Exile from Kosovo Switzerland that did not learn German, Federal Court rules

The office in question and the Aragau Administrative Court did not want to extend her residence permit, but the Federal Court, as the highest degree of trial, has judged the case differently.

Blerina (changed name) was married to a Kosovar living in Switzerland in June 2015, and she has residence permits (Vise B) in Switzerland since then broadcast albinfo.ch.

Kosovar, that 24-year-old world, had come to Aragau in December 2015 under the family union. Shortly thereafter, she was invited to a personal interview by the cantonal immigration office, where she was told it was very important to learn German.

The young Kosovo woman had pledged her signature that she would hand testimony to the recognition of German at A1 level, writes the newspaper Aragauer Zeitung.

Three days later, Blerina received permission to stay in Switzerland from the Kantonal Office of Migration. However, she did not give evidence of her German knowledge that she had vowed. This can be seen in the recent ruling of the Federal Court that was recently published.

The Kantonal Office of Migration has subsequently linked an integration agreement with Blerina, in which Kosovo again has taken on the obligation to hand over language learning certificates as evidence. But she had not fulfilled that obligation even two years after her arrival. That's why the Migration Office has responded.

In December 2017, the office in question had again extended the permit of his stay for Blerina until late June 2018, but it had decided that a further extension would be made only on the condition that she until then bring testimony to the German language.

However, even this deadline had passed without Kosovo's required document. Therefore, in October 2019, the Migration Office decided not to continue its residence permit for Blerina. The office decided to expel the woman from Switzerland and assigned him an exit deadline of 60 days beginning with its entry into force.

Kosovo, however, has refused to leave and has filed objections to the migration office.

Administrative Court Approves Exile, but Federal Court Breaks the Decision

During the ongoing procedure of opposition, the office again gave Blaine the opportunity to give evidence of the knowledge of the tongue. But Blerina again gave up this opportunity without exploiting her, and in early May 2020, about four and a half years after her arrival, the immigration office rejected her opposition.

A complaint then made at the highest cantonal Court changed nothing. The highest judicial authority in Aragau confirmed the removal of residence permits in a decision made in November 2020.

Seeing this decision, Blarina filed a complaint with the Federal Court and here I know her right. The top Swiss judges decided in Kosovo's best interests and instructed the migration office to extend that residence permit.

The Federal Supreme Court has indicated in this case that the woman had really presented no evidence for German-language possession, but that the removal of her residence permit would be <x0-disproportional”. This, for the fact that Blerina now lives with her four-year-old joint husband and son in Arigau and deportation could lead to “a family community division”.

Uncooperative, unintegured

Federal Supreme Court looks to Blerina a <x0 non-co-operative position” that has been shown for years and writes:

The fact that, although the acute threat of deportation was on her head, did not make any effort to learn even the bases of German language indicates some lack of interest in adapting to the environment.

In general, Kosovo is not “as linguistic, nor socially or culturally integrated in Swiss reality”, the Federal Supreme Court continues. Because she does not speak German, her husband was forced to accompany her on her visits to the doctor. In this context, there is a non-partial public interest “to remove Blerina's residence permit”, in Switzerland, says the indictment.

According to the Federal Supreme Court, it would also be reasonable for her to return to Kosovo and live there. She speaks Albanian, has only been living in Switzerland for six years and has “undisputed reintegration” in her country, under trial.

In addition, the husband is still financially supporting his family, so her departure would not change their economic situation.

A difficult return for a husband would grow up without a parent

For Blerina's husband, who has lived in Switzerland for ten years and has been employed by the same employer, however, things are different. For him, the “removal from Switzerland would be accompanied by considerable professional difficulties and would have a delicate impact on his private life” says in the Federal Supreme Court's act

Therefore, an immediate return to Kosovo could not be expected, the Court writes further.

It could be expected for good reason that the husband would not follow his wife in Kosovo, which would have negative consequences for their son. He would either have to return home with his mother or stay in Switzerland with his father.

The four-year-old “boy would be raised separately from one of his two parents in a long-term” plan, the decision said.

Still no deportation, only warning, under the law of foreigners

Thus, there is a relatively personal interest in Blerina to remain in Switzerland. That is why the Federal Supreme Court has concluded that public interest in deportation in the concrete case does not exceed its private interest.

But Kosovo now needs to be directed “in any form” that it should immediately undertake greater efforts to integrate.

As a measure, however, it has at the moment been pronounced only a formal warning under the law of foreigners rather than expulsion.

In this case, removal of residence permits can only be considered if the person in question is officially warned in advance and informed of the consequences of rejection, the Federal Supreme Court's ruling is said to end.