Addressing the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways

Complementary pathways have been offered as a possible solution for facilitating legal admission of people in need of international protection. The current debates about these pathways are characterised by a conceptual and legal quagmire since various issues are invoked and conflated. The objective of this article is to dissect the relevant issues in light of the existing relevant legal frameworks to achieve better clarity. For this purpose, the pathways are compared with resettlement and territorial asylum, to demonstrate their distinctiveness. This possible distinctiveness (i

to facilitate the admission of individuals in need of international protection.1The UN Global Compact on Refugees promotes such a development by noting that '[a]s a complement to resettlement, other pathways for the admission of persons with international protection needs can facilitate access to protection and/or solutions.'2The Compact continues to enumerate examples of such pathways.The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum also promotes the development of 'sustainable legal pathways for those in need of protection.'3 The idea itself that States in the West should develop procedures through which people in need of protection can enter legally, as an addition to territorial asylum (i.e., irregular spontaneous arrivals), is not new.4Resettlement itself is such a procedure.Humanitarian visas that might be also part of resettlement, have been under discussion.5What is perhaps new is the launching of a purportedly overarching idea where different considerations (i.e.protectionrelated and not protection-related but connected with e.g.labour needs or family links) and objectives are all muddled together under the heading of 'complementary pathways' and presented as a possible response to the current challenges.The UNHCR has even offered a definition in this way propping the perception that there is actually an overarching unifying idea.6 Reading the available policy documents from various actors and the relatively limited academic literature that is predominantly policy-orientated and empirical,7 a conceptual and legal quagmire emerges: various issues are invoked and conflated.Some of them are related to existing legal norms, others are related to rights enshrined in human rights law, perhaps for creating the impression that these pathways do not or should not operate in a legal vacuum.8Some of the issues are linked to policy objectives, while others to Stoyanova European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023)   practicalities.Some invocations of the pathways are merely descriptive of what actually already exists as a matter of state practices; these descriptions are combined with normative statements (i.e., what States should do).Some issues are related to States, others to UNHCR or to non-state actors; some issues might have something to do with EU law, while others do not; but all of them can be found in the mix.Some issues pertain to conditions of entry or to conditions of stay, while others to conditions for prolongation of stay with little efforts to disentangle them.Not to mention that the objective of better solidarity has been also added in the mix.9Perhaps because often compared with resettlement, 'vulnerability' is also mentioned when complementary pathways are deliberated.10Better integration has been also added, which might explain the entanglement between protection and not protection-related considerations.11This mixture is understandable given the novelty and the absence of a specific legal framework at international or regional level that could possibly delimit, define and relate in a relatively stable way the pertinent issues, so that we all know what we are actually talking about.
The conflation of all these issues when the topic of the pathways is discussed, is not useful.It is injurious since it hampers any understanding as to whether they are of any value for any relevant individuals and for States.It might be also detrimental since they can be invoked to support measures that are contrary to individual interests (or at least used against individuals in the analysis of their human rights), including deterrence and externalisation of migration control.12While with or without the pathways, States can engage with deterrence and externalisation, the invocation of the pathways does add a nuance.The reason is that they support the argument that deterrence and externalisation themselves do not make Europe an unwelcoming and impenetrable fortress, since arguably there are pathways to enter in legal and safe ways that take consideration of protection needs (although we do not know to what extent this consideration matters, given the above mentioned quagmire).This nuance can have not only political and practice repercussions; it can also affect the legal reasoning in human rights law.This has happened in relationship to the prohibition on collective expulsion of aliens.13Such an impact can be also expected in relationship to the right to life.14However, to make an argument that there is something (i.e.legal pathways) that can affect policies and legal reasoning, we need to first know what this something is.We need some stability as to its conceptual limits.
In light of the above-described quagmire and its possible implications, my objective is to propose a dissection of the relevant issues.The dissection that aims at better conceptual clarity, is performed from the perspective of the existing relevant legal frameworks.In other words, these frameworks that already regulate various aspect of movement across international borders, offer useful tools.To better understand the challenges related to the pathways, we need therefore some comparisons with concepts and meanings that are relatively stable due to their legal regulation at international, regional and national level.This does not negate the importance of studying the actual practices of States, the policy drivers and the practical challenges.These remain crucial given the discretion that States have whether to have any pathways and the wide discretion how to actually arrange them in practice.Yet, attaining some analytical clarity at a more abstract level is also important.For this reason, Section 2 tries to understand legal pathways by comparing them with resettlement and territorial asylum.This comparison leads to the conclusion that their distinguishing feature is the combination of protection-related and not protection-related considerations.This combination disrupts the existing legal categories for regulating migration since as Section 3 explains the regulation of the different segments of the movement of people across borders is premised on certain categorisations and distinctions.Section 4 elucidates the significance of these categorisations and distinctions in the regulation of leaving and entering countries.For this purpose, Section 4 invokes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), EU law and national law.The relationship between individuals, as potential beneficiaries of the pathways, and receiving States as possible duty-holders, is at the heart of the analysis.

The Distinctiveness of Legal Pathways
Although UNHCR tends to use the term 'complementary pathways' , different labels have been in operation and used by different actors: 'legal pathways'15 'pathways for admission,'16 'humanitarian admission programs'17 'active refugee admission policies,'18 'safe and legal access channels,'19 'legal entry channels' ,20 'alternative admission pathways.'21For the sake of this article, I will use the term legal pathways or complementary pathways.
Despite the variety of utilized terms, at least three things emerge from all these labels and the practices included under the labels.First, these are arrangements for allowing and enabling movement that are in some respects similar to legal migration and resettlement (section 2.1).Second, at least in their current articulations, the arrangements do not include serious engagement with what happens after the movement is completed (section 2.2).Third, the arrangements include a mixture of protection-related and not-protection related considerations (section 2.3).

