Processing times, status enquiries and reasons for delays

When months pass without a decision on a naturalisation application, it is initially unclear whether documents are missing, other bodies are still carrying out checks or the file is simply waiting. Through our status enquiry and review of your documents, we identify what is holding up the decision. This requires distinguishing receipt of the application, the processing undertaken so far and possible obstacles. This article explains which time periods have legal significance, which delays may be understandable and how to improve the basis for further steps.

Statements by authorities such as “several months” or “currently longer waiting times” initially describe the actual working situation. They are usually not a binding promise of a particular decision date. It is also often unclear whether the time is calculated from receipt of the application, a completeness check or the start of substantive processing. For this reason alone, figures from different cities can be compared only to a limited extent.

The processing time in an individual case depends on several steps. The authority must allocate the application, examine documents, request further evidence where necessary and obtain information required by law. Within a family, different citizenships, residence histories and personal circumstances may lead to separate assessments. Applying together simplifies some documentation, but does not make every assessment step identical for everyone.

Legally, these practical steps must be distinguished from the permissible duration of the procedure. The procedure should be conducted promptly. An average waiting time experienced by other applicants does not automatically justify the same wait in your own case. Conversely, a particularly quick procedure among people you know does not establish an entitlement to be naturalised within a few weeks yourself. What matters remains which work is necessary in the particular procedure and whether it is being pursued appropriately.

Even after this period has expired, there may be sufficient reason for further processing. The court then assesses the specific reason and may stay the proceedings while setting a deadline. Equally, the authority's duty to work promptly does not begin only after three months. A matter that can plainly be clarified must not be left untouched simply because the waiting period for court proceedings has not yet elapsed.

For documentation purposes, demonstrable receipt of the application is therefore important. A request for an advice appointment is not necessarily a naturalisation application. A completed form on your own computer has not yet been submitted. In online portals, a distinction must be made between a saved draft and an application actually transmitted. Whether there is a sufficiently specific application must be distinguished from whether all evidence was already enclosed. Submitting an application and proving receipt explains the details.

For a meaningful assessment, saying “I have been waiting for a year” is usually not enough. We therefore prepare a chronology of the key steps. We record receipt of the application, each specific request for evidence, your response and the latest substantive communication. Where known, we add file transfers and decisions on responsibility.

We match each entry to its supporting evidence. Suitable examples include an acknowledgement of receipt, a saved portal confirmation or proof of a transmitted message. Keeping a copy of the document sent remains important because proof of dispatch alone does not always show what the correspondence contained. We record telephone information promptly, including the date, content and outstanding questions; for earlier calls, we ask you for any notes you have.

This overview helps in two ways. It prevents you from overlooking a request for further documents that you have not answered. It also allows you to show that certain documents have already been submitted several times or that no further activity was apparent for a long time after a complete response. The chronology serves to clarify the facts; it need not present every automatic portal message or every unchanged copy as a separate, lengthy event.

A good enquiry is specific enough to allow a useful response. We provide your identifying details, the file reference and the application date. We then identify the latest relevant step, such as submission of a requested employer’s certificate. We ask about specific outstanding issues rather than settling for a general estimate. Under § 25(2) VwVfG, the authority should provide information on matters including the likely duration and completeness of the application to help speed up the procedure; for authorities of a federal state, the corresponding state law is decisive.

In particular, we ask the following questions:

Not every authority can provide a reliable completion date. An answer may still be useful if it identifies a specific outstanding point. Conversely, a standard message unrelated to the application is not adequate merely because it mentions a long average waiting time. If an answer is evasive, we ask specifically about the obstacle rather than simply repeating the original enquiry.

A missing birth certificate is a different problem from an outdated payslip. Some documents concern largely stable facts; others are intended to establish the current personal situation. If income is assessed only long after the application was made, the authority may need current evidence. This does not automatically mean that the original submission was incomplete or incorrect.

When evidence is requested again, we assess what purpose it is intended to serve. Where employment has since changed, the new contract and current payslips provide more information than another copy of the old contract. If nothing has changed and the document has already been provided, we refer to the earlier submission with its date and evidence. An organised update avoids conflicting sets of documents.

Updating information does not restart the entire procedure from the beginning. To assess the delay, we distinguish checks newly required by changed facts from checks that could have been carried out earlier. If a payslip is outdated solely because the file remained unprocessed for a long time, the new request does not retrospectively explain the entire waiting period so far.

If a requested document cannot be obtained, we explain the specific difficulty to the authority. This includes the steps taken, replies from the issuing body and, where relevant, reasons why further steps would be unreasonable. An authority must not merely make a general allegation of failure to cooperate. It must make clear what is needed. Our response sets out what is possible and which alternative evidence can be assessed.

