Periods of study, vocational training or permission to stay during an asylum procedure

We assess which earlier periods of study, vocational training or asylum proceedings can count towards your naturalisation application. When naturalisation later appears possible, the question arises whether these early years already count. The answer depends on the legal basis at the time and what happened afterwards. It is particularly important to distinguish between crediting earlier periods and the residence title that must be held at the time of naturalisation.

The general entitlement to naturalisation under § 10 paragraph 1 StAG normally requires five years of lawful habitual residence in Germany. In addition, you must have a residence status suitable for naturalisation. This second requirement must not be applied retrospectively to every day of the preceding five years. An earlier title may therefore be suitable for counting the time, even though it would not allow naturalisation as an entitlement if held as your current status.

This is particularly important for students. A residence permit under § 16b AufenthG is among the current purposes of residence excluded by the Nationality Act. However, this does not mean that all years of study are removed from the residence calculation. If the studies were followed by continued lawful residence, the periods of study may already contribute to the required duration, provided the statutory requirements are met.

The distinction also works the other way round: a suitable employment title held today does not automatically make every earlier period count. The following in particular still require separate assessment:

• Earlier periods of tolerated stay;

• Periods abroad;

• Stays solely for the purpose of visiting. We therefore assess earlier periods first, followed by the residence status required at naturalisation. Only when both questions have been answered can your progress towards the required residence period be assessed reliably.

When assessed retrospectively, a residence permit issued for education or training can support lawful habitual residence if it opened a route to a permanent residence position. The development of the residence is decisive; the initially limited educational purpose does not exclude its later consideration across the board.

It is therefore not only a question of whether the card at the time stated “study”. The actual residence in Germany, its legal basis and the subsequent course of events must be considered. A short exchange stay followed by a permanent departure is assessed differently from several years of study followed by continued life in Germany. Longer semesters abroad can likewise raise specific questions about interruptions, even if enrolment at a German university continued.

For some permanent residence rights, there are special rules on crediting periods of study or training. This is the source of the widespread assumption that a year of study generally counts as only half a year. That assumption cannot be applied across the board to naturalisation. The different statutory standards must be kept separate. Where lawful habitual residence qualifies, periods of study can be counted in full under nationality law.

A simplified example: someone first lives in Germany for four years with a student residence permit and then for one and a half years with a suitable employment title. If the residence as a whole meets the requirements and there are no adverse interruptions, it is not appropriate to assume only three and a half qualifying years simply because of the period of study. The calculation may instead include the entire qualifying period. This does not yet say anything about income, identity or the other requirements for naturalisation.

The date of graduation does not automatically restart the naturalisation residence period either. Graduation may be important for a change of title, but it is not a general statutory starting point for calculating residence. If an authority reduces study periods, we examine its legal basis and whether requirements for another residence title have been confused with naturalisation requirements.

A change of degree course or an additional semester does not necessarily interrupt habitual residence. Under residence law, however, the specific course of events must be covered by the existing title or a new decision by the authority. Whether a university permits the change is a separate question from whether the residence title continues to cover the changed circumstances. Supplementary sheets and decisions may be decisive here.

Graduation may be followed by a period of job seeking. Here too, crediting the time and assessing the current status for naturalisation are separate matters. Lawfully continued habitual residence may contribute to the overall duration, while a particular job-seeking title may not suffice for immediate naturalisation as an entitlement. An employment contract alone does not replace the required change of title. Conversely, the new residence card does not necessarily have to have been held for five years already.

Vocational training may be associated with different residence documents. A residence permit under § 16a AufenthG is different from tolerated stay for vocational training (Ausbildungsduldung) under § 60c AufenthG. Both may allow participation in training, but they differ in terms of the lawfulness of residence. Tolerated stay remains, in principle, a temporary suspension of deportation. The training undertaken does not, by itself, turn it into a residence permit.

With a residence permit for vocational training, the periods may contribute to the required residence duration under the general requirements. However, § 16a AufenthG is expressly excluded as a current title by § 10 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 2 StAG. A suitable subsequent title, for example for skilled employment, may therefore be needed. Receiving training pay already does not remove this statutory distinction.

There is also the residence permit under § 16g AufenthG for vocational training for certain foreign nationals required to leave Germany. It must not be equated with § 16a or tolerated stay for vocational training merely because the purpose of training is similar. § 16g does not appear in the current list of exclusions in § 10 StAG. This does not retrospectively make earlier periods of tolerated stay for vocational training count. If the same training is initially undertaken with tolerated stay and later continued with this residence permit, the training employer may remain unchanged, while the legal assessment of residence changes from the start of the title. The training contract and the residence-law decisions must therefore be recorded separately in the timeline. Whether naturalisation is possible continues to depend on all the other requirements and the specific residence history.

Residence may be permitted during an asylum procedure through an Aufenthaltsgestattung. § 55 paragraph 3 AsylG contains a special rule on counting this time. The period is taken into account if the person is recognised as entitled to asylum or has been granted international protection. International protection includes refugee protection and subsidiary protection. It is therefore not sufficient merely to ask whether there was a “positive decision” at some point; the precise content of the decision is needed.

If the relevant protection is granted, preceding periods covered by permission to stay during the asylum procedure may be credited towards the residence duration. The time taken to process the asylum procedure is then not generally lost. The later issue of the residence permit does not necessarily mark the beginning of the entire calculation. A complete overview therefore also includes earlier certificates of permission to stay and evidence of when the procedure began among the relevant documents.

A national prohibition of deportation under § 60 paragraph 5 or 7 AufenthG, by contrast, is not the same as international protection. Nor does a residence permit on family or other grounds following an unsuccessful asylum procedure automatically lead to all earlier periods of permission to stay being credited. The later lawfulness and the special crediting rule for the earlier procedure must be assessed separately. Naturalisation with refugee protection and other protection statuses provides further explanations of the relevant differences.

For older residence histories, the start of the qualifying period of permission to stay must not be derived solely from the current statutory text. The requirements for permission to stay to arise have changed several times. Depending on the period, registration, proof of arrival and formal submission of the application, for example, may have different legal significance. A certificate issued only later therefore does not always have to coincide with the actual beginning of the statutory effect.

The version of § 55 AsylG amended with effect from 12 June 2026 refers to the European Asylum Procedure Regulation and the right to remain governed by it. § 87e AsylG contains transitional provisions for older procedures. For a naturalisation calculation, it is therefore necessary to establish which version covers the particular earlier period. A label on a form used today cannot replace the law applicable at the time.

We record entry, the first request for protection, registration, submission of the application, certificates and the protection decision in their actual sequence. We then use the applicable law to determine which event marks the start of countable residence. This avoids both starting too late solely at the card date and counting every period since entry without assessment.

For study and training periods, we compare residence titles with enrolment, the start of training, graduation records and subsequent decisions on residence purpose. This shows how the education phase developed into continued residence. A complete study record does not replace missing evidence of lawful residence; we assess both groups together because they answer different questions.

For asylum procedures, the full decision and, where applicable, court decisions are needed. What matters is the form of protection actually granted and which periods belong to the successful procedure. Where there were several asylum applications, we assess each procedure separately rather than treating them as one uninterrupted procedure without examination. For such histories, the article on tolerated stay, subsequent asylum procedures and periods of deemed status explains the particular distinctions.

Someone who already holds a suitable residence status on family or protection grounds during training or studies does not need a different title merely because of that educational path. The exclusion rule for § 16b AufenthG likewise does not apply to EU citizens entitled to freedom of movement. School pupils, trainees and students covers these questions, as well as funding and educational evidence; this article focuses on the periods that count.