Allowing and Enabling Movement Similarly to Legal Migration and Resettlement
Legal pathways refer to mechanisms/practices/arrangements for allowing and enabling people to leave, travel to and enter countries of destination legally.They allow and enable a physical movement by offering a path from one country to another one.This physical movement is allowed and enabled by the second country (i.e. the potential receiving country that is also the country of destination and thus protection), since this country organizes some procedures.The beneficiaries, who are physically located in the first country (country of origin or first country of asylum) can access these procedures, although they are not within the jurisdiction of the receiving country.In this way, legal pathways resemble legal migration and resettlement, while at the same time being distinct from territorial asylum.The latter necessary implies that individuals come within the jurisdiction of the destination country so that a procedure for examining their protection claim can be triggered.In contrast, legal pathways presuppose availability and access to a procedure without a jurisdictional attachment between the individual and the country of protection.Given the absence of a jurisdictional link, their regulation by human rights law becomes problematic.The reason is that the beneficiaries are not entitled to invoke any rights that might correspond to any obligations of the receiving country under human rights law.This is a point to which I will return below.The role of law (i.e.human rights law) in the beginning of the movement subsides, which is arguably offset by greater role of politics and facticity (i.e. the political decision to allow and enable physical movement).In comparison, territorial asylum often implies physical movement that is not regulated, at least not from the perspective of the countries of destination.Facticity governs here, up until the point when the person is physically in contact with the receiving State, which can trigger the jurisdictional link and constitute the person as a holder of human rights opposable against this State.22

2.2
No Focus on What Happens after the Movement Although legal pathways are meant to complement resettlement, they are different.Resettlement has been long practiced as a humanitarian response to the situation of vulnerable persons23; it normally includes not only a procedure for enabling and allowing movement and thus legal entry, but also a permanent residence in the destination country.In this sense, resettlement is a bundle of guarantees related to both the movement, including the entry, and the stay/residence.Admittedly, given the wide scope of discretion as to how different States condition resettlement, this comparison is not entirely stable.Practices can change and permanent residence made not available after resettlement.24Yet, generally, resettlement is a bundle, which means that it is not only a pathway to another State; it does not only guarantee a destination, but also a place of permanent stay.As to legal pathways, it is clear that they can offer a destination, but the conditions regulating the initial stay (i.e., type of residence permit), the duration of the stay (i.e., duration of the permit), the prolongation of the stay (i.e.requirements for prolongation of the permit or for being granted a new type of a permit), and the rights attached to the different permits in terms of access to welfare and the labour market, are up for grabs.These conditions are within the discretion of each State and they might differ depending on the type of the pathway.It could be argued that all these conditions should not have a central role in the efforts by different actors to promote complementary pathways, since the focus should rather be on the pathways, i.e., on having arrangements that enable and allow safe movement from one point to another, and once having reached the point of destination, the rest will arrange itself.If people were packages, perhaps this proposition might hold.Since they are not, migration law links the conditions for entry with the conditions for the initial stay, prolongation of the stay and any rights pursuant to the national labour or welfare law.25The conditions are accordingly bundled.Perhaps the bundle does not have to include permanent residence, as in resettlement.In any case, however, allowing and enabling entry requires considerations of what happens thereafter.In current articulations of complementary pathways by different actors,26 the question as to the duration of the stay/residence and the conditions for prolongation of this stay/residence do not seem to be in the focus.27