Naturalisation authorities do not assess only the documents submitted directly. § 37 StAG provides for a routine enquiry to the domestic intelligence authorities responsible for protecting the constitution for applicants aged 16 and over. Other statutory information channels may also be involved. An enquiry of this kind does not, in itself, mean that the person is under any specific suspicion.

Necessary information that remains outstanding may affect processing. Nevertheless, a reference to another body cannot justify an unlimited waiting time. The naturalisation authority remains the point of contact for the naturalisation procedure. It must initiate the necessary checks and monitor their progress appropriately. Whether particular information is actually relevant to the decision and how long it has been outstanding may therefore matter for the legal assessment.

There is not an unconditional entitlement to full disclosure of all security-related information. Protected information and confidentiality interests may limit the information provided or access to the file. Within the permitted scope of disclosure, we request as specific an explanation as possible of the outstanding procedural step. A more detailed account of the information channels is available under security checks, data exchange and access to the file.

If someone who has applied for naturalisation is being investigated on suspicion of a criminal offence, § 12a(3) StAG generally requires the naturalisation decision to be suspended until the proceedings have concluded. If there is a conviction, it must have become final. This statutory situation differs from a general excessive workload.

Suspension does not mean that guilt has already been established. It is intended to avoid a decision based on criminal allegations that have not yet been resolved. The current stage of the criminal proceedings is therefore important for the further naturalisation procedure. If the criminal proceedings are discontinued or a decision becomes final, we submit the relevant evidence in the citizenship case we are handling. An outdated reference to proceedings that have since ended must not continue to have effect without review.

Whether the criminal decision subsequently prevents naturalisation is a separate question. This is governed by specific rules on convictions that may be taken into account and exceptions. For proceedings abroad, the precise allegation and its significance under German law must also be clarified; neither the label given to proceedings nor an assumption about their eventual outcome is sufficient. The detailed article on pending investigations and suspension addresses these particular issues. Once the reason for suspension no longer applies, the naturalisation authority must assess the remaining requirements. Discontinuance therefore does not immediately lead to handover of the certificate, but may remove a major obstacle to processing.

An unexpected, temporary rise in workload may be assessed differently from years of understaffing. A permanently excessive workload at the naturalisation authority does not constitute sufficient reason for a stay under § 75 VwGO. The specific circumstances still need to be examined; this does not establish a uniform maximum processing time across Germany.

Digitalisation or organisational restructuring may change individual working steps. It does not, however, make older applications irrelevant. If an existing application is to be entered in a new portal, we clarify whether this is only a technical transfer or a new application. We document the original receipt date and the documents already submitted.

Moving home may change which local authority is responsible. It must then be clarified which authority holds the file and whether it has already been transferred. We notify the authority of your new address and record communications about the file transfer. Submitting duplicate applications to different bodies without explanation may create additional questions about allocation. The article on competent authorities and the consequences of moving home explains which questions need to be examined. We record the transfer date and receiving authority so further enquiries go to the authority actually handling the case.

We set out a particular personal hardship in concrete terms rather than merely repeating a wish for faster processing. We establish with you precisely what harm is threatened, when it will arise and why avoiding it depends specifically on the citizenship decision. This may include documents showing an actual time constraint. The authority must be able to assess the urgency; mere assumptions about possible future opportunities are less informative.

Such an explanation does not guarantee priority processing. It may, however, be relevant to assessing a reasonable procedural duration and, where appropriate, interim judicial protection. We also assess whether another legal step could prevent the harm. An expiring residence title, for example, is not extended merely because a naturalisation application is pending. Residence-law matters therefore continue to require attention in their own right.

If no concrete processing is apparent over a lengthy period, requests for further documents have been answered and the authority refers only generally to its workload, we assess whether an action for failure to act is available in your case. A status enquiry or an additional deadline set by the applicant is not a general statutory prerequisite for this action. However, the preceding correspondence may help assess the actual obstacle and the risk of costs.

Informal complaints serve a different purpose. They may draw the administration's attention to communication or organisational problems, but do not lead to a court ruling on entitlement to naturalisation. Nor does a complaint automatically suspend a deadline for a legal remedy that starts running later. If a rejection notice arrives while clarification is continuing, the approach must therefore be adapted immediately to the new procedural situation.

Before proposing court action, we assess the current substantive legal position in your case. Are all requirements still met? Is there new income, a different residence title or a change in family circumstances? Better documentation of the waiting period alone does not resolve these questions. It does, however, provide the basis for a reasoned choice between a targeted additional submission, further waiting that remains justifiable, and seeking protection through the courts.