20

I applied for German Schengen visa as a medical escort to my relative in a different country from where I reside, but my visa application was refused and the refusal letter was written in German as the following:

  1. Ein oder mehrere Mitgliedstaaten sind der Auffassung, dass Sie eine Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung, die innere Sicherheit, die öffentliche Gesundheit gemäß Artikel 2 Absatz 19 der Verordnung (EG) Nr 562/2006 (Schengener Grenzkodex) oder die internationalen Beziehungen eines oder mehrerer Mitgliedstaaten darstellen.

I was in Germany for nearly a year with my relative during his treatment; I extended my stay there 3 times; and I returned back home two months ago in order to renew my passport. I applied again using the same documents that I used for my extension in Germany.

First, can anyone tell me what the refusal means? Next, is there any possibility that there is a mistake in the assessment?

Note: In English this reason is...

One or more member state(s) consider you to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health as defined in Article 2(19) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) or the international relations of one or more of the member states).

Gayot Fow
  • 85,024
  • 26
  • 229
  • 405
Nadrine
  • 201
  • 2
  • 3
  • 5
    This is translated as: "6. One or more Member State(s) consider you to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health as defined in Article 2(19) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) or the international relations of one or more of the Member States." – Michael Hampton Oct 18 '15 at 19:33
  • 4
    Are you quite certain that this box was ticked? Did you receive any additional information with your refusal? If so, please provide it. Do you know of anything in your personal circumstances which may have caused such a refusal? If so, please describe those circumstances, and someone may be able to help you. – Michael Hampton Oct 18 '15 at 19:35
  • 2
    Yes this box was ticked and I didn't receive any further information. I don't have any personal circumstances, I am a lecturer at the University and I was a postgraduate student in on of the top Universities in UK , I usually visit Europe as a medical escort to my parents or a tourist and I respected the law of every country I visited an I've never ever faced any problems with the authorities in any country. – Nadrine Oct 18 '15 at 20:42
  • 2
    Mistaken identity? – Andrew Lazarus Oct 19 '15 at 02:34
  • 1
    Have you been deported or banned or questioned at the border by other EU member states, other than Germany? – pbu Apr 15 '16 at 20:03
  • Related: Schengen visa to Norway to visit my wife refused – phoog Dec 07 '16 at 13:17

1 Answers1

36

Refusal on these grounds...

One or more member state(s) consider you to be a threat to public policy, internal security, public health as defined in Article 2(19) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (Schengen Borders Code) or the international relations of one or more of the member states).

...means you will require a law practitioner with a specialty in EU law. It is a waste of time to solicit advice from the internet because the answers will fall into one of four categories...

  • Get a lawyer
  • Do something stupid (forged passport or covert entry)
  • Rants from jingos telling you and your kind to stay where you are
  • Incoherent drivel from random morons

People who have become listed as threats to the zone's security have backstories that require lengthy discourse with a specialist and there are no other viable alternatives. The same rationale goes for questions about appealing the decision. Attempting an appeal on this reason is perilous and moreover risks having all your stuff entered into the public domain! See a qualified practitioner!

The practitioner is needed even if the time window for an appeal has elapsed. There are data protection laws and freedom of information laws that require local expertise to navigate successfully. "Clearing your name" is not a simple job.

Related answer: Schengen Visa Refusal: Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable

NOTE: In order to preempt the natural corollary, let's add that...

  • The consulate has already told the Department of Homeland Security in the USA that you are trying to mobilize;
  • The consulate has already told the other Schengen members about it;
  • The consulate has informed its colonial missions abroad; and
  • The consulate has informed the UK that you are attempting to mobilize and the UK has in turn informed the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth members to put a stop flag on your passport.

. Update 21 April 2016

Questions from phoog (to whom thanks) about the possibility of this refusal arising from mistaken identity prompted an exchange of email with a specialist. The result being that this reason ("One or more member state(s) consider you to be a threat to public policy...") means they got a biometrics hit or some other conclusively positive match. It's not like the American no-fly list where people with the same names generate confusion. Instead it means that person (and nobody else) is in trouble and it's not going to get fixed in the near term. Hence the above answer still applies. I am taking the advanced law course in Schengen this summer and may add another update to this answer after that.

Also note that if they cannot get a positive, verifiable match they will not use this reason; instead they will use Schengen Visa Refusal: Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not reliable

Related article on requesting your transcript from the Schengen Information System: How can I find out if someone is in the Schengen Information System (SIS)? Note: even if you find erroneous information in your transcript, you'll still need a skillful practitioner to get it officially removed and restored to its original state.