2.3
Mixture of Protection-Related and Not Protection-Related Considerations Similar to resettlement, complementary pathways have humanitarian underpinnings, which makes them relevant to individuals in need of protection.However, their protection-related basis is muddled with other considerations (e.g.family connections, labour and educational possibilities).28This raises the question whether, for example, humanitarian visas should be included within the overarching concept of legal pathways, since the former have been perceived as exclusively related to protection.29 The wider question is how to integrate and interrelate all these different considerations (protection-related and not protection-related).Relatedly, should one of them be given priority over others?At which point in the movement (i.e.eligibility criteria for selection performed in the third country or determining the conditions for stay after arrival) should the consideration matter?At which point in the movement should one of them be given priority over the others?30 Similar questions can arise in the context of resettlement given the discretion that States have regarding the eligibility of beneficiaries, which again makes the distinctiveness of legal pathways questionable.Having introduced this caveat, it can be still fairly strongly stated that resettlement is generally about protection.31In contrast, legal pathways have appeared on the political horizon precisely because they are possibilities that mix types of migration that have been traditionally kept in separate silos.32It is worthwhile to observe that national migration law and EU law traditionally place non-nationals in specific categories (labour, education, family, international protection) and shuffling categories is not easy to legally manage.Law is predicated on these categorizations.When the categories are disrupted, the question arises how to use the available legal tools or do we need new ones to regulate movement that does not strictly fit within one of the categories.33The objective of the next section is to explore how the available tools are of any relevance and help and what kind of questions they prompt us to ask regarding the pathways.Interestingly, in some documents it is assumed that the existing migration categories can be simply used for people in need of international protection.See Exploring Legal Pathways to Fulfill Labour Needs (European Migration Network, 2021) and 2020 EU Commission recommendation on legal pathways, para 31.One can doubt whether it is sufficient for existing legal avenues to be simply opened to people who accidentally also happen to be in need of protection, to be worthy of being conceptualized as complementary pathways.Some specific measures targeted for people in need of protection are necessary, so that the new label and conceptualization has an independent value and is worthy of all the attention.To better understand how law regulates movement across international borders, five segments of this movement need to be distinguished.The first one is leaving/exiting a country.The second segment is access to the territory of another country.However, since the human rights law jurisdiction of the intended country of destination is triggered upon effective control, it might also be relevant to frame this second segment as placing oneself within this country's effective control.34 The third segment relates to the conditions for the initial stay in the territory of the country of destination.The last two segments concern the prolongation of this stay in the territory of the country of destination and the possible removal from this country.
Legal pathways raise questions in relation to each one of these five segments.Since, as already mentioned above the focus has been on exiting third countries and accessing countries of destination, I will focus on these two in Section 4. The segments are bundled since, for example, the specific type of visa used for entering a country predetermines the conditions for the initial stay or the intention behind the stay might predetermine whether visa would be issued.35 The segments are also bundled since the conditions for allowing entry (i.e., issuance of a visa) are assessed far away from the actual border that needs to be crossed for the purposes of entry.This means that leaving might not be possible without having a visa.36 The focus on leaving and accessing countries of destination is without prejudice to the complicated questions that arise in relation to the last three segments -conditions for the initial stay, prolongation of the stay and removal.The authorization of the initial stay implies that residence permits need to be issued and the national legislation needs to determine the ground for these permits.For example, if a person is granted a refugee status, this status is the ground for a residence permit.37If a person is a family member, the family link is also another ground for issuing a permit.38Normally, the national the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 legislation allows one ground for a permit.39Under the national legislation, beneficiaries of the pathways might use the already available grounds, or given the distinctiveness of the arrangements for allowing and enabling their entry, distinctive grounds for permits might have to be introduced at national level.If the national legislation contains flexible grounds, this flexibility might also be used for accommodating the specific arrangements that might characterize the complementary pathways, so that permits are issued.The permit issued determines not only the duration of legal stay, but also access to rights, benefits and services.For example, in Italy individuals who arrived via the so called 'humanitarian corridors' , were not granted status different from refugee status or subsidiary protection status; they were, however offered reception arrangements distinct from those offered to individuals who irregularly arrived in the country.40The national immigration legislation therefore can grant access to rights, benefits and services depending on the pathways of arrival.In this sense, the national legislator can introduce various distinctions and decide how any of these apply specifically to beneficiaries of complementary pathways.
The initial permit might be an object of specific conditions as to its prolongation.Prolongation of the stay raises question about whether the initial permit granted can be prolonged and under what conditions.It can also raise the question whether the person can switch the basis of the permit without being required to leave the country.
As to the last segment regarding removal of beneficiaries of complementary pathways, this demands engagement with at least the following questions: Under what conditions can beneficiaries be removed?Where can they be returned to?Should these questions be answered differently depending on the type of pathway used for entry?Besides the general prohibition on non-refoulement and, in exceptional circumstances the right to family life, should return of beneficiaries be regulated in a distinctive way?As to the question of which country can persons be returned to, should this be the first country of asylum?If yes, does this mean that there needs to be a readmission agreement between the two relevant States that includes readmission of non-nationals, given that the individual who has benefited from the pathway does not have a right to return to the first country of asylum?
Another important clarification is due regarding the segments.Some aspects of the segments might be an object of regulation, while others are left to the discretion of States from the perspective of international and EU law.As to those aspects that are regulated, we need to make a distinction as to the type of regulation.If human rights law is relevant, this implies that individuals can claim certain rights.If there are indeed relevant human rights law provisions, two additional questions arise.First, which country owns obligations corresponding to these rights?The answer to this question brings us back to the jurisdictional threshold in human rights law.The second question is what the content and the scope of these obligations could be: what concrete measures are States as holders of obligations legally required to take?The core question here is whether these measures can be specified so that the content of the obligation necessarily demands arrangements for allowing and enabling leaving and entry.
If human rights law is not relevant, there might be international instruments that regulate state-to-state relations that might be pertinent given the transborder nature of the movement.41In addition, since EU has competence in the area of migration and asylum and has legislated on some aspects, EU law also intervenes as a framework that governs the conduct of EU Member States.A relevant question then is whether EU law demands certain measures or prohibits them.If EU law actually prohibits certain measures, what is the scope of the prohibition?In the alternative, does EU law allow measures without demanding them as a matter of EU law obligations?The role of EU law is further complicated by the role of the EU Charter.42If Member States implement EU law, they have to comply with the EU Charter.Which rights from the Charter might be relevant and what obligations might the Charter impose?Could these obligations be specified to such a degree as to include arrangements for allowing and enabling entry?
Finally, if we assume that neither international law nor EU law might impose any demands on States as to the arrangements of the pathways, some aspects might be an object of regulation at the domestic level.In fact, given that the objective pursued is legal access, there must be some national legal regulation of the access and the stay on the national territory.While the arrangements might be purely based on discretionary practices as to the selection and the eligibility, domestic law must play a role for regulating the entry and the stay.
Any better understanding of complementary pathway has to seriously consider these questions and all the distinctions that they imply.Appreciating all their complexities is not possible within the limits of this article, which implies that the analysis below does not claim comprehensiveness.It  show the importance of the distinctions in relation to the first two segments of the movement mentioned above.

Leaving and Entry
As already suggested, the first two segments of the movement, i.e. leaving and entry, can be reviewed from the perspective of human rights law (Section 4.1), EU law (Section 4.2) and domestic law (Section 4.3).

Human Rights Law
Starting with human rights law, at least four relevant rights can be identified: the right to leave any country, the right to non-refoulement, procedural rights and the right to family life.43

4.1.1
The Right to Leave any Country The right to leave any country, including one's own,44 can be an object of legitimate limitations.It is questionable, however, whether practical or legal impossibilities to enter other countries, can justify limitations of this right.45 In this sense, having or not having a pathway to somewhere else (i.e. another country) should not matter as a justification that can be invoked by the country on whose territory the person is, to limit the right.Countries of destination are not holders of obligations corresponding to this right given the absence of a jurisdictional link.Any measures that allow and enable leaving undertaken by these countries are therefore not measures that can form the content of any obligations.
A relevant aspect here is that that the beneficiaries of complementary pathways might be limited to individuals who have already left their countries of origin and are located in so-called first countries of asylum or transit countries.In this sense, the pathways are not from countries of origin.46What could be the justifications for this?I can identify at least two.The first one is that complementary pathways are represented as having inter alia the objective of burden sharing: by having these pathways in place, the West arguably alleviates the burden that first countries of asylum carry of hosting many people in need of protection.This illustrates how the justification can impact the personal scope by possibly limiting the beneficiaries to those that have already left their countries of origin.
The second possible justification is of a legal character since it is related to the refugee law regime grounded on the Refugee Convention.It relates to the question whether the scope of the beneficiaries of the legal pathways should be limited to refugees.If yes, to be a refugee in accordance with the definition in the Refugee Convention, the person should have left the country of origin.We can try to investigate the justifications as to why alienage was made a necessary requirement in the refugee definition and ask the question whether the same justifications are relevant and thus the same requirement should be applied to possible beneficiaries of the pathways.One of the justifications was not intervening in the sovereignty of the countries of origin.47This justification might also be relevant in the context of complementary pathways since they might imply extension of decision making in the territory of other States.If these other States are however first countries of asylum, such an extension might be less problematic.In any case, all of this suggests that some form of cooperation is required between receiving countries, on the one hand, and countries of first asylum/transit on the other, so that the pathways can be operationalized.Such cooperation concerns state-to-state relationships.When it comes to the state-individual relationship, as already mentioned above, the right to leave does not trigger obligations consisting of measures by potential countries of destination to facilitate leaving, which explains the discretionary nature of the complementary pathways from the perspective of human rights law.
Neither does the right to leave relate to legal possibilities for entering a specific country.The right to enter a country is limited to one's own country.48Even if a person physically reaches the territory of the country of destination, in this way physically crossing the border, this does not mean that he/she has entered the country in the sense of the national legislation.Formulating a protection claim and participating in proceedings for examining such a claim, does not necessary imply an authorization to enter the country.49Yet, while the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 establishing a physical contact with the authorities of the receiving country does not necessary imply a legal entry, it is a key threshold moment for human rights law.The reason is that the person can invoke the human rights law obligations of this country, including the obligation of non-refoulement.

