France’s Residence Permit System
One of the most striking aspects of the investigation is that it repeatedly reminds us this is not a new story.
The latest report forms part of a long sequence of interventions by the institution stretching back almost a decade, as we have previously reported.
Successive reports have criticised:
growing waiting times for appointments;
increasing difficulty contacting prefectures;
excessive delays in processing applications;
the inability of applicants to secure appointments before permits expire;
failures of digital administration;
and the resulting violations of legal rights.
Yet many of the recommendations made over the past decade remain unimplemented, despite repeated warnings from the Ombudsman.
The growing strain on the system is reflected in the watchdog's own caseload.
Complaints concerning foreigners' rights represented only 10% of all complaints received by the institution in 2019–2020. By 2025, they accounted for 41%, making immigration the largest area of complaint.
The Ombudsman found it particularly troubling that 35 prefectures, including some of the largest and most problematic, failed to respond to their questionnaire at all. The institution names the prefectures, a highly unusual step.
The reports highlights that official processing figures often fail to capture the full duration of the application process. Long periods spent waiting for an application to be registered, as well as time spent in administrative limbo after the legal deadline for a decision has expired, may simply disappear from the headline statistics.
In 2023, the stock of pending applications across France reached 402,790, a 66% increase since 2019. The report estimates that the actual backlog may be 20–30% higher than officially reported, as some préfectures exclude certain types of applications from their counts or delay recording new ones until they can be processed more quickly.
One recurring feature of the system is the use of "pre-demand" procedures, under which applicants are required to complete preliminary formalities before their application is officially registered. Yet none of this time is counted in official delay statistics.
The report refers to a striking example from the Val-de-Marne prefecture, where, according to arguments advanced by applicant associations in proceedings before the local administrative court, applicants were waiting an average of two and a half years between submitting a pre-demand and having their case officially registered. Yet this two-and-a-half-year wait is not reflected in the official processing-time statistics.
The Ombudsman states that there is no legal basis for these pre-demand procedures.
The investigation also shines a light on the growing importance of implicit rejections. Under French law, if a prefecture does not respond to an application within four months, it is considered a tacit rejection that can be appealed. In practice, however, many applications appear to linger indefinitely, neither approved nor formally refused, leaving applicants in a state of legal uncertainty.
Registration is often only the beginning of the problem. Applicants can still face lengthy waits for provisional documents such as récépissés or attestations de prolongation d'instruction (APIs), which allow them to demonstrate their lawful status while their case is being examined.
In some cases, prefectures retroactively backdate the validity of residence permits to cover periods during which applicants held no valid document.
The report highlights the case of one individual who received a four-year residence card just ten months before it expired, rendering it almost useless.
Taken together, the findings suggest that where an application is made can be almost as important as the merits of the application itself. For applicants, the result is something close to a postcode lottery. Waiting times and access to appointments can vary dramatically from one department to another.
Investigators point to chronic understaffing, an increasingly complex legal framework, competing enforcement priorities and persistent organisational and technical failures—including serious problems with the digital platform (Administration Numérique pour les Étrangers en France - ANEF). The report states that the ANEF system has become “a brake on the processing of applications”, owing to persistent shortcomings and technical problems
The report also notes that a significant proportion of prefectural resources are devoted to enforcing deportation orders (Obligations de Quitter le Territoire Français - OQTFs), rather than processing residence permits.
As one prefect acknowledged: "The long-standing priority given to the removal of foreigners [...] also weighs heavily on the activity of these services.”
A second prefect, who requested anonymity, was even more direct:"We are asked to do more and more with always less, while accusing us of not controlling enough. It is a system that is made to fail."
Related Reading:
