White card, irregular job: When legal rights fail migrants in Austria

In 2021, a landmark ruling by Austria’s Constitutional Court reshaped the legal landscape for asylum seekers. The Court struck down two decrees that had effectively barred asylum seekers from much of the labour market, restoring their formal right to work under Austrian law. On paper, this was a turning point: asylum seekers could once again access apprenticeships and employment opportunities – provided general preconditions are met. In the framework of the Protecting Irregular Migrants in Europe (PRIME) project, we interviewed 55 migrant workers (14 women and 41 men) in Austria to better understand their lived experiences, including their access to the labour market in practice.

Our analysis of these interviews reveals a recurring theme: the gap between the right to work that asylum seekers are formally granted and the barriers they face in accessing this right in reality. This gap is not merely bureaucratic – it pushes many into irregular or informal work arrangements. Formal rights often collapse under complex regulations and bureaucratic obstacles, leaving asylum seekers in Austria caught between “white cards” that grant the right to work, and “irregular jobs” that oftentimes remain their only real option.

This blog reflects on why this matters – for asylum seekers themselves, for the Austrian labour market, and for Europe’s broader struggle to reconcile migration governance with lived realities.

The 2021 ruling: Rights restored, but with limits

In June 2021, Austria’s Constitutional Court annulled two key decrees: the 2004 Bartenstein Decree and the 2018 Hartinger-Klein Decree. Both had restricted asylum seekers’ access to work, confining them mostly to seasonal labour and later excluding them from apprenticeships altogether.

The Court’s decision rested on procedural grounds: because these decrees had not been published in the Federal Law Gazette, they were unlawful. Their annulment reopened the labour market for asylum seekers, allowing them to work three months after their asylum claims are admitted to the regular asylum procedure (AIDA – Access to the labour market, Austria; see also EMN Austria national study, 2023). However, this access remains conditional. Before asylum seekers can be hired, employers must apply for a permit, and the Austrian Labor Market Service (AMS) conducts a labour market check – a review to ensure that no equally qualified Austrian or EU national is available.

Mahnoos and the labour market check

The following case illustrates the dilemma.

Mahnoos (pseudonym used to protect identity), a young Iranian asylum seeker, had been admitted to the asylum process and therefore held a “white card”, granting her the right to seek work. She applied for a job at a restaurant, and the owner was enthusiastic and willing to hire her immediately.

However, the AMS denied her employment authorisation, arguing that local workers could fill the advertised role. Over time, the AMS sent more than ten Austrian candidates to the restaurant. The owner rejected all of them, insisting Mahnoos was the right fit. Yet by November 2024, she was still unemployed – despite her legal right to work and an employer willing to offer her above the board employment.

This is not an isolated case. The labour market check, designed as a safeguard, becomes a bureaucratic barrier for both asylum seekers pursuing to work and employers looking for staff. This leaves asylum seekers such as Mahnoos in limbo, leaving them with little choice but to seek irregular work in the informal economy to improve their economic situation (AIDA – Access to the labour market; AMS overview of the check).

Irregularisation as a process, not a status

One of our key findings is that irregularity is not static. (Forced) migrants are often shifted between legal categories – asylum seeker, rejected claimant, subsidiary protection holder, “undocumented” – each category endowed with different bundles of rights.

For instance, in Austria, the progression from “green card” (asylum application filed) to “white card” (application under review) to “blue card” (asylum granted) looks linear on paper. But reality is more complex. Rejections may be followed by applications for subsidiary protection (“grey card”) or humanitarian residence. Some asylum seekers may also access limited household service jobs through service vouchers (e.g., cleaning, gardening), but these are exceptions (AIDA – service vouchers; official brochure: BVAEB DLS info, p. 2). Others lose their status entirely because of missed paperwork or administrative hurdles. As legal expert Peter Marhold at Helping Hands noted in an interview, individuals may become undocumented when asylum claims are rejected, when departure is not possible, or when authorities decline to establish identity. Residence rights can also lapse if applicants fail to meet or document legal requirements within the prescribed timeframe. This fluid movement between categories means that even those with rights on paper – like white card holders – often end up working irregularly thereby violating the terms of their stay.

Why confusion persists

The complexity of Austrian migration law is widely acknowledged. Seasoned lawyers and NGOs struggle to keep track of the constantly shifting rules. Asylum seekers, employers, and even trade unions are often unclear on what rights “white card” holders actually have.

This confusion benefits restrictive governance. As Marhold noted, state agencies like the AMS perhaps inadvertantly erect obstacles for foreign individuals in search of work. By making access to formal employment difficult, Austria indirectly channels asylum seekers into irregular labour markets.

After the 2024 elections: A harder road ahead?

Some of the migrants we revisited after Austria’s 2024 elections voiced concerns that asylum seekers’ access to work will become even more restricted. Meanwhile, policymakers may see tightened rules as a deterrent to irregular migration.

Preliminary analysis of interview data suggests an alternative perspective. Blocking access to formal employment does not deter asylum seekers from seeking work – it merely increases the likelihood they enter the informal economy, where exploitation risks are higher and rights protections weaker.

As of early 2025, no new law has yet changed the three-month rule or the labour-market check requirement, though stricter asylum policies in general are under discussion.

The consequences

The story of Austria’s asylum seekers highlights a fundamental contradiction: legal rights mean little if administrative systems make them nearly impossible to exercise.

• For asylum seekers, this creates precarity. They may hold a “white card” granting the right to work, yet face near-insurmountable obstacles to formal employment. Many are left with only irregular work in the informal sector.
• For employers, restrictive labor checks deprive businesses of motivated workers, even when no locals are available.
• For policymakers, the disconnect between rights and realities undermines integration goals and increases irregular labor, weakening oversight and protections.

Understanding irregularisation as a process rather than a fixed status reframes migration debates. It shows how state policies can actively produce irregularity – not just through legal exclusions but also through bureaucratic barriers.

Conclusion: Bridging the gap

The Austrian case illustrates that legal work rights “on paper” are not enough. Without genuine access to formal work, asylum seekers remain trapped in irregular cycles. This undermines both individual well-being and broader policy goals of integration and fair labour standards.

If Europe is serious about protecting migrants’ rights, reforms must go beyond restoring formal access to labour markets. They must also dismantle the barriers – legal, bureaucratic, and practical – that force “white card” holders into “irregular jobs”. Only then will the promise of legal work rights align with the lived realities of those seeking refuge.