Exception for full-time employment

Even a full-time salary is not enough to cover all necessary expenses in every household. High housing costs or several family members entitled to maintenance may make supplementary social benefits necessary. The Nationality Act takes this situation into account through a separate exception. Anyone who satisfies it may be entitled to naturalisation even though benefits under SGB II or SGB XII continue to be paid.

The rule concerns the financial requirement for naturalisation by entitlement. It does not replace the required period of residence, clarification of identity or other requirements. Simply signing an employment contract does not create an entitlement to a German passport either. The legal consequence arises only when all the requirements applicable to the individual application are met together.

Through this exception, the legislature recognises sustained efforts towards financial independence. This is particularly significant for people with lower wages and greater family needs. It would be contradictory to make the exception conditional on no supplementary support being needed: that would make it redundant. However, the other circumstances of the employment must be clear.

Not every applicant has to prove twenty months of full-time work. Someone who sustainably covers their own needs and those of family members entitled to maintenance without benefits under SGB II or SGB XII may already satisfy the general financial requirement. This may also be possible through part-time work, a pension, assets or the spouses' combined income.

The twenty-month rule is therefore not a general minimum period of employment for naturalisation. Someone with well-paid part-time work does not have to switch to full-time solely because of their working hours. Conversely, full-time work combined with supplementary Grundsicherungsgeld may be precisely what brings the special provision into play. These two assessment routes must not be conflated.

Since 1 July 2026, the former SGB II cash benefit has been called Grundsicherungsgeld. Authorities may continue to use the term Bürgergeld during a transitional period until the end of 2026. For letter b, what matters remains whether benefits under SGB II or SGB XII are received; the new name does not change the full-time employment exception. §§ 19 and 65a SGB II in the official BA collection

The StAG does not specify a fixed number of weekly hours. For employees, the regular full working hours in the particular employment setting are decisive. A collective agreement, a statutory provision or the usual working hours in the business or sector may provide the benchmark. A thirty-five-hour full-time position under a collective agreement may therefore count as full-time, even though forty hours are usual in other sectors.

We check the agreed working hours against the employment contract. If the designation is unclear, collective agreement documents or an employer's certificate may help. The actual and legal arrangements are decisive. An arbitrarily chosen “full-time” label does not replace plausible working hours, while a different label used within the business does not automatically disprove the actual extent of the work.

Regular overtime does not automatically turn an agreed part-time position into full-time employment for the purposes of the exception. It is necessary to establish whether the additional hours form a binding and lasting part of the work or arise only occasionally. Working-time accounts, contract amendments and payslips may be considerably more informative than an estimate of average hours worked.

For concurrent jobs, we establish the total working hours from the individual contracts. Simply adding together various mini-jobs does not establish with certainty, without further assessment, that the full-time employment exception is satisfied. The law requires full-time economic activity; the administrative guidance does not automatically treat part-time work and marginal employment as equivalent to a regular full-time position. Such combinations require a specific assessment.

The concept of economic activity also includes self-employment. A business owner or freelance professional therefore does not need to be an employee to rely on letter b. Providing evidence is often more difficult because there is no employer to confirm regular working hours, and the boundaries between working time, availability and private activity are less clear.

The official application guidance considers, in particular, whether self-employment is the main focus of the person's economic activity. It mentions more than thirty hours per week as an indicator. This is not a general hourly threshold laid down in the law. The authority must assess the time spent and the financial documents together. An activity registered only on paper is not enough. AH-StAG 2025, number 10, paragraphs 98 to 105

Suitable evidence includes contract documents, invoices, appointment schedules, clear work records and current business financial figures. Preparatory work, bookkeeping and acquiring customers may form part of the actual activity. We align the account with the actual business model. A high number of claimed weekly hours without identifiable contracts and without a clear explanation of financial start-up difficulties is more likely to prompt questions than a well-documented course of activity.

Profit does not have to cover all living expenses simply because the work is self-employment. Supplementary benefit receipt is precisely what the exception addresses. However, very low receipts combined with claims of consistently high working hours may raise the question of whether economic activity is genuinely being carried out to the required extent. We therefore present income levels, working hours and prospects for continuation separately.

The statutory assessment looks backwards from the relevant current point in time. When the authority makes its decision, it must be clear that the last twenty-four months include at least twenty months of full-time work. This is a rolling period. As the proceedings continue, new months are added and older months fall outside the assessment.

A simplified example illustrates the structure: someone who, within the relevant two-year period, worked for eight months at one business, spent three months out of work and then worked for thirteen months at another business has twenty-one full-time months. The statutory rule does not require continuous employment with the same employer. However, the change must be documented, including precise start and end dates.

