Revocation of the residence or settlement permit — Art. 62 and 63 FNIA

What this is about — and what it is not about

The revocation of a residence or settlement permit is the official cancellation of an existing right of residence. It is effected by a ruling of the cantonal migration authority and may be combined with a removal as well as an entry ban.

The governing instrument is the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (FNIA, SR 142.20). In Swiss immigration law, four constellations must be clearly distinguished — they rest on different legal bases, procedures and consequences:

• Non-renewal of a B permit: the permit lapses in the ordinary course and is not renewed, whether on application or ex officio. No ground for revocation is required; the ordinary conditions for the permit must, however, continue to be met.
• Revocation of a B or C permit (Art. 62 and 63 FNIA): active official cancellation of the permit during its period of validity, based on a statutory ground for revocation.
• Removal (Art. 64 ff. FNIA): an official order to leave the country. The removal is the consequence of the revocation or of an unlawful presence, not the revocation itself.
• Criminal expulsion (Art. 66a and 66abis of the Swiss Criminal Code, SCC, SR 311.0): a criminal sanction imposed by the criminal court — not an immigration-law act of the migration authority, but the consequence of a criminal conviction. It is ordered by the criminal court itself and is merely enforced by the cantonal migration office as well as the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM).

This file explains the immigration-law revocation under Art. 62 and 63 FNIA. Criminal expulsion is addressed only to the extent that it overlaps with the immigration-law procedure.

FNIA Art. 62 — Revocation of the short-stay or residence permit (B permit)

Art. 62 FNIA governs the revocation of the short-stay and residence permit (L and B). The provision is drafted as a discretionary rule — the authority may revoke, but is not required to. The exercise of discretion is subject to the principle of proportionality of Art. 96 FNIA (see below).

The grounds for revocation under Art. 62 para. 1 FNIA are:

• let. a: the foreign national made false statements or concealed material facts during the permit procedure.
• let. b: the foreign national was sentenced to a long-term custodial sentence or a criminal measure within the meaning of Art. 59-61 or 64 SCC was ordered against them.
• let. c: the foreign national seriously violated or endangered public security and order in Switzerland or abroad, or endangered internal or external security.
• let. d: the foreign national fails to comply with a condition attached to the ruling.
• let. e: the foreign national, or a person for whom they must provide, is dependent on social assistance.

Art. 62 para. 2 FNIA states that a permit may not be revoked solely because an offence has been committed for which a criminal court has already imposed a penalty or measure but has refrained from ordering an expulsion. This restricts a double immigration-law sanction for the same act.

The former protection of acquired situations after 15 years of uninterrupted residence (former Art. 62 para. 2 FNIA) was repealed by the integration reform with effect from 01.01.2019; it no longer applies to procedures opened after that date. This file reflects the position as at 01.01.2024.

To situate the individual grounds for revocation (qualitative orientation, with no statistical claim and no advisory value):

• let. e (social assistance) and let. b (criminal conviction) tend, by experience, to arise frequently in cantonal revocation practice for B permits,
• let. a (false statements) typically concerns constellations in which statements from the original permit procedure — in particular regarding marital status, prior convictions or the centre of life — are called into question retroactively,
• let. c (security violation) becomes relevant in constellations involving indications from the competent security authorities (e.g. fedpol, FIS); this ground is legally particularly strict,
• let. d (breach of a condition) concerns permits granted subject to conditions (e.g. breach of an integration agreement under Art. 58b FNIA).

Text on Fedlex: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2007/758/de#art_62. The version reproduced here corresponds to the position as at 01.01.2024.

FNIA Art. 63 — Revocation of the settlement permit (C permit)

Art. 63 FNIA governs the revocation of the settlement permit (C). The conditions are stricter than under Art. 62 for the B permit — the settlement permit enjoys enhanced protection of acquired situations.

