Expulsion and entry ban upheld

The appellant arrived in Switzerland in 2014. He had a residence permit which last expired in 2020 and was not extended. He is married to a Kosovar national with whom he has three children. They hold settlement permits in Switzerland. In 2022, based on evidence collected as part of its investigations, the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) ordered his expulsion. He was accused of being radicalised and of following the ideology of the terrorist organisation “Islamic State” (IS), promoting it on social media. He also maintained close contact with individuals belonging to the Salafist-Jihadist movement, some of whom had been in combat zones. Furthermore, he provided the IS with logistical and financial support. The expulsion order included a twenty-year ban on entry to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, with the filing of an alert in the Schengen Information System. The individual concerned lodged an appeal against this decision with the Federal Administrative Court (FAC).

Grounds deemed adequate
The FAC finds that fedpol adequately established the relevant facts, and that its assessment did not violate federal law. Since the appellant is the subject of criminal proceedings before the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, the Court points out that the criminal court judge who may be called upon to adjudicate is not bound by the reasoning of the (judicial) administrative authorities. The role and perspective of the administrative judge differ from those of the criminal judge. Based on the evidence in the file, the Federal Administrative Court finds that the appellant does indeed pose a threat to Switzerland’s internal and external security which justifies the imposition of a removal order against him. Moreover, it deems the expulsion and entry ban proportionate.    

Right to family life
When assessing proportionality, the FAC considered the impact of the decision on the appellant’s family life. The Court acknowledges that separation from his wife and children interferes with his right to family life. However, it holds that this right is not infringed in its essence. The appellant now resides in North Macedonia, where his family can visit and maintain ties with him.

This judgment is final and may not be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.