4.1.2
The Right to Non-refoulement Besides the right to leave, the right to asylum and the right to non-refoulement should be also mentioned.Given the questionable status of the right to asylum, the focus will be on non-refoulement.50 Arguments have been formulated that non-refoulement implies a negative obligation owed by countries of destination to abstain from preventing leaving.51Even if the jurisdiction threshold in human rights law is interpreted expansively,52 an argument that these States also owe a positive obligation to facilitate leaving by for example arranging a complementary pathway, is hard to accept.Not to mention that if the beneficiaries of complementary pathways are limited to persons located in first countries of asylum, any causation between the failure to facilitate leaving and risk of ill-treatment, is weakened.53More specifically, denial of measures allowing and enabling leaving does not expose the person to refoulement since the person can remain in the country of first asylum.
Does anything change once a destination country decides to arrange a complementary pathway by actually facilitating leaving?The answer must be negative, since by participating in a procedure that has been arranged by this country, the person does not bring himself/herself within this country's jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights law.54If these arrangements, however, imply some physical effective control over territory or potential beneficiaries, possibilities might be open for triggering the jurisdictional threshold in human rights law.55 Even if such possibilities are realized, given the 'divided and tailored' approach to jurisdiction,56 it can be questioned whether the destination country owes any positive obligations whose specific content implies concrete measures to facilitate leaving.H.F. and Others v France is useful to illustrate this.The applicants argued that the refusal by France to facilitate their repatriation breached their right to enter their own country.Admittedly, their nationality combined with other factors was crucial for triggering the jurisdictional threshold in relation to the specific right invoked.As to the obligation owed by France, it was limited to having a non-arbitrary decision-making procedure for assessing requests for repatriation.Notably, the specific content of the obligation as formulated by the ECtHR did not include actual measures to facilitate repatriation.
The relevant point here is that even in the unlikely case where the jurisdictional threshold is found triggered and human rights possible to invoke against the country of destination, the content of any corresponding obligations can be very limited.Such a content might not include measures of actually allowing and enabling leaving, unless it can be proven that such measures are the only way of fulling obligations.All of this demonstrates that even if we ignore the jurisdictional threshold, it might be hard to specify obligations with a content that includes concrete arrangements of allowing and enabling leaving and entry.57

4.1.3
Procedural Rights How about any procedural obligations?If we assume that somehow the hurdle with the jurisdictional threshold can be overcome, might it be the case that once the destination country decides to actually arrange a complementary pathway by actually facilitating leaving, it owes any procedural positive obligations to possible beneficiaries?The ECHR contains provisions that explicitly confer procedural rights, such as Article 6.The right to fair trial is however not applicable to immigration proceedings,58 which seems to make it irrelevant to the beneficiaries of any pathways.
Article 13 of the ECHR that enshrines the right to effective remedy, also imposes procedural obligations.This right, however, is linked with the substantive rights in the ECHR since the person who invokes it has to demonstrate an the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 arguable violation of a substantive right.The question then arises which substantive rights could possibly be affected (i.e., arguably violated) in the complementary pathway procedure.As already suggested above, non-refoulement under Article 3 might not be a very promising candidate given the weak causation.Again, here it needs to be mentioned that in M.N. and Others v Belgium, the ECtHR rejected the idea of imposition of any obligations via a procedural backdoor.
Article 8 might be more promising given that, first, States might arrange complementary pathways based on family links and that, second, the ECtHR has applied Article 8 to situations of admissions of family members for the purposes of family reunification.59It should also be kept in mind that Article 8, without necessarily in conjunction with Article 13, can impose procedural obligations.60

4.1.4
The Right to Family Life Any engagement with Article 8 ECHR has to start with the recognition that this provision does not impose on a State a general obligation to authorize family reunification on its territory.61If admission to territory were to form the content of an obligation under Article 8 that is owned specifically to an applicant, this is subject to certain conditions.One of them is, for example, 'whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family life in the country of origin of the alien concerned.'62When the family member to be admitted 'remains in a country characterized by arbitrary violent attacks and ill-treatment of civilians' ,63 this can constitute such an insurmountable obstacle.If complementary pathways are from countries of first asylum, this factor might not be fulfilled.At the same time, however, there might be 'insurmountable obstacles' for family life in the first country of asylum, since for example, the sponsor might not be able to return there.In this case, family life might be only possible to ensure if the family member moves to the sponsor.
Admittedly of the article to examine all the other factors and their application in the case law.It suffices to note that the question of admission of family members under Article 8 implies a very individual-centered assessment,65 which denotes a lot of flexibility.Yet this assessment does combine family links with protection needs, which makes is very interesting from the perspective of the development of complementary pathways.However, given the nature of human rights law (i.e. it is centered on the individual), Article 8 cannot as a matter of principle be used for imposing an obligation of having such pathways.The assessment under Article 8 is very much dependent on the legal regulations that States are willing to adopt and the conditions and the distinctions introduced therein.66Article 8 can be used, though, for challenging the conditions and the distinctions in individual cases, including by complementing considerations of protection needs and family links, for the purposes of admission of family members.
As much importantly, Article 8 imposes procedural obligations upon States to the effect that the decision-making process leading to a decision/measure that affects family life, must be underpinned by procedural safeguards, including consideration of the factors developed in the Court's case law.67 Granting of a visa or a refusal to grant one are such decisions.The Court has indeed found violations of Article 8 on the ground that the national decision making process regarding granting of visas 'did not offer the guarantees of flexibility, promptness and effectiveness required in order to secure the right to respect for family life.'68Two caveats are due at this juncture.First, the procedural guarantees were applied in cases where the affected individuals had a right to family reunification under the national legislation.69  pathway based on family links that is not formalized, based on State discretion and with no substantive legal protection, it can be doubted whether any procedural guarantees can be imposed as a matter of Article 8 ECHR.This intertwinement between substance and procedure, leads to me to the second caveat.Namely, even if procedural safeguards are afforded as a matter of human rights law, this does not necessary mean that the State is under the obligation to ensure a specific outcome, namely admission to its territory.

