Particular learning difficulties, sustained efforts and evidence of hardship

Some people can communicate in German in everyday life but do not reach the usual B1 level despite persistent study. Others have very limited opportunities to learn because of an exceptional, lasting burden. The Nationality Act contains a hardship provision for situations like these. It requires an individual assessment: what has actually been tried, what is preventing further language acquisition, and why does reaching B1 in particular remain permanently impossible or substantially more difficult?

Under § 10 subsection 4a StAG, the language requirement may be limited to oral communication in everyday life. This requires that acquiring German at B1 level is impossible or permanently substantially more difficult despite serious and sustained efforts. The provision is intended to avoid hardship in a specific case. It does not offer a general alternative to the B1 examination for everyone who would prefer to provide simpler evidence.

Limiting the language requirement is a matter for the authority's discretion. However, the word “may” does not mean that the decision can be arbitrary. The authority must assess the individual case in light of the purpose of the legislation. Applicants must first provide clear evidence of the facts supporting the exception; the authority must then decide whether to grant the concession to avoid the hardship.

Not having a B1 certificate is not the same as not having B1 language skills. Someone who has completed suitable schooling in Germany, for example, may be able to demonstrate their language skills without an additional examination. We therefore first establish whether alternative evidence through school, vocational training or university study is already available. Preparing extensive evidence of hardship may then be unnecessary.

We likewise assess the other statutory exceptions first. A special oral language requirement already applies to certain former guest workers, contract workers and spouses who joined them. They do not also have to prove unsuccessful efforts to learn at B1 level in order to use that special provision. An age-appropriate standard applies to children under 16. These situations are discussed in the article on children, guest workers and contract workers.

Where a person is unable to meet the requirements because of illness, disability or age, § 10 subsection 6 sentence 1 StAG may apply. This exemption is mandatory where its conditions are met and can go further. The general hardship provision must not result in someone first having to prove years of unsuccessful learning attempts when a health-related exemption applies. The explanations on illness, disability and age-related limitations help distinguish the provisions.

The authority must be able to see that the person has genuinely tried to acquire the necessary knowledge. Enrolling on a language course initially shows only an intention to attend. It does not yet prove that the person attended lessons, completed assignments or prepared for examinations. What matters is evidence of actual efforts, not merely enrolment.

We compile suitable evidence: attendance certificates showing hours and absences, course completions and examination records. A factual statement from a teacher familiar with the person's learning progress is particularly helpful. It can describe which skills have improved, which difficulties recur and what support has already been tried.

We also include independent learning outside a course in the account. We describe the materials, frequency and any support for your independent learning specifically. A general assurance that someone has been learning German for many years is less informative than a clear account of their progress supported by additional observations. The aim is not to document every minute, but to distinguish serious efforts from a mere assertion.

We explain interruptions and their reasons in the context of the learning history. Illness, a change of course provider or temporary caring responsibilities can make absences understandable. A list of courses without an explanation of longer gaps, by contrast, leaves open whether the efforts continued. If you resumed learning after an interruption, we document that step too.

A single short attempt will generally do little to establish a permanent limit to language acquisition. Sustained efforts are shown by continuing to work over an appropriate period, taking personal circumstances and capabilities into account. The suitability of the learning provision also matters. A course that moves too quickly may reveal little about the capabilities of someone with no experience of schooling.

The law specifies no fixed minimum number of course hours, examinations or years of study after which the exception automatically applies. Nor is there a statutory entitlement to the concession after a third or fourth failed attempt. Such figures can describe the learning history, but they cannot replace an individual assessment.

What matters instead is what the attempts show. Do certain fundamental difficulties persist despite suitable support? Have the results remained similar over a longer period? Or is there clear progress, suggesting that a further suitable learning step could succeed? Improvements also belong in the account. Concealing them would distort the necessary overall assessment. However, progress does not automatically rule out the concession: someone who can now read short texts may still face a lasting and substantial barrier to meeting the more demanding B1 requirement. The test is not whether learning has come to a complete standstill, but whether the difficulty in reaching the required level meets the statutory description.

A course certificate and an examination certificate answer different questions here. The course certificate may establish actual attendance. The examination certificate shows a level of achievement at a particular point in time. For the forward-looking assessment, both are often needed together with an explanation of the learning history. A teacher's recommendation can be helpful; the decision on hardship within the meaning of the law remains with the authority.

An unsuccessful attempt can have various causes: insufficient preparation, misunderstandings about the examination format, nervousness or persistent difficulties in particular language skills. A “fail” result therefore does not in itself establish permanent inability. What is informative is which areas are affected and how the results develop over time.