The grounds for revocation under Art. 63 para. 1 FNIA are:

• let. a: the conditions of Art. 62 para. 1 let. a FNIA (false statements) or Art. 62 para. 1 let. b FNIA (long-term custodial sentence or criminal measure) are met.
• let. b: the foreign national seriously violated or endangered public security and order in Switzerland or abroad, or endangered internal or external security.
• let. c: the foreign national, or a person for whom they must provide, is permanently and to a significant extent dependent on social assistance.
• let. d: the foreign national obtained naturalisation fraudulently or had it withdrawn with final effect in the context of an annulment of naturalisation under Art. 36 of the Swiss Citizenship Act (SCA, SR 141.0).

Art. 63 para. 2 FNIA provides that the settlement permit may be revoked and replaced by a residence permit (downgrading C → B) where the integration criteria of Art. 58a FNIA are not met. Art. 63 para. 3 FNIA further states that a revocation based solely on offences for which the criminal court has already imposed a penalty or measure but has refrained from ordering an expulsion is inadmissible.

Text on Fedlex: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2007/758/de#art_63.

The decisive difference between Art. 62 and Art. 63 FNIA: for the C permit the thresholds are higher — the social-assistance constellation requires a permanent and significant dependency (Art. 63 para. 1 let. c FNIA), not merely a current dependence on social assistance, and the mere breach of a condition under Art. 62 para. 1 let. d FNIA is not an independent ground for revocation for the settlement permit. Added to this is the enhanced procedural and substantive protection that the Federal Supreme Court accords the C permit through the proportionality assessment (Art. 96 FNIA) and the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, SR 0.101).

Proportionality — Art. 96 FNIA

Art. 96 FNIA requires that the authorities, in exercising their discretion, take into account the public interests and the personal circumstances as well as the degree of integration of the foreign nationals. The revocation is thus not the mandatory legal consequence of a ground for revocation, but always the result of a weighing of interests.

In the practice of the Federal Supreme Court this principle has been concretised into a proportionality assessment that typically weighs the following elements:

• gravity of the ground for revocation (e.g. length and severity of the custodial sentence, amount and duration of the dependence on social assistance, gravity of the security violation),
• duration of presence in Switzerland,
• family circumstances and personal circumstances (in particular Art. 8 ECHR — protection of family and private life),
• degree of integration (language, gainful employment, social anchoring, conduct),
• possibilities of return to the country of origin (in particular in the case of long presence),
• conduct since the ground for revocation arose (e.g. in the case of a criminal conviction: probation, resocialisation).

An extensive body of case law exists on the Federal Supreme Court's proportionality doctrine; a reliable overview of the relevant leading decisions is provided by the official collection of Federal Supreme Court decisions (BGE/ATF) at https://www.bger.ch. A selection of specific judgments is deliberately not reproduced here, because the exact reference, currency and scope of a leading decision must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

For a detailed cross-reference to the Federal Supreme Court's proportionality practice, see the C settlement permit, section "Revocation and proportionality".

Dependence on social assistance as a ground for revocation

The social-assistance constellation (Art. 62 para. 1 let. e FNIA for B, Art. 63 para. 1 let. c FNIA for C) is among the more frequent grounds for revocation in cantonal practice — and among the most sensitive politically and socially.

Difference B versus C:

• B permit (Art. 62 para. 1 let. e FNIA): the receipt of social assistance in principle satisfies the requirement. Not every recourse to social assistance leads to revocation, however; within the framework of proportionality (Art. 96 FNIA) the authorities examine the duration, amount, causes and prospect of economic self-sufficiency.
• C permit (Art. 63 para. 1 let. c FNIA): the threshold is statutorily higher — a permanent and significant dependence on social assistance is required. Merely temporary receipt is not sufficient.

