Family reunification in Curaçao: why the government wins 27 out of 39 cases
Of the 176 rulings we analyzed in full, 39 are about family reunification or formation: it is the category with the most litigation in the entire archive. The result is harsh, and it's worth knowing before spending money on an application: the government won 27 of those 39 cases. The foreigner won 10, and 2 ended partially.
This means a 26% success rate, but that figure alone is misleading. The useful thing is not the percentage: it's why people lose. And when you read the 39 rulings in sequence, the reasons repeat with almost mechanical regularity. Almost all are avoidable.
The number one reason: proving income incorrectly
This is by far the most frequent reason. It's not that people don't earn enough — it's that they prove it with the wrong document. The courts rejected the same evidence over and over:
- A letter from the employer that does not match the SVB records. In ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2020:205, the applicant presented an employment letter with a higher salary than officially registered with Social Security. The court was blunt: it is the applicant's responsibility for their documents to match the official records.
- A self-declaration of taxes without official assessment from the tax authority. Rejected in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2021:11, in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:130, and again in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2024:84. What they require is verifiable evidence that money is actually coming in: bank statements.
- A one-time savings deposit in the bank. A Chinese family showed XCG 27,500 saved to offset a salary of XCG 1,800, below the required minimum. The court calculated that this savings did not cover even a year at the minimum amount and dismissed it: a one-time bank certificate does not prove sustainable means (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2020:223).
- A letter from family members promising to help you. In ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2021:29, the husband was incapacitated, and his sisters supported him. Without actual bank transfers to support it, it did not count as his own income.
What this means for you: before applying, compare your employment letter with what is listed under your name in the SVB. If they do not match, fix it first. And bring bank statements covering several months, not a single day’s balance.
That same case from 2020 has a detail worth re-reading: the court said that having received previous permits without meeting the requirement was a mistake of the administration, and that this error does not create a right. Just because they approved you before without checking does not guarantee anything.
The second reason: not waiting outside the country
The uitlandigheidsvereiste — the obligation to process and wait for the decision from outside Curaçao on a first application — appears repeatedly, and the courts apply it without sentimentality.
In ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:48, a Colombian minor had been in Aruba for years, first as a tourist and then irregularly, and was enrolled in school. The court confirmed that not having waited outside, combined with illegal stay, is alone sufficient to deny the permit: being in school changes nothing.
There is an important nuance that many people do not see coming: if your previous application was definitively rejected, the next one counts as a first application again — and requires waiting outside again (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2021:126).
And a temporary exit to complete the procedure is not considered a serious violation of your right to family life: this was established in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2019:211. The argument of "I cannot leave because it would break my family" seldom works.
The third: forming the family knowing you were irregular
This pattern is the most painful because people act in good faith. Marrying or having children while you are undocumented weakens your position instead of strengthening it.
The reasoning that courts repeat: if you formed the relationship when you had no reasonable expectation of legal residency, Article 8 of the European Convention (family life) does not protect you in the same way. It appears in ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:284 (a Venezuelan who married a Dutch after being expelled) and in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2011:BQ0628, where the court was explicit: she knew, when marrying, that her situation was irregular.
The silent deadlines that break the bond
There are two ticking clocks that almost no one knows, and both are automatic:
- Five years of separation between parent and child. After that period, the policy considers the family bond broken in fact. In ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2018:227, a Haitian child lost because of this — and his sisters were approved because they were minors.
- Six months of absence of the spouse. If the resident spouse leaves the country for more than 6 consecutive months, it is automatically considered a disruption of the marriage for immigration purposes, even if they remain married and visit each other (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2023:207).
Two mistakes that sink the whole case
These two cannot be fixed with paperwork: they contaminate the entire file.
The cheat sheet with your partner's details. In ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:125, a man brought noted personal details of his wife to the marriage verification interview. The court took it as strong evidence of a convenience marriage, and that was enough for rejection. If you need a cheat sheet to talk about your partner, the problem is not memory.
An unresolved previous marriage. As long as a previous marriage remains registered as valid — even if it was entered under a false identity — the next one constitutes bigamy and blocks reunification (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:46).
Now the important part: why the 10 that won, won
Almost all winning cases share the same argument, and it is not about the applicant: it is about what the government failed to do.
The dominant pattern is that the Ministry did not genuinely weigh Article 8 of the European Convention before denying or revoking. It is not enough to mention it: the years of residence, family ties, background, and economic self-sufficiency must be explicitly weighed. When it does not do so, the decision is annulled. This happened in the series ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2012:BX0103, BX0111, and BX0145, and the court even itemized the exact list of factors to weigh in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:53.
How far this goes is shown in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:200: after correcting the Ministry twice for the same error, in the third round the court got tired and granted the permit directly instead of returning the file.
The other three winning paths:
- A medical condition of the child that no one evaluated. An Ecuadorian father with a child with Down syndrome, enrolled in school and treatment in Curaçao, lost on the income test but won because the government never evaluated what moving to Colombia would mean for the child, despite the medical letters provided (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2021:205).
- The delay was the administration's fault. A couple in Sint Maarten applied outside the one-year deadline because the civil registry took 18 months to register the marriage, having submitted everything on time. The court annulled the decision and ordered reimbursement of XCG 2,800 in costs (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2021:25).
- A new reason without the right to respond. The government can add a rejection reason during the objection, but must notify you and let you respond. Failing to do so annuls the decision (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:156).
And a recent novelty that is good to keep in mind if you are young: in ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2025:302 (2025), the court applied European jurisprudence to establish that a young adult still living with their parents and who has not formed their own family does not have to prove "additional elements of dependency". This is the opposite of what is required of an independent adult child, where those elements are indeed necessary — as an 84-year-old Venezuelan lady learned who wanted to live with her son in Aruba (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2024:83).
What to do with all this
- Check that your employment letter matches the SVB record before applying. It is the most common reason for rejection and the easiest to avoid.
- Gather bank statements from several months. A self-declaration of taxes or a one-day balance is not enough.
- If it is a first application, assume you will have to wait outside. And if you have already been definitively rejected before, the next one counts again as a first.
- Monitor the two clocks: 5 years of parent-child separation, 6 months of spouse absence.
- If you have a child with a documented medical condition, provide reports from the start and request in writing that they evaluate what the move would mean. It is one of the few arguments that has worked.
- If you are denied, read the decision looking for one specific thing: Did they weigh Article 8? If they only mention it without weighing your circumstances, there is your case.
A honest warning about the 26%: that figure is from people who have already gone to trial, almost always because something went wrong. It is not the probability that your well-presented application will be approved from the start — those almost never reach a court because there is nothing to dispute. Doing the process correctly from the beginning is precisely how to avoid relying on that statistic.
This information is based on public sources and our own analysis of actual rulings; it does not replace the advice of a lawyer for a specific case. You can see the details of each procedure at Family Reunification via Van Rechtswege and at Residence Permit for Family Members.