4.2
EU Law Contrary to human rights law, the application of EU law and the Charter is arguably not restricted by a jurisdictional threshold similar to the one in the ECHR.71Does this change anything from the perspective of leaving and entry?As I will show below, in some respects EU law is not only unhelpful, but due to its rationale,72 it complicates matters.In other respects, however, and more specifically given that is has regulated family reunification, EU law can facilitate admissions.
In light of Article 51(1) of the Charter, two questions arise: Do Member State implement EU law when they take any measures, such as issuance or denial of visas, that affect the possibility of leaving and entry?Which rights protected by the Charter might be affected by such measures that are arguably in implementation of EU?
It is pertinent here to note that the Charter does not contain a right to leave any country.Possible other candidates are the right not to be subjected to refoulement, the right to asylum, and to family life.Given the questionable independent standing of the second one,73 the rights to non-refoulement and family life, including any procedural guarantees that these rights could imply, appear promising candidates.Without prejudice to any more extensive protection the Charter might offer in comparison with the ECHR,74 the forthcoming analysis will center on the first question (i.e.whether Member State are implementing EU law), not only because the rights were addressed in the previous section, but also because the first question is key.
As to this key question, it is relevant to first note that the Reception Conditions and the Asylum Procedures Directives are clear to the effect that the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 (i.e.Schengen visas), 'visas with limited territorial validity' that are not valid for the territory of all Member States, and 'airport transit visas.'79Given the specific conditions as to when uniform visas can be issued,80 the Member States are prohibited by EU law to use the uniform visas option for the purposes of allowing and enabling third-country nationals with protection needs to have a legal pathway.The same is valid for the transit visas.Certainly, an applicant can fulfill all the conditions for these visas and accidentally happen to be at the same time in need of international protection, a need that he/she might express only once having reached the Member State's territory.However, in this case, the granting of a visa has nothing to do with protection and in this sense, it is not a measure of allowing and enabling a legal pathway.
We are therefore left with the option for limited territorial validity visa.Article 25 of the Visa Code provides that such a visa 'shall be issued exceptionally […] when the Member State concerned considers it necessary on humanitarian grounds, for reasons of national interest or because of international obligations.'In X and X v Belgium, the Court of Justice clarified that such a visa has to be also a short-term visa.If the applicant for the visa intends to stay for more than 90 days, even if the application is formally submitted on the basis of Article 25 of the Code, the application falls outside the scope of the Code.In other words, the purpose of the application differs from that of a short-term visa.It is only the latter that the EU has legislated about.The Court added that since […] no measure has been adopted, to date, by the EU legislature on the basis of Article 79(2)(a) TFEU, with regard to the conditions governing the issue by Member States of long-term visas and residence permits on humanitarian grounds, the applications at issue in the main proceedings fall solely within the scope of national law.81It follows then that Member States are allowed under EU law to use the humanitarian visa option under the Visa Code to allow and enable legal pathways provided that the intended stay does not exceed three months in any six-month period.Such an arrangement is not prohibited by EU law and if Member States take advantage of it, the Charter applies.However, if the arrangement implies an intended stay for a longer period, this arrangement is not in implementation of the Visa Code and the Charter accordingly does not apply.than 90 days.84When the intended stay is no more than 90 days, EU law allows Member States to issue visas with limited territorial validity.If they choose to do it, Member States will not violate EU law; they are not, however, obliged to issue the short-term visa.At the same time, EU has not legislated on visas for intended stay of more than 90 days.This means that when developing pathways that imply stays longer than 90, Member States are not implementing EU law and the Charter is irrelevant.

Visas and the Common European Asylum System
Having explained what EU law allows and prohibits in terms of issuance of visas under the Visa Code, another question also needs to be raised here: Does EU law prohibit Member States to issue any visas for the purpose of applying for 'international protection' as defined in EU law and more specifically in the EU Qualification Directive?Paragraph 44 from X and X v Belgium suggests that Member States are free to issue visas/permits or any authorizations on humanitarian grounds.While such authorizations fall outside EU law, they might be allowed and regulated by national law.The relevant question here is how these national arrangements that might allow and enable pathways, relate to the Common European Asylum System that among other things has harmonized the qualification for refugee and subsidiary protection statuses (jointly labelled as 'international protection').
This question is relevant since in X and X v Belgium the ECJ did not only say that an application for a visa with the intention to apply for international protection, is not a short-term visa in the sense of the Visa Code.The ECJ went on to add 'allowing third-country nationals to lodge applications for visas on the basis of the Visa Code in order to obtain international protection in the Member State of their choice' 'would undermine the general structure of the system established by Regulation No 604/2013 [the Dublin Regulation].'85It is pertinent, however, to note that any national arrangements that allow entry combined with the granting or the possibility to apply for 'international protection' (understood as refugee or subsidiary protection status in the sense of the EU Qualification Directive), would then undermine the Dublin Regulation.86Will it be contrary to EU law to then combine such national arrangements with the granting of 'international protection' as defined in the EU Qualification Directive?
To engage with this question, it is pertinent to cite the following paragraph from X and X v Belgium it is apparent from Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/32 that that directive applies to applications for international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States, but not to requests for diplomatic or territorial asylum submitted to the representations of Member States.87 Can this be interpreted to the effect that since EU has legislated and harmonized 'international protection' in the form of refugee and subsidiary protection statuses, it will be contrary to EU law if these statuses and the rights attached to them, are also extended to people who come to a Member State via complementary pathways (i.e., via national arrangements not covered by the Visa Code)?It is important to highlight here that the Qualification Directive itself does not contain any references to any geographical limitations (i.e.territory, border, territorial waters or transit zones).This can support a negative answer to the posed question.
Even if a person coming to the EU via a pathway arranged by a Member State, cannot be granted refugee status and subsidiary protection in the sense of the EU Qualification Directive, this person might still be a refugee in the sense of the Refugee Convention.Here it is pertinent to note that in M v Ministerstvo vnitra the Court distinguished between, on the one hand, 'refugee status' as regulated by EU law and, on the other, being a refugee in the sense of the Refugee Convention.88This distinction was introduced by the ECJ to ensure that the Qualification Directive is interpreted in a way that it compatible with the Refugee Convention regarding the end of the status.Yet, the introduction of such a distinction as a matter of principle, might be used to support an argument that a person coming via a pathway can only be a refugee in the sense of the Refugee Convention, and not necessary entitled to the rights and benefits attached to 'refugee status' in the sense of the Qualification Directive.89In any case, the beneficiaries might be eligible for other national protection statuses that are not an object of EU law regulation.
To summarize, not only is EU law not helpful for developing complementary pathways, but in light of the reasoning in X. and X. v Belgium questions can be also raised as to the linkages between, on the one hand, any national arrangements that enable legal entry into the territory of Member States, and the Common European Asylum System.In particular, doubts have arisen as to whether the beneficiaries of any such arrangements are covered by the Qualification Directive.If excluded, the Charter does not apply either.

