Bureaucratic procedures are also a major challenge for people who have moved to Germany, as shown by data from the IAB\u2019s International Mobility Panel of Migrants in Germany (IMPa). Already in the first wave of the survey, 38 percent of migrants with intentions to leave Germany pointed to the high bureaucratic burden as a key reason for their plans to leave \u2013 about the same level as the naming of tax burdens and the general economic situation as reasons for leaving (see also IAB Research Report 15\/2025<\/a>).<\/p>\n The second IMPa wave now shows that bureaucracy was also a reason for migrants to actually leave Germany. After partner- and family-related reasons (39%), burdensome bureaucratic processes were the second most reported reason for leaving Germany (32%) (for more information, see IAB Short Policy Report 10\/2026<\/a>).<\/p>\n In this context, it is likely relevant that beyond standard bureaucratic requirements, migrants often encounter additional processes. If these are experienced as lengthy or difficult to navigate, this may not only increase intentions to leave Germany, but also weaken trust in public institutions. This is shown, for example, by a 2025 study<\/a> by Carolin Sch\u00fctze\u00a0 on migrants\u2019 negative experiences with the Swedish Migration Agency.<\/p>\n The IMPa survey results presented below focus on three processes that are particularly relevant for migrants to Germany:<\/p>\n Questions on residence permits or visas were asked only of respondents who had not (yet) left Germany at the time of the survey. Questions on the recognition of qualifications and on naturalisation were also asked of those who had already left Germany. Accordingly, the analyses are based on varying sample sizes (see box \u2018Data and methods\u2019).<\/p>\n Migrants are most critical of processes relating to residence permits and visas (see Figure 1). 41 percent of those with relevant experience say that the response time to inquiries was inadequate. Thirty-five percent criticize the duration of the process, 30 percent the costs, and 29 percent the clarity of the process.\u00a0These procedural aspects are closely linked to certitude of residence and to being able to plan one\u2019s life in Germany – with potentially major consequences for employment opportunities or family planning, for example.\u00a0A similar pattern can be seen for the recognition of foreign qualifications: here, the aspects rated negatively most frequently are the length of the process (33%), the response time for inquiries (32%), costs (31%), and process clarity (30%).<\/p>\n It is striking that, in qualification-recognition processes, respondents particularly often report that it was not clear which authorities were actually responsible (27%). This may have considerable consequences both for migrants and the German economy: cumbersome recognition processes can delay or hinder access to employment which matches people\u2019s qualifications. As a result, existing qualifications may not be put to use in the German labour market, or only after a considerable delay.<\/p>\n Another legally important procedure for migrants in Germany is naturalisation. It is also psychologically and societally important, as it is linked to feelings of belonging and equal status with the majority population. For this process, too, the main points of criticism concern the response time to inquiries (27%), length of process (28%), as well as costs (25%).<\/p>\n Overall, a similar pattern emerges across all three processes. The aspects seen as particularly problematic are length of processes, slow handling of inquiries, high costs, and unclear procedures, documents and information. By contrast, lack of clarity around the responsible authorities is criticised much more frequently in relation to qualification-recognition processes than for the other two processes.<\/p>\n Another result of the survey is that the more critically people rate bureaucratic processes, the more often they consider leaving Germany. Among those with concrete plans to leave, the average number of negatively assessed administrative aspects is in some cases twice as high as amongst those without intentions to leave (see Figure 2).<\/p>\n This correlation is particularly clear for residence permit and visa processes. On average, people without intentions to leave Germany rate 1.6 aspects negatively. In contrast, amongst those who have considered leaving, the average is 2.5, and amongst those with concrete plans to leave it is 3.0. A similar pattern can be identified for qualification-recognition and naturalisation processes, although the difference is somewhat smaller.<\/p>\n For those who have already left Germany, the pattern is less clear. This group rates qualification-recognition and naturalisation processes less critically than people in Germany with intentions to leave. A possible explanation is that they may have invested less into long-term integration in Germany, including in their recognition of qualifications or the acquisition of German citizenship. It is also possible that negative experiences in Germany are remembered differently, or rated somewhat less critically after leaving \u2013 for example if experiences in the new country of residence become more prominent and put earlier experiences into perspective. The lower average number of negatively rated process-aspects, does not, however, imply that bureaucratic processes did not influence the emigration decisions of those who have left Germany.