The position is different if there are only nineteen months of full-time work within the same period. Particularly dedicated work does not replace the missing month. Whether the general subsistence requirement or another exception is met must be assessed separately. An authority cannot lower the statutory number of months out of personal sympathy.

We record partial months using exact start and end dates. The general statement “employed for two years” may be misleading if there were periods of part-time work, unpaid leave or longer interruptions in between. A chronology prevents the same period from being counted twice or a relevant gap from being overlooked. It does not replace the evidence, but makes it easier to check.

Parental leave without actual work, unpaid special leave, longer periods receiving sickness benefit and permanent reductions in working hours raise different questions. The mere continuation of an old full-time contract does not establish twenty months of actual full-time work in every such situation. There is no reason to treat all interruptions alike or promise that they will count without assessing the individual case.

If you reduce working hours for childcare during the proceedings, we also assess the exception for spouses or civil partners with a minor child. It may offer a different legal basis if the partner satisfies the required full-time work conditions. For single parents or two parents both working part-time, an assessment of hardship may instead be relevant.

Where the full-time work rule is met, the official application guidance generally assumes that corresponding economic activity will continue in future. However, it provides for closer examination if specific circumstances indicate that it will not continue. These may include an already confirmed end to employment with no follow-on arrangement, or indications that the activity is merely fictitious.

The assessment must not undermine the purpose of the exception. A person who benefits from the special rule precisely because they work full-time cannot additionally be required to guarantee that they will manage without any supplementary SGB benefit in future. Instead, the administrative guidance focuses on continued economic activity and support that remains merely supplementary. Whether, and to what extent, an additional forward-looking assessment may be required is legally disputed. The statutory wording specifies current full-time work and 20 of the last 24 months; the further requirements in the BMI guidance are an administrative interpretation. They must not be presented as an additional employment period expressly prescribed by law.

A fixed-term contract does not in itself prove a lack of financial prospects. Professional experience, repeated follow-on employment and specific offers of continued work may be important. Conversely, a permanent contract does not make identifiable difficulties disappear. Further explanation is provided in the article on probationary periods, fixed-term contracts, changing jobs and unemployment.

Under the BMI guidance, number 10, paragraph 107, longer periods of benefit receipt before the two-year period may also trigger closer scrutiny. This means neither that those earlier months are included in the statutory 20-out-of-24 calculation nor that past benefit receipt automatically creates a bar. Current developments must be assessed, particularly where vocational training has since been completed, the person has changed occupation or reliable long-term childcare has now been secured. We answer questions about the past using the facts that explain continuation of current full-time work.

An insurance record can support the periods of employment, but does not necessarily prove the precise working hours. Conversely, a contract shows only what was agreed. Only in combination with payslips and, where appropriate, a confirmation does it create a reliable picture of actual economic activity. We explain inconsistencies by their causes, such as retrospective payroll calculations or a change of employer within a month.

For self-employed people, the connection between working hours and business activity is also important. A profit calculation says something about the financial result but little about the time invested. A calendar shows appointments but not all receipts. We align the documents to the same period and explain how they complement one another. Further guidance is provided in the article on fluctuating income and evidence for self-employed applicants.

For full-time employment, we compare wage payments with the payslips. A temporary payment delay is different from an employment contract that is never actually put into effect. If an employer has run into payment difficulties, the available documents help explain the work performed and the current financial situation separately. The naturalisation authority must be able to assess what actually happened.

The benefit decision, in turn, explains why a top-up remains necessary despite employment. This may be due to the number of family members entitled to maintenance or recognised housing costs. A high household benefit does not therefore prove, on its own, that the stated extent of employment is implausible. What is informative is the relationship between work actually performed, the pay received for it and the needs that the family must cover overall.

Failure to meet this particular provision does not decide every possible route. An older application submitted in time may fall under the transitional provision in § 40a StAG. Sufficient financial support without SGB II or SGB XII benefits may make the exception unnecessary. Certain former labour migrants have a separate statutory exception.

Where there are substantial personal difficulties, particular hardship in discretionary naturalisation must also be examined. This is not an automatic substitute for every missing month of full-time work. It involves a separate assessment of the specific burden and the reasonable options for securing subsistence.

For the next steps, we establish whether the gap concerns current full-time work, its duration, suitable evidence or another naturalisation requirement. This distinction helps avoid unnecessary changes in working life and enables targeted submission of the documents needed for the legal decision.