Alexander fought for a year for the right to legalize his status in Poland through family reunification. He was denied, and at one point, he was even ordered to leave the country. All because of a change in the social insurance agreement. Initially, he was included in his wife’s insurance, and then he received his own. The Belarusian spoke about the system’s error and its correction to MOST.
MOST przedstawia tę historię z perspektywy Aleksandra. Dostarczył redakcji kopie decyzji różnych organów rządowych, które przejrzeliśmy. MOST nie zweryfikował dokumentów, które Białorusin wysłał do urzędników.
— W maju 2025 roku złożyłem wniosek o zezwolenie na pobyt czasowy w Polsce w celu łączenia rodzin. W tym czasie moja żona i córka czekały na decyzję w sprawie zezwolenia na pobyt stały na podstawie Karty Polaka (dokument potwierdzający polskie pochodzenie. — Notatka od MOST). Moja żona była oficjalnie zatrudniona na podstawie umowy o pracę, miała stabilne dochody, a ja byłem ujęty w jej ubezpieczeniu ZUS (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych. — Notatka od MOST) jako członek rodziny.
A few weeks after submitting the documents, I found a job and started paying ZUS contributions independently. Accordingly, I stopped being included in my wife’s insurance and became a separate payer.
In June 2025, I notified the office by registered letter about the change in my status. The letter was received — I have official confirmation. In September, I resubmitted the same documents through the ePUAP and e-Doręczenia services.
I wanted only one thing — for my case to have complete and accurate information
But later, my wife and daughter received permanent residence permits. And I received a denial.
The decision stated that I «did not prove the existence of health insurance and payment of contributions to ZUS.» At the same time, in the same decision, the office described all my transitions between insurances — they saw everything. But they simultaneously claimed that I had submitted nothing. Yet I sent the documents twice.
The decision also states that Alexander did not provide current documents confirming his employment with his employer.
The first feeling that returned every time after the denial: you are doing everything right, but the outcome is already predetermined
“I was given 30 days to leave Poland”
— Złożyliśmy odwołanie w ciągu 14 dni. 12 marca 2026 roku urząd zażądał dodatkowych dokumentów: umowy najmu, umowy o pracę oraz aktualnych potwierdzeń z ZUS.
I gathered everything as accurately as possible. I notarized the documents with an electronic signature, sent them via e-Doręczenia, and signed them with my trusted profile Profil Zaufany.
On April 28, I received another denial. The decision stated that I submitted «only scans of documents, not notarized.»
The decision states:
“…the proof is the original document or its copy, notarized by a notary or lawyer, legal advisor, patent attorney, or tax advisor acting as a representative of the party. A scan (computer printout) does not possess the characteristics of an official document and does not allow for the verification of the authenticity of the signatures and seals contained on it, and therefore is not reliable evidence in the case. In this regard, it should be stated that Mr. Alexander did not prove the existence of a source of stable and regular income sufficient to cover the costs of maintaining himself and family members, as well as the existence of a secure place of residence in the Republic of Poland.”
I read this and couldn’t believe it. Because the documents were officially notarized and could be verified in a few clicks.
A na dodatek, nowy cios: dano mi 30 dni na opuszczenie Polski.
“The employee literally grabbed his head”
— Po odmowie straciłem dostęp do rynku pracy. To była natychmiastowa i surowa konsekwencja. Poinformowałem swojego pracodawcę i zakończyliśmy naszą współpracę.
Tego samego dnia złożyliśmy skargę do urzędu, dodaliśmy instrukcje weryfikacji podpisu elektronicznego i wykazaliśmy, że to był oczywisty błąd.
There was no response.
The next day, I applied for international protection. I had grounds: political persecution, a criminal article in Belarus (the article that Alexander refers to is related to "political" matters. — Note from MOST) and property seizure
I had no other choice.
At the same time, I continued to gather documents and defend my case
On May 15, I went to the office. The employee at the window listened to me, took the case number, opened the system — and the reaction was unexpected. He literally grabbed his head. He called a colleague. They checked something for a long time, discussed, and came out with documents.
At that moment, for the first time in a long time, hope appeared. Not certainty. Just hope. That they would now say: “Yes, this is a mistake, we are correcting it.”
But a few minutes later, they returned. And in a different tone, they said that nothing could be done — go to court. They did not have time to sort out my case. And for me, this was a life that was collapsing at that moment
„Po miesiącach strachu wszystko zakończyło się jednym zdaniem: Decyzja została uchylona”
— Zacząłem przygotowywać skargę do sądu. Jednocześnie złożyłem skargi do Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych oraz do Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich.
A potem pojawiła się kolejna warstwa życia: około sześciu miesięcy bez prawa do pracy.
In the first six months after applying for international protection, foreigners are not allowed to work in Poland, except in cases where such rights are granted by another basis, such as a visa or residence permit
To był okres, kiedy czas stał się pusty, a stres był stały
On May 21, 2026, I received a message: the previous decision is revoked. The office (Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców. — Note from MOST) issued a new decision — a temporary residence permit for three years for family reunification.
Po miesiącach strachu, utraty pracy i ciągłego poczucia uwięzienia, wszystko zakończyło się jednym zdaniem: „Decyzja została uchylona.”
“Zachowaj swoje dokumenty. Składaj skargi. Idź do sądu, jeśli to konieczne”
— Uczucie niesprawiedliwości to nie tylko jeden epizod. To tło, które towarzyszy ci przez lata. I za każdym razem, gdy system popełnia błąd, to uczucie nie tylko wraca — niszczy cię od środka. Ale jeśli wiesz, że masz rację, nie jesteś zobowiązany do jego akceptacji. Zachowaj swoje dokumenty. Składaj skargi. Idź do sądu, jeśli to konieczne.
Because sometimes persistence turns out to be the only way to restore justice where it was not meant to be seen