If your spoken skills are stronger than reading and writing, we document that specific pattern. It can explain why everyday conversations are possible while the standard language requirement remains out of reach. At the same time, it must be checked whether the test submitted already counts overall as sufficient evidence of B1. In some recognised examination formats, individual weaker component marks do not mean that the evidence as a whole is insufficient.

Conversely, several failed attempts do not automatically establish a hardship case. If all attempts took place without sufficient preparation or using an unsuitable format, further clarification may be needed. The decisive question is not simply how often someone has failed, but what the results reveal about their future capacity to acquire the language.

Someone who has never learnt to read or write in any language must develop additional foundations when learning German. This calls for a different assessment from that of someone moving from a familiar writing system to another. Both can lengthen the learning process, but neither automatically brings the hardship provision into play.

Illiteracy alone is not an illness or disability within the meaning of the health-related exemption. That does not mean that individual difficulties must be disregarded. Instead, the question is what learning opportunities and support are suitable in the particular case and what progress realistically appears possible.

If you lack experience of schooling, we assess whether an expert evaluation of learning progress would support the submission. We check that the expert assessment explains the observed learning process rather than merely noting reading and writing difficulties. For example, it can describe whether the person consistently recognises letters, understands words or retains new learning, and how this has changed over the duration of the course.

The hardship provision was only introduced in 2024. Older decisions based on the law before this provision existed must therefore not be read as categorically excluding any concession for people who cannot read or write today. Equally, the new law does not contain a general exemption for this group. Personal efforts and the long-term outlook remain decisive.

Not every hardship case is based on a limited capacity to learn. Caring for a relative can also create a situation in which acquiring B1 language skills cannot reasonably be expected in the long term. The person may be capable of learning in principle, but have no realistic opportunity to do so because of exceptional, ongoing caring responsibilities.

A care grade alone does not explain the time the individual has to devote to care. We set out which tasks you actually undertake, when help is needed and whether reliable cover is available. Documents that make both the longer-term care needs and the person's own role clear are particularly informative. These may include care assessment decisions, information about care arrangements and a specific description of the daily routine.

Where attending a course is impossible because of time constraints, the BMI application guidance also requires an explanation of why other support options are insufficient. We set out whether family members, other carers or care services are available and what free time actually remains. The theoretical existence of a service is no substitute for its actual availability, just as a blanket statement that nobody can help is insufficient.

Ordinary childcare, employment or a busy daily life do not in themselves establish language-related hardship. Any exceptional combination of circumstances must be described specifically. Temporary difficulties must be distinguished from a long-term burden. If regular study time is likely to become available soon, this affects the outlook differently from a care situation that has continued for years.

The hardship provision requires more than a look at the most recent examination. Establishing a permanent substantial difficulty requires a reasoned assessment of the future. This must consider a period extending over many years and all circumstances that support or weigh against further language acquisition. These include capabilities, learning experience, available support and the likely development of the burden involved.

This does not mean that every person must first spend a prescribed number of additional years learning unsuccessfully. A forward-looking assessment uses the information already available to judge what can be expected in future. However, it must not rest solely on the applicant having lost hope of success. Observations over a longer period and professional assessments make the expectation understandable.

Age may play a role in this assessment, although the hardship provision contains no fixed age limit. For younger people, closer examination will often be needed of the opportunities for further development that remain. Even then, the individual case is decisive. A person must not be assigned a generic learning profile solely on the basis of their year of birth.

The concession requires the person to be able to communicate in simple German in everyday life. Under the BMI application guidance, the authority can establish this particularly through a personal interview. The focus is on ordinary topics and understandable answers, not flawless grammar or the recitation of memorised legal terms.

Relatives can help with the arrangements. However, the applicant must communicate for themselves. If a third party translates every question and formulates all the answers, this does not demonstrate the required oral ability. As an alternative to an interview, the BMI application guidance allows an existing language certificate at a minimum of A1. This is one way of demonstrating the oral skills that remain necessary, not a statutory obligation to obtain an additional A1 certificate. Before another test is booked, we therefore clarify the appropriate evidence route.

If even this minimum level of oral communication cannot be achieved for health-related or age-related reasons, the wider exemption under § 10 subsection 6 sentence 1 StAG must be considered. The hardship provision in subsection 4a alone does not allow the language requirement to be waived entirely.

When further evidence is requested, we clarify whether the unresolved issue concerns actual efforts, their sustained nature or the long-term prognosis. A targeted addition is usually more helpful than a large, disorganised collection. We also use the documents to show what spoken communication is already possible.

Finally, the language-related hardship provision does not replace assessment of the other requirements. If caring responsibilities also affect subsistence, for example, the rules governing that issue must be considered separately. Language-related hardship is therefore not automatically financial hardship. The exceptions and particular hardship in securing subsistence explain this separate issue.