Receiving a refusal of a Type D visa often feels like the end of the process. The applicant has gathered the required documents, has a tenancy agreement, sufficient funds, insurance, admission to a university, family ties or another lawful ground for residing in Bulgaria — and yet receives a short refusal form citing reasons such as a “fictitious address”, “failure to prove the purpose of stay” or “migration risk”.

In recent months, however, the Administrative Court Sofia City has issued several important judgments, including in cases handled with the involvement of Petkov Legal, which demonstrate an important principle:

A refusal of a Type D visa cannot be based solely on assumptions, generic wording or unsubstantiated suspicions.

What is a Type D visa?

A Type D visa is Bulgaria’s long-stay visa. It is issued to foreign nationals who wish to enter the country in order to obtain the relevant permit for extended, long-term or permanent residence on one of the grounds provided by law.

Such grounds may include, for example, studies, family reunification, marriage to a Bulgarian citizen, activity as a commercial representative, residence as a pensioner, and other grounds under the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act.

A refusal of a Type D visa can therefore have very serious practical consequences — it may prevent a person from commencing their studies, reuniting with their family, or completing a planned relocation to Bulgaria.

“We did not find you at the address” does not necessarily mean “fictitious address”

One problem we encounter increasingly often is a refusal based on an inspection of the declared address.

Officials visit the property once, do not find the applicant there, and from that fact conclude that the address is fictitious or that false information has been declared.

The case law shows that such an automatic conclusion is incorrect.

In Judgment No. 6817 of 19 February 2026, the Administrative Court Sofia City held that the law requires the foreign national to have accommodation available, but does not require them to reside permanently at that address or to be found there at any given time. The Court emphasised that a single visit during which the person was not found, together with a neighbour’s statement that they did not know the foreign national, does not in itself prove that the person has no right or genuine ability to use the property.

This conclusion is particularly logical in the case of people who travel frequently because of the nature of their work or personal circumstances.

A similar dispute arose in one of our Type D visa cases, concluded by Judgment No. 16191 of 27 April 2026 of the Administrative Court Sofia City. The authorities claimed that the address was “fictitious” because other foreign nationals were also registered there. During the court proceedings, however, it became clear that insufficient evidence had been produced as to who carried out the inspection, when exactly it was performed, who the other registered persons were, and whether their registrations were even still current.

The Court annulled the refusal. It also held that a negative opinion issued by the Ministry of Interior does not automatically acquire evidential weight merely because it originates from a public authority. The statements contained in such an opinion must be supported by facts and evidence.

This is not an isolated case. In another judgment — Judgment No. 13476 of 6 April 2026 — the Administrative Court Sofia City formulated a very clear practical test: at the time of the application, the person must have a genuine possibility and a valid legal basis to occupy the declared accommodation. They are not required to prove continuous physical presence there. The Court also referred to case law of the Supreme Administrative Court supporting the same approach.

What does “migration risk” mean?

Another common reason for refusal is the suspicion that the applicant does not genuinely intend to stay in Bulgaria for the declared purpose, but instead intends to use the country as a transit point to another state.

The law does recognise such a ground for refusal. That does not mean, however, that the words “migration risk” are sufficient on their own.

Another of our cases is particularly illustrative. It concerned a foreign student who had been admitted to study at a Bulgarian university. The applicant had submitted a certificate from the Ministry of Education and Science, documents from the university, proof of payment of the tuition fee, sponsorship documents, evidence of available funds, and proof of accommodation.

Despite this, the visa was refused on the grounds that the purpose of the stay had not been proven and that a migration risk existed.

The Administrative Court Sofia City annulled the refusal by Judgment No. 30343 of 30 July 2026. The Court held that the official documents submitted proved the purpose of the journey and could not simply be disregarded. The authorities had also failed to explain what specific information supported the conclusion that the applicant did not genuinely intend to study in Bulgaria.