<\/p>\n Migrants who rate administrative processes more negatively also feel less welcome in Germany. This association is particularly salient in the context of residence permit and visa processes as well as processes for the recognition of qualifications. This suggests that experiences with authorities also matter for people\u2019s subjective experiences in Germany. In other words, a genuinely welcoming culture (Willkommenskultur<\/em>) depends heavily on the public administration being perceived as supportive by migrants.<\/p>\n The processes considered here are not rated equally critically by all groups. This is shown by multivariate analyses, in which several variables are examined at the same time in order to better understand correlations. According to these analyses, younger groups of migrants in Germany rate residence permit and visa processes, qualification-recognition and naturalisation procedures on average more critically than older groups. Higher income, by contrast, is associated with somewhat better ratings of residence permit and visa processes and qualification-recognition procedures. People looking for work, however, criticise residence permit and visa processes and naturalisation procedures more often in comparison with other groups.<\/p>\n Language skills also play a role, although not in the same way for all of the considered processes. Good German skills are associated with fewer negative assessments of residence permit and visa processes, but with more negative assessments of qualification-recognition procedures. Good English skills, in turn, are associated with more negative evaluations of residence permit and visa procedures, but with fewer negative evaluations of qualification-recognition procedures. For naturalisation procedures, no clear links with language skills were identified.<\/p>\n These differences suggest that language skills may matter in different ways depending on the process. On the one hand, they can make it easier to navigate the system. On the other, they may also raise expectations of transparency and procedural quality. If these expectations are unmet, dissatisfaction may increase.<\/p>\n The importance of age differences becomes even clearer when looking at the individual aspects of the three processes separately (see table). Across processes, the share of younger migrants who assessed the respective aspect negatively at least once is consistently higher than the share of older groups. However, the size of the difference varies considerably between the individual aspects: the discrepancy is particularly pronounced for the response time to inquiries and the length and cost of processes. Among 18- to 35-year-olds, 44 percent rate the response time for inquiries negatively in at least one process; among 51- to 65-year-olds this applies to only 24 percent. For the cost of processes, the corresponding shares are 37 and 25 percent. These results cannot be explained by differences in length of stay. Further analyses are therefore needed to better understand age-specific differences.<\/p>\n German-language skills seem to make a difference above all for aspects that relate to orientation and comprehension (see table). People who do not have good or very good German skills more often rate the clarity of the procedure, awareness of the competent authorities and knowledge of required documents critically than people with good to very good German skills. For the length of processes, inquiries and costs, the differences are smaller.<\/p>\n Overall, many migrants in Germany perceive barriers in the administrative processes that are relevant to them. Lengthy processes, the slow handling of inquiries, high costs and unclear procedures are most frequently criticised. However, these findings do not allow for causal conclusions about people\u2019s intentions to leave Germany or their actual emigration behaviour.<\/p>\n They do, however, point to possible reasons why bureaucracy is so frequently mentioned as a reason for leaving Germany. Negative experiences with public administration may be part of a wider set of factors that increase doubts about staying in Germany in the longer term, reduce the feeling of being welcome and weaken attachment to Germany.<\/p>\n Conversely, processes that are clear, easy to access and reliable could help to strengthen institutional trust and improve the prospects of staying. At a time of growing demand for skilled labour and sinking net migration, this is also relevant for labour market policy in Germany, especially in relation to younger migrants. Reducing bureaucracy is therefore not only a matter of administrative efficiency. It also contributes to a welcoming culture, institutional trust and the retention of skilled migrants.<\/p>\n The findings from the IAB\u2019s IMPa survey point to concrete policy recommendations: better accessibility to the responsible authorities, clearer communication channels, understandable information and easily accessible services. Central points of contact would be beneficial, as they could make responsibilities more transparent, explain processes, and provide information and services in several languages in an easily accessible way. This applies especially to processes that are crucial for security of residence, professional recognition and acquiring German citizenship \u2013 and therefore also for feelings of belonging in Germany.