Cooperation: when obtaining documents is impossible or unreasonable

We assist with establishing your identity when a passport or other required documents are unavailable or cannot reasonably be obtained. It does not, however, rule out naturalisation in every circumstance. What matters is which documents are available, which further evidence can actually be obtained and which steps the person concerned can reasonably be expected to take. We therefore organise your identity evidence and the specific obstacles to obtaining documents clearly.

The authority investigates the facts on its own initiative. At the same time, the applicant must contribute information and documents concerning their own circumstances. The duty to cooperate arises from § 34 sentence 2 StAG in conjunction with § 82 AufenthG. In practice, this means that available documents must be submitted, opportunities to obtain evidence must be pursued and obstacles must be explained. Generally, it is not enough merely to wait for a request or to state in general terms that no passport is available.

Conversely, a request must fit the particular case. The authority must take account of the information already available and indicate any further steps needed. What information is missing, why a document is required and which route for obtaining it might be available can often only be meaningfully determined from the documents already submitted. The article Identity and existing nationality explains the broader context.

In the tiered model, the passport occupies a separate first evidential tier. Only where obtaining it is objectively impossible or cannot reasonably be expected in the individual's circumstances does the next tier allow a recognised passport substitute or other official identity documents bearing a photograph. These are followed by further official records, other forms of evidence and, finally and exceptionally, the applicant's own statements.

This is not a free choice between five equally ranked possibilities. An existing identity card does not automatically make the question of an obtainable passport irrelevant. Conversely, the priority given to the passport does not justify a request to perform an action demonstrably shown to be impossible. The assessment must address whether the conditions for moving to the next type of evidence are actually met.

Unreasonableness may also affect only a particular route. Someone unable to attend in person may perhaps submit an existing register extract. Someone who cannot be required to contact a diplomatic or consular mission may have older school records or be able to rely on witnesses. The detailed article on the tiered model explains the sequence of evidence.

We document your attempts to obtain records as a clear sequence: which document you requested, when and from whom, the conditions stated, replies received and what remained unresolved despite follow-up. This distinguishes lack of cooperation from steps genuinely taken without success. Disconnected screenshots do not replace that explanation.

Not every body issues a formal certificate of refusal. We then discuss with you making a prompt note of the date, reason and content of the oral information. It must remain clear that this is the person's own account. A self-prepared note of a conversation has a different evidential value from written confirmation by the foreign authority. It can nevertheless make the sequence of events understandable.

For electronic procedures, we check whether the evidence shows actual submission or merely an opened form. An error screenshot with no date or discernible context says little about whether a persistent technical obstacle exists. If an error recurs, several dated records may explain the process more effectively. These records do not replace evidence of identity; initially, they establish the efforts made to obtain it.

Where a risk is raised, we explain the connection between the requested action and the feared consequences. Previous persecution may be important. It is also essential, however, to explain why the current contact in particular could disclose new information or endanger others. Existing protection decisions and documents concerning earlier incidents can support this account. Relatives at risk do not first have to be exposed to actual danger so that an unsuccessful attempt can subsequently be documented.

For health reasons, the specific limitation matters. Merely naming a medical condition does not answer whether travel, a prolonged wait or a personal interview is possible. A medical statement can explain, in particular, which action presents a health problem and whether another form of cooperation might be possible. The question of a suitable alternative thus remains distinct from whether personal attendance may be required.

Costs must also be specified. Obtaining documents, translation, travel and any necessary representation may together create a considerable burden. This does not yield a fixed, general euro threshold for establishing identity. The actual costs, their breakdown, the person's resources and possible less burdensome routes are more informative. An effort is not unreasonable merely because applying would be easier without it.

Some documents can be obtained through relatives, trusted people or an authorised attorney in the country of origin. Whether this actually works depends on the rules on competence and representation there. It is particularly important to establish whether a power of attorney is sufficient, whether it must take a particular form and whether the person concerned is still expected to appear in person. A merely theoretical possibility of representation does not resolve the problem.

At the same time, risks must not simply be transferred to other people. If an enquiry by a relative could disclose the applicant's whereabouts or draw the attention of the authorities to the relative, this forms part of the assessment of reasonableness. Instructing an attorney does not necessarily remove every danger either. The route to obtaining documents, the data that must be transmitted and the possible consequences must be considered together.

Before paid intermediaries are engaged, we examine which document is said to be obtainable through which official channel. An offer to confirm any chosen personal details in return for money does not produce reliable evidence of identity. A document's origins and how it was created matter just as much as its outward appearance. Translation or certification does not make substantively false evidence correct. The Federal Foreign Office provides information on the use of official documents internationally, including the different procedures.

We examine the specific problem a request for further evidence is intended to solve: identifying the person, citizenship, spelling or a document’s authenticity. Our response relates available evidence and remaining obstacles to that question. A general reference to difficult circumstances is often insufficient.

If a document has been requested but not issued, we report progress within the current deadline. If more time is needed, we explain our request for an extension by reference to progress and the next available steps; requesting an extension does not mean it has been granted. § 82(1) and (3) AufenthG permits a reasonable cooperation deadline and requires notice of the consequences of missing it. Late evidence is not automatically disregarded: the authority must consider the statutory conditions and its discretion, particularly the reason for delay and the importance of the evidence.

If the requested action cannot reasonably be required, we explain why in concrete terms and identify accessible alternatives. Declining dangerous contact with an embassy does not mean that an interview by the German authority or the submission of existing documents must also be refused. The proceedings can then focus on the possibilities that actually remain.

A child's identity must also be established. Who takes procedural steps on the child's behalf, however, depends on the rules on representation. Under § 34 sentence 1 StAG, a person generally has capacity to act independently in nationality proceedings from their sixteenth birthday; the exceptions specified there concerning legal incapacity or court-appointed adult representation subject to a consent requirement must still be observed. For younger children, the legal representatives act. This age threshold does not provide an exemption from identity evidence and is not the same as the age of majority.

The necessary knowledge may be spread across several people. A young person may not personally remember how their parents obtained documents in the past. We then identify which person each piece of information comes from. A birthday during ongoing family proceedings can also change who makes statements independently. The article Acting independently, legal representation and authorising an attorney explains the details. Cooperation must not presuppose a reliable memory of events the person could not have experienced themselves because of their age.

We clarify inconsistencies in your documents early and explain their actual cause. A different transliteration of a name must be treated differently from a change in date of birth or nationality. The article Correcting discrepancies in names, dates of birth and earlier statements explains the important steps. The overview Evidence where a passport is missing or cannot be obtained offers further guidance on selecting possible alternative evidence.

If significant doubts remain after the overall examination, naturalisation may fail because identity has not been established. However, neither “no passport, no naturalisation” nor “everything has been tried, so naturalisation must be granted” is an automatic rule. The crucial next step is to bring the specific limits on obtaining documents together with the available evidence so that the authority can examine identity on the basis of the full facts.