Video summary

Усі питання в одному відео: §24, §25, ВНЖ, ПМЖ, ГРОМАДЯНСТВО | Ефір з адвокатом

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

This video is a live Q&A with a German migration lawyer about Ukrainian migrants’ current status and how they can transition from temporary protection (para. 24) toward other German residence statuses. It also covers options associated with para. 25, work-based residence permits, and later permanent residence and citizenship.

Key points on “§24” (temporary protection)

  • Extension timeline (as of the broadcast): Temporary protection is extended until 4/27 (the auto-text mentions “March 4”; the overall context indicates a continuing EU/German continuation period). Lawmakers are still deciding whether it will be extended again.

  • Lawyer’s expectation: The lawyer expects the EU to likely continue §24 at least for another year while the war continues, but she emphasized that there is uncertainty about the exact policy details.

  • Possible different treatment for specific groups: There was discussion about whether specific groups of men might be treated differently in any future extension (e.g., restrictions or exclusions). No official decision has been made yet.

  • Updates & announcements: The lawyer said she monitors official updates and will share news via the host/lawyer’s channels when official documents appear.

“§25” (humanitarian alternatives) and common myths

  • Host question and lawyer’s response: The host asked about §25, especially for pensioners and people with disabilities. The lawyer strongly argued that many online claims are misleading or incorrect.

  • §25 is not one single clause: The lawyer stressed that §25 includes multiple subparagraphs (e.g., 25a/25b, and other variants referenced in auto-text such as 25.3/25.5). Each has different requirements.

  • Core message while §24 remains in place: While §24 temporary protection remains active, authorities usually have no reason to “switch” people into §25, because §24 is already a humanitarian route tied to the war context.

For people with disabilities / pensioners

  • No broad automatic opening: The lawyer stated that direct access to §25 is not broadly “opened” for Ukrainians in a clear, automatic way.

  • Duldung-related routes can be worse than §24: Some §25 routes involve Duldung (tolerated stay; deportation is not possible). She noted this is generally worse than §24, making transitions more difficult.

  • Example from Berlin court: She described a case from a Berlin court where a severely disabled woman—previously moved from §24 and with special circumstances—was able to obtain §25 rights through court. However, she warned that court processes can take years.

Most common work-based “§18” routes (and how to do them correctly)

The lawyer listed common pathways for Ukrainians to move from temporary protection into work-related statuses:

  • §18B (skilled worker / highly educated) The “Blue Card” route was discussed as separate but still within the broader §18 framework.

  • §18A (technical education / assessed education)

  • §18G (Blue Card category referenced earlier; discussed as work/qualification-related)

  • §21 (entrepreneurs / self-employment—discussed later)

  • §19C (for certain shortage/qualification-adjacent work categories) The lawyer emphasized that this is often misunderstood and may not be widely available.

Common mistakes the lawyer highlighted

  • Wrong job title: Avoid choosing an “unskilled/assistant/helper” title when the immigration requirement is for a role that meets skilled/qualification criteria.

  • Incorrect salary assumptions: The role must usually meet the appropriate salary thresholds. The lawyer referenced checking using go.de and comparing region-specific norms.

  • “Contract wording hacks”: She discussed “life hack” contract phrasing ideas, but stressed it must be legitimate and consistent: job duties and salary should match.

  • Diploma recognition (where needed): Confirm education is properly recognized via Anabin/DAC assessment when applicable.

Language certificates myth

  • The lawyer rejected the idea that language certificates are universally required for work-based routes. For many working statuses, a language certificate may not be formally required at application time—except in certain regulated professions where language requirements apply.

“§19” details and revocation risks

  • When §19 can be granted: She said §19 can be granted in some situations (examples mentioned: drivers, nursing assistants, shortage occupations, and certain IT/experience cases).

  • Withdrawal risk: Migration offices can later withdraw approvals if conditions were not met or if information was incomplete/misrepresented.

  • Concept of administrative-law timing: She described that agencies may have a time window to revoke; she framed it as “one year” (as shown in auto-text).

“45+” rule for work permits (salary threshold)

  • Higher salary expectations: For applicants over 45, stricter salary requirements apply. The auto-text mentioned roughly €4,650, and she noted thresholds change yearly.

  • If salary is insufficient: Possible strategies include:

    • arguing that a shortage profession applies (if your profession fits shortage lists/criteria)
    • in worst-case scenarios, using pension-related insurance/supplement logic (she mentioned private pension contributions and the concept of targeting a retirement income level)

Entrepreneurs “§21” (self-employment)

The lawyer emphasized:

  • Stable income

  • Business readiness and timeline: Ideally, register the business early enough to show 2–3 years of development before applying.

  • Strong business plan and proper accounting

  • Use of official financial/tax support where required: She stressed the importance of proper signatures and authorized roles.

Pension contributions in the §21 context

  • She said pension contributions are optional for the §21 context, though they may matter later for citizenship/permanent residence and can serve as evidence.

Permanent residence vs. citizenship (and timelines)

  • Citizenship may be easier/managed earlier: She stated that under current rules, citizenship can be easier or handled earlier than permanent residence (referencing 2024 changes).

Framework she described

  • Permanent residence: Typically requires more stringent work/pension contribution periods (she referenced five years of pension contributions/payments in one context).

  • Citizenship: Typically requires:

    • about 5 years of residence (she repeatedly mentioned this)
    • B1 language
    • an integration course

Her planning recommendation

  • Consider parallel planning if possible (work-based status + preparation for citizenship/permanent residence), because delays can happen and having a permanent residence later can reduce risk.
  • For those currently on §24, she suggested moving into work-family/Blue Card-work options first when possible, since direct transitions from §24 to citizenship/permanent residence are limited.

Big clarification: whether “§24 time counts”

  • Relevance of §24 stay time: She said legal stay under §24 is relevant for future eligibility.

  • Breaks can reduce credit: She warned that breaks in residence can affect counting (she referenced a case where time away reduced credit).

  • Applying exactly at the 5-year mark: She suggested applying for citizenship at the exact 5-year point, arguing that early submissions may block others and do not always help.

Ukrainian driver’s license / legal rights topic

  • With §24 protection, using a Ukrainian driving license is allowed until the end of the protection period.
  • She also discussed a forthcoming policy on equating standards without exams, but said document lists were uncertain until laws are finalized.

Citizenship refusals and future re-application

  • New law (as mentioned): Auto-text referenced a “10-year block” related to knowingly false testimony / false submissions.

  • Refusal reasons matter:

    • If refused due to missing requirements, re-application later may be possible.
    • If refused due to alleged intentional falsehood, then a long restriction could apply.

  • Action if refusal occurs: She recommended acting quickly and consulting a lawyer immediately.

Practical advice repeated throughout

  • Don’t rely on blogger myths—follow a lawyer-led document strategy.
  • Work consistently and ensure your residence route matches your goal (citizenship vs permanent residence vs work permit).
  • Prepare language/integration documents early to avoid delays and prevent errors from online form misstatements.
  • Be cautious with third-party “assistants” and non-lawyer services, since filings are submitted in your name and responsibility matters.

Presenters / contributors

  • Mila — host/moderator (speaking with the audience; channel “Ukrainians” in Germany mentioned)
  • Anastasia Bodnaruk — lawyer / migration law specialist (main contributor)

Original video