<\/p>\n <\/div> <\/p>\n The International Mobility Panel of Migrants in Germany (IMPa) is a new representative longitudinal survey of immigrants in Germany (Kosyakova et al. 2025). The study examines retention, return migration, onward migration and circular migration, as well as related migration intentions, labour-market trajectories and integration processes over time. The first IMPa cohort was collated on the basis of the IAB\u2019s Integrated Employment Biographies (IEB). The target population comprises people of working age between 18 and 65 years, who had entered Germany by 2 April 2024, did not hold German citizenship at birth, and were registered in the data of the Federal Employment Agency \u2014 for example through employment, benefit receipt or participation in labour-market programmes. The randomly selected individuals were invited to participate by post and could complete the questionnaire online in 19 languages.<\/p>\n The first survey wave took place between December 2024 and April 2025; the follow-up survey was conducted between November 2025 and February 2026. This makes it possible to link considerations and plans to leave Germany in wave 1 with actual return migration and onward migration behaviour by wave 2. In wave 2, 43 percent of the wave 1 participants took part again. Statistical projection methods allow representative statements about the target population. The analyses use panel weights that account for differences in selection and participation probabilities and adjust the survey data to reference distributions from the IEB. For this article, we consider people who participated in both waves and were of working age in wave 2. This results in a panel dataset of 15,232 respondents. Due to filter routing and item non-response \u2014 that is, missing answers to individual questions \u2014 the case numbers in individual tables and figures may differ (naturalisation procedures: 2,712; residence permit\/ visa procedures: 4,889; recognition procedures: 6,018).<\/p>\n <\/div> <\/p>\n Destatis (2026): Nettozuwanderung 2025 mit 235 000 Personen deutlich gesunken<\/a>. Pressemitteilung Nr. 184 vom 1. Juni 2026<\/p>\n Diegmann, Andr\u00e9; Kubis, Alexander (2025): Die Betriebe mussten in den letzten drei Jahren 325.000 Arbeitskr\u00e4fte zus\u00e4tzlich einstellen, um die gewachsene B\u00fcrokratie zu bew\u00e4ltigen<\/a>. IAB Forum, 20 October 2025.<\/p>\n Kosyakova, Yuliya, Lukas Olbrich, Katia Gallegos Torres, Luisa Hammer, Theresa Koch & Simon Wagner (2025): Germany as a stopover? Insights into return and International Mobility Panel of Migrants in Germany (IMPa)<\/a>. IAB-Forschungsbericht no. 15\/2025 (en).<\/p>\n Kosyakova, Yuliya; Reinold, Julia; Koch, Theresa; Olbrich, Lukas; Gallegos Torres, Katia; Wagner, Simon (2026): Who stays, who moves on \u2013 and why immigrants leave Germany<\/a>. IAB Short Policy Report no. 10\/2026 (en).<\/p>\n Sch\u00fctze, Carolin (2025): Migrants\u2019 Trust in the Swedish Migration Agency: Exploring Influencing Factors Through Large-Scale Survey Data<\/a>. Journal of International Migration & Integration 26, pp. 1339-1360.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DOI: 10.48720\/IAB.FOO.20260702.02<\/a><\/p>\n Bild: WoGi \/ stock.abobe.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Applying for a residence permit, having foreign qualifications recognised, or acquiring German citizenship: people who have moved to Germany often face lengthy bureaucratic processes. Current survey results from the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) show that many migrants have had negative experiences. Almost one third of those who leave Germany again, indicate that burdensome bureaucratic read full article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":46,"featured_media":49703,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1633],"tags":[2250,2253,871,2255,2254,2251],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49695"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/46"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49695"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49695\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49753,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49695\/revisions\/49753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49703"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/26-011_Abb1.jpg\")
<\/p>\nMost frequent criticisms: lengthy processes, high fees, unclear processes and information<\/h2>\n
More negative assessments correlate with intentions to leave Germany<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/26-011_Abb2.jpg\")
<\/p>\nYounger migrants in Germany are particularly likely to experience bureaucratic hurdles<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/iab-forum.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/26-011_Tab.jpg\")
<\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
In brief<\/h2>\n
\n
Data and methods<\/h2>\n
Literature<\/h2>\n