Cantonal practice: sovereignty over migration lies to a significant extent with the cantons, which is why the strictness of social-assistance revocation practice varies from canton to canton — sometimes even from municipality to municipality. This file deliberately offers no ranking-style classification of individual cantons as "strict" or "moderate": such blanket judgments cannot be reliably substantiated, change over time and could be misunderstood as a location assessment. What is decisive in the individual case is the practice of the competent cantonal migration authority as well as the relevant cantonal and Federal Supreme Court case law. The interplay of social-assistance constellations with debt situations (debt-enforcement proceedings) is addressed under Debt enforcement and the right of residence.

Important for the distinction: the receipt of social assistance and dependence on social assistance are not identical. Supplementary benefits to the OASI/IV (SB) are not social assistance within the meaning of Art. 62 and 63 FNIA and do not lead to revocation. Likewise, IV pensions, unemployment-insurance benefits and premium reductions under the Health Insurance Act are not regarded as social assistance.

Criminal conviction as a ground for revocation

A long-term custodial sentence is a ground for revocation both under Art. 62 para. 1 let. b FNIA and — via the reference in Art. 63 para. 1 let. a FNIA — for the settlement permit.

Practice standard "long-term custodial sentence": according to the settled case law of the Federal Supreme Court, a custodial sentence of more than one year is regarded as "long-term"; it is immaterial in this respect whether the sentence was imposed as suspended, partially suspended or unsuspended. Several shorter sentences may in principle not be added together to reach this threshold. Criminal measures under Art. 59-61 or 64 SCC (inpatient therapeutic measures, indefinite incarceration) satisfy the ground for revocation regardless of the length of the sentence.

Relationship to criminal expulsion (Art. 66a SCC)

Since the implementation of the deportation initiative (Art. 66a ff. SCC, in force since 01.10.2016), criminal expulsion has come to stand alongside the immigration-law revocation. It is not an immigration-law act of the migration authority, but a sanction of the criminal court (Swiss Criminal Code, SCC, SR 311.0).

• Mandatory expulsion (Art. 66a SCC): upon conviction for a catalogue offence (including murder, intentional homicide, serious bodily harm, aggravated robbery, serious offences against sexual integrity, aggravated social-insurance or social-assistance fraud, aggravated money laundering, certain narcotics offences), the criminal court orders an expulsion of 5 to 15 years — irrespective of the severity of the sentence imposed.
• Hardship clause (Art. 66a para. 2 SCC): the criminal court may exceptionally refrain from expulsion where it would place the person concerned in a serious personal hardship and the public interests in the expulsion do not outweigh the private interests in remaining in Switzerland.
• Non-mandatory expulsion (Art. 66abis SCC): for other offences, the criminal court may order an expulsion of 3 to 15 years.

Anti-Scope (STRICT): SIP provides no criminal-law strategy, no assessment of individual defence or hardship arguments and no estimate of the prospects of success of a hardship application under Art. 66a para. 2 SCC. Such advice must be provided by a lawyer specialised in criminal law — ideally together with a representative specialised in immigration law.

Course of the procedure — the six steps

A revocation procedure typically runs through the following steps:

Step 1 — Preliminary notice of the cantonal migration office (investigation): the migration authority becomes aware of a possible ground for revocation (e.g. through notification of a criminal judgment, through a social-assistance report from the municipality, through its own investigation) and opens a revocation procedure by means of a preliminary notice or a notice of investigation.

Step 2 — Statement by the person concerned: the migration authority grants the right to be heard — the person concerned has the opportunity to comment on the facts and on the measures envisaged. This statement deadline is typically 14 to 30 days. This deadline is decisive: an omitted or incomplete statement can considerably complicate a subsequent appeal.

Step 3 — Ruling with revocation: upon confirmation of the ground for revocation, the migration authority issues a ruling. This typically contains:

• the revocation of the permit,
• the removal with departure deadline,
• where applicable, the imposition of an entry ban (Art. 67 FNIA, separate SEM procedure),
• the notice of appeal rights (appeal deadline 30 days from receipt of the ruling).

