutory ground for setting aside applies.
An entry ban under section 53 FPG must be kept separate. It may be issued on the basis of or in connection with a return decision. Its period begins at the end of the day of departure. A subsequent application therefore does not automatically remove the measure.
Start with the complete earlier decision, proof of service, previous applications and earlier decisions. The review also needs the current decision, any deportation date, the departure period and the wording of an existing entry ban.
Prepare a comparison table: which event or piece of evidence is new, when did it become known, why was it previously unavailable and which specific legal issue does it affect? For family or health reasons, include current evidence and a timeline.
With immediate enforcement pressure, the exact filing time, service dates and official letters are especially important. Filing alone does not support a general statement that enforcement is stopped. The right to remain and suspensive effect must be assessed from the decision and the applicable procedural rules.
The merits of the new asylum submission and the right to remain are different questions. The separate effect of an entry ban under section 53 FPG must be added. The enforceability of a return decision under section 52(8) FPG and suspensive effect under section 18 BFA-VG must also be read separately.
The core articles on return decisions, entry bans, section 50 FPG and residence titles remain the starting points. This article deepens the specific procedural question that arises when a subsequent application is filed while a measure already exists.
Practice point: First check the operative part of the decision, then section 12 AsylG and section 18 BFA-VG. Return decision, entry ban, right to remain and suspensive effect each raise their own legal question.
No. Under section 53 FPG, the entry ban is a separate measure that may be issued on the basis of or in connection with a return decision. Its period begins at the end of the day of departure. Other legal effects depend on the decision and the procedural stage.
Where an enforceable and final measure exists, the Federal Office may withdraw the right to remain under section 12 AsylG and the statutory conditions. New decision-relevant circumstances and possible risks under sections 50 or 51 FPG and Article 8 ECHR must be examined separately.
There is no general answer. Section 12 AsylG governs the right to remain in specific situations. Where that right is absent, a complaint generally has no suspensive effect under section 18(1) BFA-VG. The decision, the filing time and the new circumstances are therefore decisive.
The basic difference between the obligation to depart and a re-entry bar.
Why risk in the country of return and the entry ban must be assessed separately.
Which documents matter for an initial legal assessment.
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