Austrian Law about requesting documents not originally required Are the Authorities in Austria, allowed to ask for additional documents that they did not previously specify, when one applies for a visa? For example, when applying for the post-Brexit EUV 50 card (i.e. &quot;The residency card that all British citizens in Austria, who were resident in Austria prior to 31.12.2020, must apply for in 2021&quot; since they are non-EU citizens), if the required filings (erforderliche Unterlagen) are a valid passport, timestamped photo, correctly filled-out form, and a valid Anmeldebescheinigung and you provide all of these, are they legally allowed to then demand something not mentioned, like your bank details from 5 years ago? I would like to read whatever laws pertain to this. At the bottom of their website it states: Es kann sein, dass Sie weitere Dokumente vorlegen müssen. The Google translation of this phrase is: You may be required to provide additional documents.
In general, obtaining a Visa is a thing that is done according to the discretion of the state offering it. As a result, it is entirely up to the Austrian regulations. To establish the necessary information, sometimes additional information is required then the basic ones. Austrias Visa page lists: Nachweis über ausreichende Mittel zur Bestreitung des Lebensunterhalts für die Dauer des geplanten Aufenthalts und die Rückreise in den Herkunfts- oder Wohnsitzstaat Sonstige von der jeweiligen Behörde geforderten Nachweise (Hotelreservierungen, Einladungsschreiben, Buchungsbelege, Rückflugticket, Nachweis einer aufrechten Beschäftigung, usw.) – da diese den örtlichen Standards angepasst und mit den anderen Schengenvertretungen koordiniert sind, können die Nachweise lokal differieren The first is &quot;proof that you are financially not dependant on Austria for the time you want to be there&quot; and &quot;Any other documentation required by the office&quot;. That means, yes, they can ask for any documents that are reasonable to establish that you can pay for your travel to Austria and intend to return home after your visit. They do so according to Article 14 of the Visa-ordonance: Article 14 Supporting documents When applying for a uniform visa, the applicant shall present: (a) documents indicating the purpose of the journey; (b) documents in relation to accommodation, or proof of sufficient means to cover his accommodation; (c) documents indicating that the applicant possesses sufficient means of subsistence both for the duration of the intended stay and for the return to his country of origin or residence, or for the transit to a third country into which he is certain to be admitted, or that he is in a position to acquire such means lawfully, in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) and (3) of the Schengen Borders Code; (d) information enabling an assessment of the applicant’s intention to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for. Any other information is under 14.1.d, and that can take the shape of bank statements.
The Czech Consulate General in New York has a page about this. Presumably a similar situation would prevail at other Czech consulates, so this answer should help even if you do not reside in its territory. The page notes that if you are not &quot;a relative&quot; you can &quot;enclose an explanation letter why do you need the duplicate of the birth [or marriage] certificate.&quot; So it's possible that they'd give you a copy anyway, but, to increase your chances, you might want to include a letter explaining that you need the document to demonstrate your own Czech nationality. You can also include a copy of your birth certificate as evidence of your relationship. The page links to the forms you have to submit with the request for the certificate. They reflect the same possibility, slightly more specifically. The birth certificate application says 6. V případě, že nejste v tabulce, uveďte vztah k dítěti nebo jiný právní zájem: 6. In case you are not the person in a table, relation must be stated or any other legal interest: As far as I can tell &quot;the person in a table&quot; means &quot;a person in the list of birth certificates being requested with this form.&quot; That is, you don't need to explain yourself if you are the child whose birth certificate it is, nor if you are one of the parents shown on the certificate. The marriage certificate form similarly says 6. V případě, že nejste osobou uvedenou v tabulce, uveďte vztah k osobám nebo jiný právní zájem (If the applicant is not listed in the table below as the Husband or Wife, please provide an explanation of the relationship or legal interest which authorizes this submission.): This last sentence hints at the one thing that I unfortunately do not know, which is the criteria for judging whether a given explanation is legally sufficient to authorize the release of the certificate to the person who submitted the application. I guess your case is as good as it gets, but it's possible that the law prevents the certificates to be issued to you while your parents are still alive.
