Legal Support when Facing Expulsion for False Registration in Germany

Anyone who moves into a residence in Germany must register with the registration office within two weeks (Section 17 of the Federal Registration Act, BMG). To register, an applicant must submit a landlord confirmation (Wohnungsgeberbestätigung), issued by the landlord or a person authorized by the landlord (Section 19 BMG). This confirmation is meant to ensure that the stated residence actually exists and was genuinely occupied.

A sham registration occurs when a person is registered, or registers themselves, at an address without actually living there, or without ever intending to live there for any meaningful length of time. This also covers the use of a landlord confirmation that is inaccurate, for instance, because the stated move-in never took place, the date is wrong, or the person who signed the confirmation was not authorized to issue it.

If such a confirmation is issued despite the move-in not having taken place or not being intended, this constitutes a sham registration under Section 19(6) BMG, and the landlord faces a fine of up to fifty thousand euros (Section 54(1) BMG). Simple errors or delays in issuing the confirmation, by contrast, carry a fine of up to 1,000 euros (Section 54(2) BMG).

For the person affected, what matters most is that the immigration office typically does not treat this accusation as an isolated registration matter, but assesses it as a statement relevant to residence law, particularly where the address played a role in an application for a residence permit, an extension, or in determining which immigration office has jurisdiction.

False or incomplete statements made to obtain a residence permit are not treated as a minor matter under German residence law. Under Section 54(2) No. 8a of the Residence Act (AufenthG), false or incomplete statements made to obtain a German residence permit constitute a serious interest in expulsion. This interest in expulsion is weighed, under Section 53 AufenthG, against the affected person’s interest in remaining in Germany, which may include the length of residence and personal, economic, and other ties within German territory under Section 53(2) AufenthG, or interests in remaining that carry particular statutory weight, such as a long-standing residence permit or family ties to minors living in Germany under Section 55 AufenthG.

In addition, knowingly using incorrect or incomplete information to obtain a residence permit for oneself or another person may constitute a criminal offense under Section 95(2) No. 2 of the AufenthG, punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment or a fine. In practice, German courts have already treated the mere pretense of residence within the jurisdiction of a particular immigration office as a false statement under this provision.

There is a point that is often overlooked during the hearing: both criminal liability under Section 95(2) No. 2 AufenthG and the serious interest in expulsion for false statements under Section 54(2) No. 8a AufenthG require, according to case law, intentional conduct. A negligent misunderstanding about the registration requirement, or unclear information provided by a third party, is not sufficient to support either accusation. This must be distinguished from the general risk assessment under Section 53 AufenthG. That broader assessment can rest on other interests in expulsion, such as prior criminal convictions or general deterrence in security-relevant cases, without requiring separate proof of intent. Where the accusation concerns false registration or a false landlord confirmation, however, the absence of intent is the central point to establish during the hearing. This is often where the strongest opportunity for a defense lies.

If the immigration office upholds the accusation, several measures may be imposed, in some cases cumulatively:

• Expulsion under Section 53 AufenthG, based on the serious interest in expulsion under Section 54(2) No. 8a AufenthG
• An entry and residence ban under Section 11 AufenthG, which bars re-entry into Germany and much of the Schengen area for the duration set
• An order to leave the country within a set deadline, once the residence permit is revoked or an extension is denied
• A deportation notice under Section 59 AufenthG, should the deadline to leave the country pass without compliance
• Revocation or non-renewal of the existing residence permit, along with the loss of training, study, or employment opportunities in Germany

These measures often affect not only the individual concerned, but also training arrangements, employment contracts, and, in cases of family reunification, family members. If immediate enforcement is ordered, the obligation to leave the country can be enforced even while an objection or lawsuit is still pending, making an urgent application to the administrative court necessary as well.

The hearing under Section 28 VwVfG is typically the last opportunity, in cases involving an accusation of false registration, to influence the authority’s assessment before an expulsion, revocation, or deportation notice is issued. What is presented, or not presented, at this stage largely determines how the authority interprets the accusation.

If the person stays silent or responds without careful thought, the authority will decide based on the information available to it, which may be one-sided. If a statement is submitted too early, without having reviewed the file, there is a risk of conceding facts that suggest intentional conduct, even where the true cause was a misunderstanding or simple negligence. For this reason, file access under Section 29 VwVfG should be requested, and the exact wording of the accusation reviewed, before any response is made.

Whether and how an accusation can be refuted depends on the individual case. In practice, the following points have proven especially relevant:

• Actual living situation: evidence that the residence was, or will be, genuinely occupied, for example, through a lease agreement, utility statements, witness statements from the landlord, or photographic documentation of the move-in,
• Misunderstanding: demonstrating that the statements were based on unclear or misleading information, for instance, regarding the registration deadline or the landlord’s role,
• Conduct of intermediaries or agencies: evidence that a language school, placement agency, or accommodation provider issued or arranged the landlord confirmation independently, without the affected person knowing or being able to recognize that it was incorrect,
• Absence of intent: establishing that neither the interest in expulsion under Section 54(2) No. 8a AufenthG nor criminal liability under Section 95(2) No. 2 AufenthG can apply without deliberate conduct,
• Subsequent registration at the correct address: evidence that an initially unclear or provisional situation was corrected promptly through proper registration at the actual address,
• Integration: demonstrating progress in studies or training, employment, language skills, and social ties, all of which are considered among the interests in remaining under Section 55 AufenthG,
• Proportionality: arguing that expulsion would be disproportionate given the severity of the specific accusation and the individual’s personal circumstances, particularly where there is no repeated or premeditated conduct.

Which of these arguments will actually succeed, and how they must be supported by evidence, can only be assessed responsibly after a review of the complete file held by the authority.

As a firm specializing in immigration and residence law, Schlun & Elseven supports clients throughout Germany during hearing proceedings involving accusations of false registration or an inaccurate landlord confirmation. Our experienced lawyers review the hearing notice, request access to the file, and develop a defense strategy tailored to the individual case before any statement is submitted to the immigration office. If an expulsion, an entry and residence ban, or a deportation notice is issued despite these efforts, we immediately pursue the legal remedies available under the applicable state law, whether an objection (where still available) or a direct lawsuit, along with an urgent court application where necessary.