The Federal Office for Migration and Asylum (BAMF) cooperated with UNHCR and participated in voluntary humanitarian admission program since 2012, having the Federal Ministry of the Interior issuing admission orders under this framework. The latter ordered BAMF since 10 April 2024 to grant admission orders to up to 6,350 third country nationals or stateless persons who are residing in Egypt, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, or Pakistan, or who were evacuated from Libya as part of the resettlement program and who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR in the resettlement procedure, based on specific selection criteria.

An applicant from South Sudan, suffering of several medical condition (neurological condition resulting a severely weakened physical state, limited mobility requiring full-time care, and dependency of regular medical treatment and specific diet) was selected by UNHCR for resettlement. The admission procedure was completed with an admission decision issued by the BAMF on 1st February 2025, as part of the visa application process and she and five family members were selected for resettlement. The family was flown from Kakuma to Nairobi at the beginning of May 2025 but their flight to Germany as cancelled at a short notice and the family returned to Kakuma.

By motion submitted on 28 May 2025, the applicant requested the Berlin Administrative Court to order BAMF to facilitate her immediate entry into Germany. By decision of 18 August 2025, the Berlin Administrative Court rejected the motion by reasoning that the applicant could not derive any right to the issuance of a visa from the admission commitment issued by the BAMF, because that commitment had not become effective due to a lack of notification and no right could be derived based on the principle of legitimate expectations. The court affirmed that admission order issued by the BAMF pursuant to Section 23 (4) of the Residence Act did not establish a direct right to admission, and the same was envisaged by Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

On appeal, the applicant sought legal protection and to be issued a visa by BAMF for the purpose of a residence permit pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 4 of the Residence Act. The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg allowed the appeal and found that the applicant successfully demonstrated that the overall circumstances of the admission procedure implicitly granted her and her family members a commitment for admission pursuant to Section 23 (4) of the Residence Act and BAMF was obligated to facilitate access to Germany, by issuing a visa, a travel document and organising her travel.

The court noted the chronology of the steps which included: visa application contained a signed document by BAMF on 1st February 2025 according to which the applicant and five family members were granted a commitment to resettlement pursuant to Section 23 Paragraph 4 of the German Residence Act, upon successful completion of the visa application process is successfully completed. The notice also mentioned that this commitment was valid for six months from the date of notification of this decision, with an exemption from the passport requirement for the same period. A note from the embassy (page 11 of the visa application) contained information on the interviews as conducted by BAMFG, who also took fingerprints. No doubts appeared to have been raised about the applicants' statements or their suitability for resettlement during the selection interviews and the security/health check did not raise any doubts. Also, the court found no evidence to suggest that a visa for admission under the resettlement program should have not be granted. According to the file, due to the lack of a valid identification document, the applicant will be issued a travel document for foreigners by the German mission abroad and the document concluded that: "The visa was issued on 16 January 2025."

It was undisputed that the BAMF’s admission notice of 1st February 2025 was not served to the applicant, but the court reiterated that Section 37 (2) Sentence 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act, an administrative act can be issued and communicated not only in writing or orally, but also in other ways – for example, through implied conduct. The case law from the Federal Administrative Court regarding this Section clarified that an implied conduct presupposed, in an objective manner, that, the recipient could deduct and understand an administrative action as an official regulation of an individual case. The court found these requirements as met in this case because the commitment to admission was communicated to the applicant, based on the overall circumstances of the admission procedure. Thus, first the BAMF initiated a procedure for visa application and for issuing a travel document for the third country nationals on 9 December 2024 and organised the completion of a health examination and participation in a cultural preparation course for admission to Germany, as  conducted by the IOM on 31 December 2024. These procedures could only be interpreted by the applicant as having the meaning of a favourable decision although the official notification was dated 1st February 2025. After issuance of the admission notification, the BAMF in its capacity of responsible authority, informed a supporter of the applicant, who had contacted the embassy in Nairobi requesting expedited processing, by email on 6 March 2025, that it was still awaiting the issuance of the exit permits by the Kenyan government, stating: "As soon as these are available, the family will travel to Germany." This statement of the BAMF constituted a disclosure of its previously made commitment to accept the applicant, because, in view of the preceding inquiry, it had to assume that its response would be forwarded by the supporter to the applicant (as it happened). Based on the above, the court concluded that the BAMF assumed, in an unequivocal way, that the applicant would indeed be admitted to the federal territory.

The court further noted the preparations for the travel, the fact that the applicants had to give up their accommodation in the refugee camo when they left Kakuma and this could have been done only by relying on a binding decision concerning their admission. The applicants were flown from Kakuma to Nairobi and all the steps of the procedure and travel arrangements were initiated by IOM and other agencies at the BAMF initiative.

The court rejected BAMF’s assertations according to which those affected are "always also informed" that none of the procedural steps leads to admission to Germany, but rather that the process is only completed with the issuance of the admission notice and the visa shortly before departure. On the contrary, the court assessed in particular the BAMF statement of March 2025 according to which departure depended solely on the Kenyan authorities' exit permit, meaning that a binding decision regarding acceptance was to be kept open until departure, despite the already organised and announced flight to Germany and the transfer to Nairobi

The court ruled that the applicant can derive a right to immediate entry from the admission notice issued by the BAMF, which has become effective against her, because the other requirements for issuing a visa were also met as stated in BAMF’s submissions.

Moreover, the court found that the applicant demonstrated to have serious grounds for the injunction in view of her medical situation, as she was found by UNHCR since October 2024 as being in a life-threatening situation and admitted to hospital in November 2024. According to the court, the applicant convincingly demonstrated lack of adequate medical support in the refugee camo and the absence of state or humanitarian support, which led to deterioration of her condition.