UK, Identity Documents Act 2010, false identity documents etc: Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention (1) It is an offence for a person (“P”) with an improper intention to have in P's possession or under P's control— (a) an identity document that is false and that P knows or believes to be false, (b) an identity document that was improperly obtained and that P knows or believes to have been improperly obtained, or (c) an identity document that relates to someone else. Each of the following is an improper intention— (a) the intention of using the document for establishing personal information about P; (b) the intention of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or verifying personal information about P or anyone else. ... Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse (1) It is an offence for a person (“P”), without reasonable excuse, to have in P's possession or under P's control— (a) an identity document that is false, (b) an identity document that was improperly obtained, ... Such an identity document could be an &quot;an immigration document&quot;, &quot;a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation&quot; or &quot;a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport&quot; (e.g. a European country's identity card).
The EU VAT directive has harmonized rules for invoices. Relevant for your question: Article 226 requires, among others, that the invoice contains the customer's VAT identification number, as referred to in Article 214, under which the customer received a supply of goods or services in respect of which he is liable for payment of VAT, or received a supply of goods as referred to in Article 138 If the customers receive invoices by electronic means they are supposed to archive the electronic invoice (and not a printout). They are not allowed to alter it in any way for archiving purposes by Article 246 The authenticity of the origin and the integrity of the content of the invoices stored, as well as their legibility, must be guaranteed throughout the storage period. In respect of the invoices referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 233(1), the details they contain may not be altered and must remain legible throughout the storage period. (where Article 233(1) refers to electronically received invoices.) The rules where put in place to combat VAT fraud – putting the VAT number of both parties on the invoice makes it a bit harder. If you were allowed to alter invoices before giving them to the authorities you would circumvent the entire purpose.
The DAAD has published a summary of the legal constraints when working as a foreign student in Germany. While the document is only available in German, it is complete and rather authoritative. I summarize the main points here. On a student visa, you are eligible for 120 full days or 240 half days in accordance with §16b (3) AufenthG. This is a legal constraint. It is not up to interpretation. Only mandatory internships constitute a right to further work. In individual cases, the Ausländerbehörde (foreign registration office) can grant authorization for additional work. The authorization will only be granted if the extra work will not jeopardize the purpose of your stay in Germany, which is studying full-time. In particular, work in a study-related job such as a student assistant will generally be eligible for an extension. This is up to the judgement of the office. Thus, there can be differences between different cities. If you intend to surpass the 120/240 day limit, you must get prior authorization. You are otherwise violating the conditions of your visa, which can result in fines and deportation. Additionally, no upstanding employer wants to provide illegal work as they would be subject to penalties themselves. Links: DAAD guidance on working in Germany (German): https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/in-deutschland-studieren-forschen-lehren/daad-infoblatt_erwerbstaetigkeit.pdf §16b AufenthG (English): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_aufenthg/englisch_aufenthg.html#p0275
&quot;May&quot; means &quot;is possible&quot; and not &quot;is necessary&quot;. The specific law does not say anything about a person doing A, B or C and it does not say that if you do one of A, B or C then something mandatorily follows. It asserts that certain types of documentation &quot;can&quot; be used as evidence supporting the proposition that the applicant did not disrupt continuous residence, but it also asserts (without giving any further hints) that other things may be used. This law does not state necessary or sufficient conditions for establishing undisrupted continuous residence. It is not hard to construct a scenario where a person moves back to their home country and ran for public office there, but failed to quit the US job. In light of compelling evidence that they actually moved back home, failure to quite your US job is not proof that you remained in the US. Proof resides in the totality of evidence, not just the admissibility of a single fact. Doing one or more of (A-D) is no guarantee of anything.
Any country can certainly decide who it should grant citizenship status to. There is no international rule that I know of requiring that the recipient be currently a resident of the country granting citizenship. Any country may issue passports to its citizens.
The answer has two parts depending on how you get here. Airline answer: Any such question by a CBP officer is merely a last-chance option to supplement the response you gave on the declaration form. The form asks a series of specific questions which are difficult to misunderstand (if you speak English), you say yes or no, and fill in applicable details. If you remember that you put an apple in your luggage, you can verbally amend the declaration. It is not necessary or practical to recite the statutory, regulatory and case law authority to ask these questions. As I recall, the electronic version asks the same questions. All versions of the form that I have encountered over the decades have included the perjury warning. If you had an alternative experience for you did not fill in a customs declaration form, that would be unusual, and a significant failure by the CBP officer(s). Land-border answer: you are right. In this case (when no customs declaration form is filled out), they rely on every person's obligation to know and comply with the law. You are required to declare the $12,000 cash that you are bringing back, and you cannot plead &quot;I didn't know I had to declare that cash&quot;. You can always make suggestions for service-improvement to the Dept. of Homeland Security.