Community
  • 1
Gayot Fow
  • 85,024
  • 26
  • 229
  • 405
  • 1
    Any reasons that you could think of that would cause refusals like these, they look pretty extreme. – nikhil Apr 15 '16 at 15:35
  • Very interesting, I didn't know that countries provided such specific reasons for refusal, I'd have thought that they'd provide a vague reason... – nikhil Apr 15 '16 at 15:43
  • 3
    Suppose the person has been refused on these grounds because of a case of mistaken identity. (The linked question was asked by an "Abdullah Khan"; this must be a fairly common name.) Are the services of a lawyer also necessary in such a case, to correct the mistaken identification of the traveler? I mean, in this case, the back story is not so complicated, is it? – phoog Apr 15 '16 at 17:34
  • @GayotFow I doubt many terrorist watch lists have biometrics, however, though I don't know the specifics of how people get added to such a list. Isn't it possible that someone has evidence that an Abdullah Khan is engaging in terrorism, and that this information has been incorrectly associated with a different Abdullah Kahn? It certainly seems to work that way with the US no-fly list, at least. – phoog Apr 15 '16 at 17:44
  • 1
    @GayotFow but I have no idea how one would go about doing that, which is why I asked you whether you know if it would be possible. – phoog Apr 15 '16 at 17:51
  • 3
    @phoog Generally, people are positively identified by the three data points name, birth date and birth place. One of the big sources of confusion here is when names in non-Latin scripts are transliterated. So, mistaken identity is certainly possible, but you still really need the solicitor to sort it out. – Michael Hampton Jun 29 '16 at 00:25
  • 1
    Did you learn something relevant to this answer in the summer course? – Carsten S Dec 07 '16 at 10:07
  • 1
    In the comments for this similar question it is also alleged that mistaken identity is common, rather than these sorts of rejections being the result of a "positive, verifiable match." That's Norway rather than Germany, but questions remain. – phoog Dec 07 '16 at 13:21
  • @GayotFow I certainly cannot. I'll ask over at the other question. – phoog Dec 08 '16 at 23:51
  • 5
    The bit about biometrics is demonstrably false, warnings regarding ”threats to public policy, etc.” have been part of the system and used for more than a decade, biometrics have just been rolled out systematically in the last few years. Even with biometrics on file for all visa holders, they are not kept forever and won't be available for everyone a member state might deem dangerous. Warnings are certainly not restricted to that, legally or practically. The lengthy introduction and the Q&A style makes this answer too rambling, -1 from me until it's cleaned up to focus on the useful parts. – Relaxed Jul 02 '17 at 13:18
  • 3
    @CarstenS yes, almost all of this answer was taken from course material or questions raised by the other students. I am sure that this answer is up-to-date and accurate as of autumn 2016. – Gayot Fow Jul 02 '17 at 13:58
  • 1
    @Relaxed "Even with biometrics on file for all visa holders, they are not kept forever and won't be available for everyone a member state might deem dangerous": why does it matter how long they're kept for visa holders? A refusal like this can happen even on a first visa application; the point is that the biometrics can be matched with non-visa databases, not with prior visa applications. They take the biometrics at the application and then presumably compare them against criminal databases, where criminals' fingerprints are presumably retained indefinitely. – phoog Jun 22 '18 at 17:16
  • 1
    @phoog The point is confused and demonstrably false. For the most part, there are no extensive biometrics in non-visa databases, whether it's SIS warnings or what not. On a first application, there is therefore nothing to compare them to. That remark stemmed from an attempt at a more charitable interpretation looking for a class of foreign citizens whose biometrics might actually be on file, namely those who have got a visa before. And it applies equally to a run-of-the-mill refusals. The basic fact is that biometrics serve another purpose (fighting visa fraud) and are not kept forever. – Relaxed Jun 22 '18 at 18:11
  • 1
    Incidentally, it's not the first time the OP grossly overestimates how systematic visa and border enforcement really are and mischaracterizes the capacity of current technology in this area. – Relaxed Jun 22 '18 at 18:18
  • @Relaxed do you suggest that the check against "Member States' national databases" (Schengen Visa Code Art. 21(3)(d), Art. 32(1)(a)(vi)) does not employ biometrics? Don't they run the fingerprints and pictures through Interpol's systems or search databases containing fingerprints of suspected terrorists? I agree that a refusal on these grounds doesn't imply that a biometric match was made; perhaps they matched a record without biometrics. But the EU would be negligent not to check biometrics against records that have them. – phoog Jun 22 '18 at 18:54
  • 1
    @phoog I am not saying it's forbidden or it's never happened, I am saying it's not generally happening to any significant extent and the excessive focus on this is misleading. Even the checks you mention would primarily be based on name and aliases, biometrics are often completely missing and data quality and reliable large-scale processing are also more challenging than commonly acknowledged. Even when some data is available, fingerprints would typically be used as a secondary check or when someone attracted additional attention for some other reasons. – Relaxed Jun 22 '18 at 19:40
  • 1
    Besides, as you know, the EU really doesn't do any of these things, member states do and they have widely different practices and resources. For example, they are just finishing to roll out biometrics collection for visa applications and still in the planing phase for a “simple” entry-exit database that everyone seem to assume must have existed for years. That's the reality of the Schengen area today, far removed from the OP's sci-fi scenario of systematic biometrics comparison and positive match behind most refusals as a threat to public policy, etc. – Relaxed Jun 22 '18 at 19:47