We exist because silence is not a decision.

Why we exist

Every working day, tens of thousands of immigration files in the Netherlands sit past their statutory decision-term. The Aliens Act sets six months for an asylum decision. The Administrative Law Act sets eight weeks as the residual reasonable term. The Nationality Act sets one year for naturalisation. The EU Family Reunification Directive sets nine months. None of these are aspirational figures — they are statutory obligations.

And yet a Dutch immigration law firm typically charges between €450 and €1,500 to draft and dispatch the single procedural letter that puts the authority on notice. That letter — the Ingebrekestelling — uses a template, cites three articles, and triggers a statutory penalty for further delay.

We built MigrationProvision because that gap is not a gap; it is a market failure. A procedural right that costs more to exercise than the penalty it produces is, in practice, no right at all.

What we are

A legal-tech workshop. Not a law firm. Not an NGO. Not a government body. We perform four interlinked services that map onto the full migration procedure:

1. Pre-submission audit. We review the draft application before you submit, against the IND or embassy form-pack and the relevant published policy criteria.
2. In-procedure monitoring. Once the file is in, we mirror the statutory clock inside your portal and flag every authority communication.
3. Procedural pressure. When the term lapses, the Notice of Default is generated in your portal, article-cited and addressed correctly.
4. Decision audit and escalation. When a decision arrives — or doesn't — we read it against the procedural standards of Awb 3:46–3:48 and route to bezwaar referral, Ombudsman, or UN OHCHR as appropriate.

What we are not

• We do not litigate. Where a court appearance is required, we refer to admitted lawyers.
• We do not handle the underlying application content (we audit it; we don't draft it).
• We are not a government agency. No state seals; no fake "Official notice" banners; no government typography.
• We do not promise outcomes. We activate statutory mechanisms; whether the authority decides yes or no remains with that authority.

Why The Hague

The Hague is the seat of international administrative justice. Within four kilometres of our office:

• The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
• The Permanent Court of Arbitration.
• The OPCW.
• The OHCHR Liaison Office to the EU institutions.
• The Nationale ombudsman.
• The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security — and, fifteen minutes south, the IND head office.

This matters for our work. The address on our letterhead signals jurisdictional gravity. Caseworkers can hand-deliver a Letter of Concern to the registry of the Sector Bestuursrecht the same morning we generate it. International oversight bodies are not abstractions to us.

Operating principles

1. Cite the article. Every claim we make in a generated document names the statute, treaty, directive or article it relies on. No vague gravitas.
2. Never imply we are official. No coat of arms, no government typography, no "Official notice" banners. We are a private The-Hague-based organisation and we say so.
3. No fictional legal instruments. The mechanisms are real. We do not invent "civil-rights mandates" or "international protocols". The ICESCR is real; the Ingebrekestelling is real; the OHCHR submission system is real.
4. Refund if we cannot help. If a service we offer does not apply to your case — assessment premature, decision audit yields no procedural defect — we refund automatically.
5. One disclaimer per actionable page. Administrative-assistance service, not a law firm. Outcomes depend on the authority.
6. Encrypt by default. AES-256-GCM for everything personally identifying.

People

The founding team is small and a mix of administrative-law backgrounds (Dutch and EU), engineering, and migration support work. Names and bios are intentionally not on this page yet — the audit engines and the letter templates are what matter for the first cohort of users, and over-claiming a "team" before the service is in steady state would be exactly the kind of theatre we promise not to do.

If you would like to know who is on the other end of your case file, ask. We answer.

Contact

For questions about a case in your portal, the in-portal messaging is fastest. For everything else there is our contact page and an email address. We read every message.