Passport requirements for refugees and contact with the embassy of the country of origin

If the authority requests a home-country passport despite your refugee status, we assess the particular requirement and possible risks of embassy contact. On the one hand, they have protection from persecution; on the other, they are asked to submit a document from that country for naturalisation. The legal answer depends on why the passport is needed, which protection status they hold and what obtaining it specifically requires. There is neither an unconditional duty to visit an embassy nor a general exemption from establishing identity.

European rules must also be taken into account. Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 has applied since 1 July 2026. Article 11(1)(a) concerns voluntarily re-availing oneself of the protection of the country of origin; Article 14 governs withdrawal of refugee status. The conditions still do not attach to just any form of contact. The Qualification Regulation therefore provides the current starting point.

Alongside it are the supplementary German provisions in § 73b AsylG and transitional law. Which rules apply over time depends on the relevant asylum or withdrawal proceedings, not simply on the date of the naturalisation application; § 87e AsylG refers for this purpose to the European Asylum Procedure Regulation. Older explanations relying solely on a former version of § 72 or § 73 AsylG must therefore not be read unchanged as statements of today's law.

We include the German authority’s request in your case records. It can make the reason for a document application clear. However, it is no guarantee that every document signed in connection with the appointment or every additional statement will be without significance. If the diplomatic or consular mission requires more than the usual information for a document, that additional content in particular must be examined.

When assessing an embassy appointment, two objections may arise alongside one another. The first concerns possible legal consequences for protection status. The second concerns actual dangers, for example to relatives. Resolving the first objection does not dispose of the second. Contact made solely to obtain documents may take place without voluntarily re-availing oneself of protection, yet still disclose information that enables reprisals. These dangers must be considered when determining the limits of the duty to cooperate.

Conversely, a harmless administrative enquiry does not prove that every subsequent statement would also be reasonable to require. We therefore assess each requested action separately: enquiry, personal attendance, signature, payment and travel. A request from a German authority documents the reason for acting; it changes neither the contents of foreign forms nor the actual powers available to the authorities of the country of origin.

Recognised persecution can be highly relevant to reasonableness. It makes a difference whether the persecution came from state bodies, whether the diplomatic or consular mission is connected to the actors feared and whether contact would disclose information about the person or their family. The duty to cooperate ends where the specific action would create an unacceptable danger.

Such a danger does not first have to materialise through a trial visit to the embassy. Where there are specific indications, these should initially be presented to the German authority. Examples might include threats already experienced, earlier questioning of relatives or a clear connection between the consular procedure and the bodies against which protection was granted. We connect general reports with the specific circumstances of your situation.

Nor may it be assumed that relatives in the country of origin can step in without danger. A register enquiry by a family member can also attract attention. Whether instructing an attorney or making a purely written enquiry would be a suitable alternative must be examined specifically. The article Cooperation: when obtaining documents is impossible or unreasonable addresses the general requirements for explaining these circumstances.

In everyday language, many people with different protection decisions are described as refugees. For the legal assessment, the precise contents of the decision are crucial. Recognised refugees, people granted subsidiary protection and people subject to a national prohibition on deportation do not have the same legal position in every respect. The particular travel document available cannot be determined simply from the general term “protection” either.

For people with subsidiary protection in particular, obtaining a passport may generally be required even though return is prohibited. This does not mean that every condition imposed by the consulate is reasonable. The requirements for a travel document for foreigners and the establishment of identity for naturalisation concern different procedures. Information about burdensome conditions for obtaining documents must therefore be related to the particular question being considered.

A declaration of repentance involving self-incrimination in criminal matters, required in order to obtain a passport, may be unreasonable if the person concerned plausibly explains that they do not wish to make it. The precise contents of required declarations therefore also matter to the assessment. This yields neither a general exception for all nationals of a country nor a conclusion that every contact is safe for everyone entitled to subsidiary protection.

A consular appointment often consists of several steps. Personal details, earlier documents, proof of fees and various declarations may be required. We do not group these different requirements under “passport application” without examining them. An ordinary identity form must be assessed differently from an admission of guilt or a declaration of political loyalty.

We review requested forms before signature using a reliable translation and explain their legal significance. Statements about offences, acceptance of punishment or willingness to return are particularly relevant. Where a document contains such declarations, signing is not merely an administrative step. Equally, we do not assume without examination that every signed form amounts to renewed reliance on the home state’s protection.

Payments demanded must also be distinguished according to their nature and amount. The legal assessment of a standard issuance fee cannot automatically be applied to additional levies. The assessment of a declaration of repentance does not automatically answer the separate question of whether financial demands are reasonable. For an individual assessment, the actual wording of the demand, the basis of calculation and the connection with document issuance are therefore more important than general reports about supposedly identical conditions everywhere.

A request to obtain a document must not be implicitly understood as a request to travel to the home country. If the diplomatic or consular mission requires personal attendance in the country of origin, a new question arises. The issue is then no longer simply a consular appointment in Germany, but also the dangers of travel and possible effects on protection status.

The current version of § 73b(1a) AsylG provides for a presumption, in the event of travel to the country of origin, that the conditions for protection no longer exist; it contains an exception for travel compelled by overriding moral obligations. We therefore assess a journey to obtain documents separately rather than treating it as a simple substitute for other options. Whether and how this provision applies in the particular proceedings must be clarified before travelling. The relevant wording is set out in the Asylum Act.

If the information received indicates that issuing the document requires travel, we explain this to the German authority. Wherever possible, this should include the foreign body's written requirement and information about other routes examined. This makes clear the point at which an initially conceivable route to obtaining documents becomes a substantially more far-reaching action.

A request for a passport from the naturalisation authority is not itself a decision on refugee status. If the Federal Office has found that the conditions for withdrawal, revocation or rescission are met and has notified the foreigners authority, the special rule in § 73b(4) AsylG must also be observed: until the relevant decision becomes final, the asylum decision ceases to have binding effect for naturalisation proceedings. This particular interim situation must be distinguished from a mere enquiry about identity documents. The fact that a travel document is still held therefore does not, by itself, show what binding effect currently exists.

Residence rights must also be examined separately. Whether earlier periods of residence can be counted is not the same question as which status is required at naturalisation. The overview of recognised refugees and other protection statuses addresses these connections. In communications, we distinguish a hearing, decision and filed remedy; a notice of review is not yet a final loss of protection.

A proper assessment initially requires the full protection decision, not just the residence title card. Earlier passports, identity cards, civil status certificates and existing correspondence may also be relevant. Even an expired document can provide information about earlier personal details and the circumstances of its issuance without thereby meeting every current evidential requirement.

Where there has been earlier embassy contact, we clarify its actual reason and course with you. A previous appointment proves neither that every future visit is reasonable nor that protection automatically ceased. If different conditions applied at the time or the personal situation was different, that forms part of the assessment. Contradictory or incomplete accounts, by contrast, make evaluation more difficult.

If obtaining a national passport is unreasonable or impossible, the process of establishing identity must continue using the remaining evidence. This may include an existing passport substitute, an identity card, other official records and, subject to further conditions, non-official records and witness statements. What matters is whether they reliably link the person to the details provided and whether their origins can be traced.

We assess the authority’s request and prepare a reasoned response connecting protection status, specific risk and available alternatives. Where a deadline is running, we also explain what clarification is still required. This focuses the procedure on the decisive questions: what cooperation is possible and reasonable for you, and how can your identity be established using accessible evidence?