128 annual report 2013 e. Ministry for justice The following cases concluded in 2013 were selected for publication as part of the Annual Report: 2013-18. The Ministry for Justice wrongly imparted a visa refusal, with the result that a child was banned from entering Denmark for five years due to his mother’s exceeding a previous visa’s expiration date In 2011, the Danish Immigration Service and the Ministry for Justice refused to issue a visa to a resident man’s wife and their son, who was less than a year old. The wife was refused a visa because she had remained in Denmark beyond the expiration date of her visa during a previous stay. For the same reason, a penal­t y period was imposed which meant that she could not under normal circumstances get a new visa for five years from the date of her leaving Denmark in March 2011. The son, who was born during the wife’s previous stay in Denmark, was also refused a visa as a consequence of the refusal to the wife. The husband appealed to the Ministry for Justice, which upheld the decision by the Immigration Service. Contrary to the Immigration Service, the Ministry wrote to the husband that the penalty period also applied to the son, so that he could not obtain a visa for five years either. Following the husband’s request for reopening of the case, the Ministry upheld its decision in 2012. The husband complained to the Ombudsman, who, among other things, asked the authorities whether the son was to blame for the wife’s previous unlawful stay in connection with the expiration of her visa at the time. He also asked the Ministry whether there were any exceptional reasons which would mean that the five-year penalty period would not apply to the child. The Ministry for Justice then reopened the case and expressed its regret that the Ministry’s decision had included the son in the penalty period though he was not to blame for not leaving Denmark before the expiry of his mother’s visa. The Ministry also expressed its regrets that the error had not been corrected in 2012 in connection with the husband’s request for reopening of the case. The Ombudsman concurred with the Ministry’s expression of regret. In addition, the Ombudsman noted that in similar situations in future, the Immigration