4.2.3
Visas and Entry in the Common Schengen Area EU law causes complications not only regarding the protection status that any beneficiaries of the pathways might be granted.Further difficulties seem to be caused because the entry is into the EU common area.It is therefore relevant to reflect what implications this might have for any arrangements for allowing and enabling entry as part of complementary pathways.
As already explained in Section 4.2.1 above, the Visa Code does not impose an obligation upon the Member States to issue a visa.Neither does the mere possession of a visa entitle the holder to enter.90The holder of the visa can seek entry and transit towards the destination, but entry can still be denied.91However, having a visa is one of the necessary conditions for being allowed entry and the core conditions for issuing a visa are the same as the conditions for being allowed entry, as laid down in the Schengen Border Code.92 Given the creation of the EU common area of free movement, entry in the EU is a complicated matter since the following questions might arise: Is it entry via the external Schengen border of a Member State only for the purpose of stay in this very Member State?Is it entry via an external Schengen border of a Member State for the purpose of a stay in another Member State given that it is the latter than has issued the authorization (visa or residence permit)?In this second scenario, the first Member State will only be a transit State that might have to allow entry for the purposes of the transit.
Article 6(5) of the Border Code regulates entry for stays longer than 90 days.In particular, Article 6(5)(a) of the Border Code stipulates that third-country nationals 'who hold a residence permit or a long-stay visa shall be authorized to enter the territory of the other Member States for transit purposes so that they may reach the territory of the Member State which issued the residence permit or the long-stay visa.[…].'The concept of 'residence permit' is defined in Article 2(16) of the Border Code.It includes documents issued by a Member State to third country nationals authorizing a stay on its territory.Importantly, temporary permits issued pending examination of a first application for a residence permit or an application for asylum are excluded from the definition.This means that 'temporary residence permit issued pending examination of a first application for a residence permit or an application for asylum cannot be used to enter the Schengen area.'93It follows then that provisional/temporary authorizations cannot be used to transit by crossing the external Schengen border of one Member State to enter another Member State (i.e. the one that has issued these authorizations).
Article 14 of the Border Code regulates the refusals of entry and it applies to all third-country nationals who wish to enter a Member State via an external Schengen border.Member States are under the obligation to refuse entry if the conditions under Article 14 of the Border Code are not fulfilled.For a third country national not to be refused entry, he or she has to be in possession of a Schengen visa and meet the other relevant requirements, or hold a residence permit or a long stay visa, or be issued with a visa at the border or invoke international obligations (e.g.international protection).
Pulling the strings together, for beneficiaries of any complementary pathways not to be denied entry in the Schengen area via a transit Member State, they must not be in a possession of temporary and provisional authorizations (permits or visas).Rather they have to be holders of a residence permit or a long stay visa as conditioned by the national legislation of the Member State of intended destination.They can be also holders of residence permits on the basis of EU law (e.g. the Family Reunification Directive).
Does the Border Code in any way affect the type of authorization that the Member State of intended destination has to issue to beneficiaries so that they can directly enter its territory via its external borders?Does the Border Code allow this Member State to allow entry even if only a provisional permit is issued or only a visa for the purposes of applying for protection after entry?To engage with these questions, we need to look at Articles 6(5)(c) and 14(1) of the Border Code.The first one stipulates that third-country nationals 'may be authorized by a Member State to enter its territory on humanitarian grounds, on grounds of national interest or because of international obligations.'Article 14(1) of the Border Code adds that refusals of entry 'shall be without prejudice to the application of special provisions concerning the right of asylum and to international protection or the issue of long-stay visas.'Overall, it is not entirely clear what type of authorization the Member State has to issue to beneficiaries so that the Member State is not obliged by the Border Code to deny entry.Given the invocation of the right to asylum and international protection, temporary provisional permits so that beneficiaries can apply for a long-term permit after entry, might suffice for directly entering the Member State.However, such permits will arguably not be in implementation of the Border Code and thus outside the reach of the Charter.

