By Muhammad Munaeem Jamal

When my wife and I prepare to visit our daughter in Munich, the journey has a simple purpose. We will stay with family and return to Karachi. An invitation and the travel arrangements can explain the visit. Yet anyone who has dealt with visa paperwork knows that an ordinary family journey can become a demanding administrative exercise.

That is why a remark made in Islamabad this week caught my attention. Magnus Brunner, the European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, told The Express Tribune that the rate of Schengen visa refusals in Pakistan was approaching 50%. He called it “too much.” He also accepted that getting an appointment can be frustrating for people trying to travel legally.

The acknowledgment is welcome. It is not a change in the law. As of 17 October 2026, neither the Commission’s public statements nor Pakistan’s official account of Brunner’s visit announced a special visa arrangement for Pakistani applicants.

What the latest figures actually tell us

The European Commission’s 2025 consular statistics record 89,270 short-stay Schengen visa applications submitted at consulates in Pakistan. They record 45,970 visas issued. The reported formal refusal rate was about 45.9%, compared with the EU-wide rate of 14.6%. These are the most recent annual figures published by the Commission, not a count of applications in October 2026.

There is a statistical trap here. Subtracting visas issued from applications received produces 43,300 applications, or 48.5%, that were not issued in the reported totals. That remainder is not the same as the formally recorded refusals, and presenting it that way would inflate the rejection figure. The published refusal percentage is a separate measure. Brunner’s “almost 50%” was a rounded political description, not a new statistical series.

Another distinction rarely survives the headline. The Commission groups these consular figures by the country in which a visa application was lodged, a detail that disappears in many headlines about Pakistani refusals. They are not a nationality-based count of every Pakistani passport holder who applied anywhere in the world. A Pakistani living in Dubai and applying there would not appear in Pakistan’s consular-location total. Someone holding a different country’s passport could nevertheless appear in the Pakistan total if that person submitted an application in Islamabad or Karachi.

Even with those limits, the gap is difficult to dismiss. Pakistan’s refusal rate at Schengen consulates is far above the global average. The figures demonstrate the scale of the problem, but they do not tell us why each application failed.

Why applications fail, and what the commissioner did not establish

Brunner raised the quality of documents submitted by applicants. In the interview reported on 15 October, he said Pakistan and Europe both needed to work on the issue. His criticism should be read alongside his admission that the EU must improve access to appointments.

Under Article 32 of the EU Visa Code, a short-stay visa can be refused when the applicant does not adequately explain the planned visit or show sufficient financial means. Consulates may also have reasonable doubts about supporting evidence or whether the applicant intends to leave before the authorised stay ends. The law provides other refusal grounds, including relevant security concerns.

A missing document and a concern about whether somebody will return home are not the same thing. One may be corrected by supplying evidence. The other requires the consulate to assess circumstances and credibility. The published headline refusal figures do not break down those reasons, so it would be wrong to claim that poor paperwork explains nearly half of Pakistan’s applications.

I am particularly interested in the family-visit category. A parent visiting an adult child in Germany may stay in that child’s home, not a hotel. Germany’s official guidance for visiting relatives recognises an appropriate invitation and, where applicable, a formal Verpflichtungserklärung, or declaration of financial obligation. These are different documents, and neither guarantees approval.

I have explained the accommodation question in my earlier article, My Daughter Sponsors My Visits to Germany: What Should Family-Sponsored Travellers Show FIA at Pakistan Airports?. That article concerns departure checks in Pakistan, not the consulate’s decision to issue a visa. Confusing the two systems adds another layer of anxiety for travellers.

Appointments are part of the problem

An applicant cannot submit a careful application without access to the appointment process. Brunner acknowledged that obstacle but did not announce a date by which consular waiting times would fall. He offered no timetable for an increase in the number of appointments allocated at the consulates that process applications in Islamabad and Karachi.

Germany provides a useful example of the present arrangements. Its missions in Pakistan say short-stay applicants register online for an appointment. Islamabad uses a waiting list, and Karachi also allocates slots through a waiting-list system because of demand. The missions warn that registration on these lists is free and that people offering paid shortcuts may be fraudsters.

