THE BOTTOM LINE
- Humanitarian claims require hard evidence: Businesses supporting visa applications for employees’ family members must ensure that any claims of hardship, such as the effects of a natural disaster, are backed by strong, verifiable documentation. Courts will not waive standard procedures based on unsubstantiated assertions.
- Standard visa processes are the default: Even in compelling circumstances, foreign nationals are expected to follow standard immigration procedures, including applying for long-stay visas from their home country. This ruling confirms that exceptions are rare and narrowly interpreted.
- Temporary policies are not open-ended: Relying on temporary government leniency policies is a significant risk. This case demonstrates that once a special policy expires, the standard, stricter rules are rigidly enforced.
THE DETAILS
This case concerned a Turkish national who applied for a Dutch residence permit to join her husband, a Turkish national legally residing in the Netherlands. The applicant argued she should be exempt from the standard requirement to obtain a long-stay entry visa (an MVV) from her home country. Her claim was based on exceptional circumstances: she and her daughter were victims of the severe 2023 earthquake in Eastern Turkey, which she claimed had destroyed their home and left them without a place to live. The Dutch Immigration Service denied the application, and the court has now upheld that decision.
The court’s decision hinged on the burden of proof. It ruled that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient, verifiable evidence to support her claim of being a victim of the earthquake. While she provided some documents and personal statements, the court found them inadequate to confirm she was from the affected area or that her home was destroyed. The court also noted that the applicant remained in Turkey for over six months after the earthquake, only traveling to the Netherlands after a temporary leniency policy for earthquake victims had already expired. This delay undermined the urgency of her claim and the argument that she could not return to Turkey to complete the visa process.
The court also dismissed broader legal arguments. It rejected the claim that ending the temporary leniency policy constituted an illegal “new restriction” under the EU-Turkey Association Agreement, clarifying that terminating a temporary, compassionate measure does not violate the agreement’s standstill provisions. Furthermore, the court found no violation of the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. It concluded that it was reasonable to expect the family to either reunite in Turkey or for the applicant to temporarily return there to follow the correct visa application procedure. This decision reinforces the state’s significant interest in maintaining regulated immigration controls.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague)