4.2.4
Visas and Entry for other Purposes The Visa Code and the Schengen Border Code are not the only EU law instrument pertinent to the regulation of entry.The EU has legislated in certain areas regarding legal migration.Given that as explained in Section 2.3, legal pathways do not have an exclusive protection focus, it is relevant to ask whether these other EU law instruments that regulate legal migration for labour, family or study, might be relevant to authorizing entry and intended stay exceeding a period of 90 days?While, as clarified in Section 4.Here it is also relevant to mention Article 18 of CISA that stipulates that ' [v]isas for stays exceeding 90 days (long-stay visas) shall be national visas issued by one of the Member States in accordance with its national law or Union law.'96 Long-stay visas issued in accordance with national law are not governed by EU law and the Charter does not apply.97The sectorial directives contain a lot of flexibility in terms of their framing, which complicates the question whether by taking certain measures the Member States are actually implementing them.Yet, generally, it can be accepted that if the visa application falls within the scope of one of the sectorial directives, the Charter applies.For example, in M.A., the ECJ held that 'decisions refusing visas for the purpose of studies that is covered by Directive 2016/801, EU law, in particular Article 34(5) of that directive, read in light of Article 47 of the Charter, requires the Member States to provide for an appeal procedure against such decisions […].'98 Although Article 47 of the Charter can increase the procedural guarantees, it is questionable whether any protection-related considerations can be part of these guarantees when applied to procedures falling within the scope of the sectorial directives.These legal instruments concern labour and study related migration.If a third country national's visa application fulfills the relevant requirements in the respective directive, this has little do to with protection.The applicant might incidentally happen to be a person in need of international protection, but this is legally irrelevant for the purposes of leaving a country and should not be perceived as part of a protection arrangement.
Could, however, the Family Reunification Directive imply a different conclusion?Could this directive somehow facilitate complementary pathways and be the vehicle for placing them within the scope of the Charter in this way ensuring their subjection to some guarantees?These are the questions at the heart of the next section.

4.2.5
Entry for the Purpose of Family Reunification In its recommendation on legal pathways, the EU Commission seems to assume that the Family Reunification Directive facilitates the pathways.The recommendation notes that To facilitate access to the right to family reunification in line with the Family Reunification Directive, Member States are encouraged to put in place family reunification assistance programmes that improve access to information and simplify the visa application process.In addition, for cases falling outside the scope of the Family Reunification Directive, Member States are invited to set up humanitarian admission programmes, such as family-based sponsorship.99 In the recommendation, facilitation of family reunification, admission of 'vulnerable people in need of international protection' and community sponsorship, are all examples of 'humanitarian admissions' .100It is not clear, however, how family reunification as a humanitarian admission, relates to protection needs.Neither is it clear how any humanitarian considerations and/or protection needs relate to being a member of a family of a person already in the receiving State.What is, however, clear is that according to the Commission recommendation's language, the family reunification pathway is divided into two arrangements.The first one is 'family reunification assistance programmes' that fall within the scope of the Family Reunification Directive.The second arrangement is 'family-based sponsorships.'I will examine both of these arrangements below.1014.2.5.1 'Family Reunification Assistance Programmes' To better understand the 'family reunification assistance programmes' , the following questions are relevant to ask: Do these 'programmes' add anything new to the right of family reunification of refugees under the EU Family Reunification Directive?Do the measures of improving access to information and simplification of the application process add anything to the existing 99 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1364 of 23 September 2020, para 31 from the preamble (emphasis added).See also para 12. 100 Ibid, para 19-22.101 This is without prejudice to the possibility that admission of family members as a complementary legal pathway can be conceptualized differently from how the Commission has done in its recommendation.Yet, the recommendation is still a document that offers one possible conceptualization that can be subjected to an analysis as to how it relates EU law and the Charter.EU law?As a starting point, it can be mentioned that Member States have a lot of discretion as to how to arrange family reunification.Within this discretion, they can choose how to simplify the process.In this sense, the EU Family Reunification Directive does not prevent Member States from assisting family reunification of third country nationals.It is questionable whether calling this a complementary pathway is worthwhile.For arrangements to carry this distinctive label and conceptualization, it is not enough that family reunification schemes exist and they are open to persons who also happen to be in need of protection.There needs to be some specific measures to be taken towards persons (i.e.those that will join the sponsor) in need of protection in the family reunification scheme.The Family Reunification Directive has clearly recognized the specificity of refugees as sponsors.The idea of the complementary pathways to be worthy of its self-standing existence, a recognition of the specificity of the family members as regards their protection needs, has to be somehow factored in.
It could be argued that the Family Reunification Directive as interpreted by the ECJ in light of the Charter has indirectly recognized this latter specificity.The Court in various contexts has indicated that Member States have to make an individual case-by-case assessment of applications for family reunification,102 which can imply consideration of any protection needs of family members.As I will discuss below, the ECJ has also delivered judgments under the directive with reference to the Charter, in favour of family reunification in this way facilitating it and expanding the beneficiaries.Given that the sponsors are themselves refugees, it could be inferred that their family members might also have protection needs.In this sense, facilitation of family  Deutschland v XC.105In the latter two judgments, the Court noted the specificity of family separation resulting from the specific situation of refugees.Such a separation that was due to the flight, cannot be a basis for the finding that there was no real family life.106Besides expanding the beneficiaries, the interpretation of the directive has also been in favor of simplification of the process.Article 11(2) of the Family Reunification Directive is relevant here.It concerns the difficulties that refugees face to provide documents proving family relationship.The issue came to the fore in E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie,107 where the ECJ held that the lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the potential implausibility of the explanations provided in that regard must be regarded as mere elements to be taken into account in the case-by-case assessment of all the relevant elements of the specific case.108 This implies flexibility that can be to the benefit of the applicants.The ECJ also added clarifications as to the requirement for a case-by-case assessment: none of the information in the file before the Court reveals that the State Secretary took account of E.'s age, his situation as a refugee in Sudan, the country in which he was, according to the statements made by A., placed into a foster family without any family ties, or that child's best interests, as they appear in such circumstances.If A.'s claims were to prove truthful, granting the application for family reunification at issue in the main proceedings could be the only means of ensuring that E. has the opportunity to grow up in a family environment.As stated in paragraph 59 of the present judgment, such circumstances are liable to influence the extent and intensity of the examination required.109 The above quotation shows how the specific situation of the family member, i.e. a refugee in a third country, should be taken into account in the application for family reunification.
Another illustration of simplification of the process concerns the interpretation of the three-month time limit within which refugees must apply for reunification to be eligible for more favorable conditions.The ECJ has interpreted this time limitation with some flexibility: the national legislation must lay down that such a ground (i.e.not complying with the three-month time limit) for refusing family reunification 'cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable.'110It remains to be seen when delays will be assessed as 'objectively excusable.'It cannot be excluded that delays due to protection risks faced by family members, are accepted as excusable.
In sum, family reunification in the sense of the Family Reunification Directive offers a pathway that although grounded on family links, might be interpreted flexibly to include protection-related needs of the family members.Yet, this is not its primary objective.In addition, it is crucial to underscore that the directive includes multiple limitations and requirements so that family reunification is allowed.The ECJ has been clear to the effect that the Charter, and in particular its Article 7 that protects the right to family life, cannot simply remove these limitations and requirements.111This means that any flexibility that allows the combination of family links and protection needs is preconditioned by these limitations.