Even more importantly, the State Agency for National Security had issued a positive opinion in the file, while the negative assessment was based to a significant extent on subjective impressions of the applicant’s interview answers — for example, whether certain explanations sounded “exaggerated” or “trivial”. The Court held that such assessments cannot replace concrete facts and evidence.

The authorities have the right to investigate — but they must also prove their allegations

None of these judgments means that the consular authorities, the Ministry of Interior or the State Agency for National Security must automatically accept every document submitted by an applicant.

The authorities are entitled to verify whether a tenancy agreement is genuine, whether the applicant actually has the stated purpose of stay, whether a marriage is fictitious, whether the proposed studies are genuine, and whether there is evidence of an attempt to circumvent the visa regime.

There is, however, an important difference between an investigation and an assumption.

When a refusal is issued, it must be possible to identify the specific facts that have been established and to understand why those facts amount to a lawful ground for refusal.

In 2025 and 2026, other panels of the Administrative Court Sofia City also annulled Type D visa refusals in which the authorities had referred to migration risk or doubts about the genuine purpose of the stay, but had failed to identify concrete facts enabling the applicant and the Court to understand how that conclusion had been reached. In Judgment No. 10951 of 19 March 2026, the dispute concerned family life, while Judgment No. 36172 of 4 November 2025 concerned a family reunification procedure.

Does this mean that every Type D visa refusal can be overturned?

No.

Each case depends on its specific facts and on the documents contained in the administrative file.

There are also judgments in which the courts uphold refusals where the authorities’ investigation genuinely establishes a combination of specific inconsistencies — for example, numerous foreign nationals registered at the same address, information showing that the registered persons do not actually reside there, and other circumstances casting serious doubt on the documents submitted. For example, in 2023 the Administrative Court Sofia City dismissed an appeal against a Type D visa refusal after considering such a broader factual picture.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the expressions “fictitious address” or “migration risk” can ever constitute grounds for refusal.

The issue is whether they have actually been proven in the individual case.

Can a Type D visa refusal be appealed?

This is one of the most important questions, and Bulgarian law contains a specific rule in this respect.

Under Article 10a(4) of the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act, judicial review of Type D visa refusals is generally restricted, but court review is available where the applicant alleges interference with fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This may include, for example, the right to respect for private and family life in family reunification cases.

In our case concerning the foreign student, the Administrative Court Sofia City held that interference with the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention was also sufficient for the visa refusal to be subject to judicial review.

Because of this particular rule, it is extremely important that an appeal is not framed merely as disagreement with the consulate’s decision. The affected rights, the legal defects in the refusal, the relevant evidence and the applicable case law must be identified correctly.

What happens when the court annuls the refusal?

When a refusal is annulled, the court does not normally place a visa sticker in the passport itself or “issue” the visa in place of the consulate.

The usual outcome is that the administrative file is returned to the competent authority for a new decision, and the authority is required to comply with the binding directions given by the court.

This is precisely what the courts ordered in the cases discussed above.
This is important because winning the court case does not necessarily bring the entire administrative procedure to an end — the subsequent reconsideration of the application must also be monitored.

Have you received a Type D visa refusal? Seek legal advice promptly

A refusal should neither be treated automatically as final nor challenged mechanically without proper analysis.

The first step is to establish the precise legal ground on which the refusal was issued, what the administrative file contains, whether the facts relied on by the authorities have actually been proven, and whether there is a legal basis for judicial review in the particular case.

Petkov Legal advises and represents clients in Type D visa procedures, residence permit proceedings and court challenges against refusals. Our practice includes successfully litigated cases involving refusals based on allegations of a fictitious address, failure to prove the purpose of stay, and migration risk.

We can review the refusal and the documents in your case, assess whether it is open to judicial challenge, prepare the appeal and supporting evidence, and represent you before the Administrative Court Sofia City and in the subsequent administrative proceedings.

If you have received a refusal, it is advisable to obtain a legal assessment immediately, as the procedural time limits for challenging the decision are short.

This publication is for information purposes only and does not constitute individual legal advice.