The embassy says short-stay applications are usually processed in about 14 calendar days after the application is lodged, though some cases take longer. That number is not a promise that an applicant will receive an appointment within two weeks. Germany says applications can be made up to six months before travel, which makes early planning sensible but does not solve limited appointment capacity.

The distinction matters. When public officials say a visa is processed in two weeks, applicants may assume the whole journey from online registration to decision takes two weeks. It does not necessarily work that way.

Has the EU changed its Schengen visa rules?

Not as a result of this interview. Pakistanis seeking an ordinary short stay must still meet the applicable Schengen conditions. Consulates of the responsible Schengen states examine individual circumstances against a common legal framework, so an applicant cannot treat the interview as an instruction to approve visas. A political statement by a commissioner does not overturn an individual consular assessment.

A separate development did occur in January 2026, when the European Commission presented an EU-wide Visa Strategy intended to shape future procedures rather than grant new rights immediately. It describes more digital processing and better treatment of reliable travellers, including consideration of longer-validity multiple-entry visas. That strategy does not grant Pakistani applicants an appointment or approval.

There is also a distinction between a visitor’s Schengen visa and a national visa for employment or study. Brunner spoke positively about the need for legal migration and the EU’s Talent Partnership with Pakistan, while acknowledging that progress on matching workers with European jobs has been inadequate. More discussion about labour mobility does not relax the requirements for a parent’s short family visit.

The political background is difficult to ignore. Pakistan has been cooperating with the EU on preventing irregular migration and taking back nationals who have no permission to remain. At a 13 October meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged practical legal migration opportunities alongside enforcement against smuggling. The official account recorded no Schengen visa concession.

European governments want tighter control of irregular routes, yet employers in some of those same countries continue to seek foreign workers for particular vacancies. Neither interest necessarily produces faster decisions for people visiting relatives. I would judge the diplomatic visit by the administrative results that follow, not by a sympathetic sentence in an interview.

What applicants can do under the rules that exist

Applicants cannot control consular staffing or the EU’s future visa strategy. They can, however, check the instructions published by the country responsible for their main destination and prepare evidence that matches the actual trip. Applying to a country merely because somebody claims it is “easier” can create problems when the itinerary does not support that choice.

A family visitor should identify the host and explain accommodation honestly. Financial evidence should fit the trip, not a story invented by an agent. Employment or other relevant ties to Pakistan may help explain an intention to return, but there is no single document that guarantees acceptance. Anyone promising a certain outcome is making a claim the consulate itself does not make.

If a German visa is refused, the applicant should read the written refusal and the available legal-remedy information carefully. Germany abolished the former voluntary remonstration procedure on 1 July 2025. This did not remove judicial review or the option of applying again. It would be misleading to advise applicants in 2026 simply to send an old-style remonstration letter to the embassy.

A visa is also only one stage of the journey. Pakistan’s departure checks and Europe’s entry checks involve separate authorities. I have covered why Pakistani travellers may be stopped at airports and how the EU Entry/Exit System records eligible short-stay travellers. Neither system has become less demanding because of Brunner’s remarks.

What would count as a genuine improvement?

I would look first for published appointment-capacity improvements at the missions handling applications in Pakistan. A second useful measure would be a sustained change in formal refusal rates, with the Commission continuing to publish comparable statistics. Applicants also need clear information about the reasons for refusals and the correct way to challenge a decision under the law of the issuing state.

There is a risk of using one number to claim success. A falling refusal rate would not help much if fewer people could secure appointments. Likewise, opening more appointment slots would offer limited relief if legitimate applicants still received poorly explained decisions. Both access and decision quality deserve scrutiny.

Brunner’s remark was unusual because it recognised an institutional problem rather than placing the whole burden on travellers. I welcome that. But the test lies with consulates and governments, where appointments are allocated and applications are decided.

For now, I would advise a Pakistani planning a visit to Europe to prepare under the rules currently published, not under rules that a headline suggests may arrive. My next trip to Munich will still depend on documents, appointments and decisions made by the responsible authorities. The commissioner has acknowledged the difficulty. He has not yet removed it.