4.2.5.2
'Family Based Sponsorships' According to the Commission, 'family based sponsorships' are another example of a pathway based on family links; these sponsorships, however, fall outside the scope of the Family Reunification Directive.It needs to be noted initially that an assumption that there is crystal clear clarity as to which cases fall outside the scope of the Directive is incorrect.Many of the directive's provisions are facultative, which means that Member States have discretion whether to actually apply many of the limitations introduced in the directive.However, when Member States exercises discretion by, for example, allowing admission of extended family members, they are still implementing the directive.112It is therefore relevant to more carefully scrutinize Article 10(2) of the Family Reunification Directive that stipulates that 'The Member States may authorise family reunification of other family members not referred to in Article 4, if they are dependent on the refugee.'Sponsorship schemes are precisely based on such a dependency.
In TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal,113 it was observed that if Member States decide to actually implement the above provision, they have 'significant latitude with regard to determining those members of a refugee's the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 family, […] whom the Member States wish to allow to be reunited with the refugee residing on their territory.'114This latitude is, however, limited.
The first limitation is that Member States are not allowed under the Directive to allow family members that are not dependent on the refugee.115 The second limitation is that Member States do not have full discretion as to how to interpret the requirement for dependency on the refugee.In TB v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal, the ECJ held that the following conditions need to be cumulatively fulfilled so that it can be determined that the extended family member is dependent on the refugee: first, having regard to his or her financial and social conditions, the family member is not in a position to support himself or herself in his or her State of origin or the country whence he or she came, and secondly, it is ascertained that the family member's material support is actually provided by the refugee, or that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, such as the degree of relationship of the family member concerned with the refugee, the nature and solidity of the family member's other family relationship and the age and financial situation of his or her other relatives, the refugee appears as the family member most able to provide the material support required.116without an asylum procedure.124This option might be relevant when the beneficiaries are assumed to be in need of protection and they have been selected based on additional criteria such as family links.

Conclusion
The above-mentioned questions are meant to be illustrative and no comprehensiveness is intended.All of them, however, reveal that the combination of protection-related and not protection-related considerations in the selection of beneficiaries, which is the distinguishing feature of complementary pathways, is a source of complication.While indeed in reality people move for various reasons and different reasons might dominate at various points the movement, the law places individuals in different categories depending on the reasons and the modes of arrival.Complementary pathways seem to disrupt these categorizations due to the combination of protection-relation and not protection-related considerations.The question at the heart of this article was how the law, including human rights law and EU law, responds to this disruption.At the domestic level, although States have a lot of flexibility to shape any complementary pathways, they still face challenges given the disruption of the usual legal categories and grounds for entry and stay.As to human rights law, the pertinent question is whether the ECHR exerts any restraints on the domestic flexibility.The limits of ECHR emerge here with full power, as reflected in the requirement for a jurisdiction link with any beneficiaries.Yet, I did identify a situation where ECHR might actually impose certain restraints.This relates to the right to family life that can actually facilitate admission of family members.Importantly, the assessment as to whether denial of admission is contrary to Article 8 ECHR, can include a combination of family-related and protection-related considerations.
As to EU law, my conclusion is that, first, EU law causes complications additional to the one already mentioned above (i.e.disruption of the categories).In particular, it might not allow Member States to issue specific types of visa, to allow transit or even to grant 'international protection' in the sense of EU law, to beneficiaries.The role of the Charter is also complicated.The reason is not solely that the question whether it applies is uncertain.The role of the Charter

1
Introduction Since the adoption of the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, there has been an increased interest in the development of practices aimed Downloaded from Brill.com 11/02/2023 02:44:45AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199

Law and Movement across International Borders
, 'insurmountable obstacles' is just one of the factors (although a very important one) taken into considerations by the Court in the family reunification admission cases under Article 8.64 It would be beyond the scope A. v Denmark para.132.62 M.A. v Denmark para 132.63 M M.T. and Others v Sweden Application no 22105/18, 20 October 2022, paras.67 and 77.64 Tanda-Muzinga v France Application no 2260/10, 10 July 2014, para.74.Downloaded from Brill.com 11/02/2023 02:44:45AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Stoyanova European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 It is thus an open question how and to what extent Article 8 ECHR would impose procedural guarantees in cases where the national legislation does not offer such a strong substantive protection of family reunification.70If a State therefore organizes a complementary should apply equally to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.'The latter group does not generally enjoy the same substantive right to family reunification as refugees.Yet, the Court held that while the scope of the substantive protection might vary, the procedural protection ought to be the same.Downloaded from Brill.com 11/02/2023 02:44:45AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 2.1, the EU Visa Code does not contain rules on conditions for stays longer than 90 days,94 the sectorial EU directives that regulate legal migration do.95 94 There is a situation where the EU Visa Code applies to intended stays that exceed 90 days.This situation involves third country nationals who are family members of EU nationals falling within the scope of the Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU.See Commission v Spain Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State OJ L 343, 23 December 2011; Directive 2014/36/EU of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the Downloaded from Brill.com 11/02/2023 02:44:45AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ purpose of employment as seasonal workers OJ L 94, 28 March 2014; Directive 2014/66/EU of 15 May 2014 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer OJ L 157, 27 May 2014; Directive (EU) 2016/801 of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing (recast) OJ L 132, 21 May 2016.96 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19), which was signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (OJ 2013 L 182, p. 1) ('the CISA').97 The EU has not adopted measures on the basis of Article 79(2) TFEU.98 M.A. v Konsul Rzeczypospoliteij Polskiej w N., Case C-949/19, 10 March 2021, para.46.from Brill.com 11/02/2023 02:44:45AM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ the Legal Quagmire of Complementary Legal Pathways European Journal of Migration and Law 25 (2023) 164-199 reunification, facilitates pathways for admission.Examples of such favorable interpretations include B.M.M, B.S., B.M. and B.M.O.v Belgium,103 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SW, BL, BC,104 and Bundesrepublik