Step 4 — Appeal to the cantonal appellate body (cantonal administrative court or cantonal appeals commission, depending on the canton): within 30 days of receipt of the ruling. The deadline is not extendable. Failure to meet it results in the ruling becoming final and binding. The appeal generally has suspensive effect, but this may be refused in the individual case.

Step 5 — Appeal to the Federal Administrative Court: in certain constellations — in particular against SEM rulings on the entry ban — the Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction (cf. the Federal Act on the Federal Administrative Court, VGG/AdminCA, SR 173.32, in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Act, VwVG/APA, SR 172.021). The appeal deadline is 30 days.

Step 6 — Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court: against cantonal last-instance decisions or decisions of the Federal Administrative Court, an appeal may be lodged with the Federal Supreme Court under narrow conditions (Federal Supreme Court Act, BGG/FSCA, SR 173.110). In many immigration-law discretionary constellations, the appeal in public-law matters is excluded (Art. 83 let. c BGG), so that only the subsidiary constitutional appeal (Art. 113 ff. BGG) is available; where, by contrast, there is a legal entitlement to the permit, the ordinary appeal is in principle admissible. The deadline is 30 days.

Duration of the procedure (indicative):

• preliminary notice to ruling (steps 1-3): typically 3 to 12 months, often longer in social-assistance constellations,
• cantonal appeal procedure (step 4): typically 6 to 18 months,
• Federal Administrative Court (step 5): typically 12 to 24 months,
• Federal Supreme Court (step 6): typically 4 to 12 months.

During the appeal procedures, enforcement of the removal is as a rule suspended (suspensive effect), but the permit continues to count as revoked — the person concerned is in a precarious intermediate status. Gainful employment is in principle possible during the appeal procedures, provided that the original permit allowed gainful employment and the suspensive effect has not been withdrawn — the concrete handling varies from canton to canton.

Note: the instance-level jurisdiction depends on which authority issued the ruling and on whether there is a legal entitlement to the permit. The sequence of steps presented here is a general orientation and does not replace an examination of the concrete legal recourse in the individual case.

Removal versus revocation — clarity of terms

These two terms are often used synonymously in everyday language, but they are legally distinct:

• The revocation is the cancellation of the permit.
• The removal is the official order to leave the country. It typically follows from the revocation but can also occur in other constellations (e.g. in the case of unlawful presence without a prior permit).

Enforcement of the removal: the cantonal migration office is responsible, in cooperation with the cantonal police and — in the case of escorted returns or special cases — the SEM and the Federal Police.

Obstacles to enforcement (Art. 83-88 FNIA): a removal cannot be enforced where enforcement is:

• not reasonable (e.g. concrete endangerment, medical situation, general situation in the country of origin),
• not permissible (e.g. the prohibition of refoulement in the event of a risk of torture under Art. 3 ECHR, respectively Art. 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees — Geneva Refugee Convention, GRC, SR 0.142.30),
• not possible (e.g. the country of origin refuses readmission, travel documents are lacking).

Where obstacles to enforcement are established, the SEM orders provisional admission (F permit). More on this under Provisional admission (F permit).

Special constellation — refugees with a B permit (Refugee-B)

Persons with recognised refugee status initially receive a B permit as recognised refugees (Refugee-B). Special rules apply to them:

Withdrawal of refugee status (Art. 63 of the Asylum Act, AsylA, SR 142.31): refugee status may be withdrawn under the conditions of Art. 1, section C, no. 1-6 GRC (e.g. in the event of voluntary re-availment of the protection of the home state or where the grounds for persecution have ceased to exist). The withdrawal of refugee status is not identical to the revocation of the residence permit — it is a prior change of status.

Only after the withdrawal of refugee status (or in the event of non-recognition) does the migration authority examine whether the residence permit can be revoked under Art. 62 FNIA.

For Refugee-B holders with recognised refugee status, the protection guarantees of international law under the Geneva Refugee Convention also apply — in particular the prohibition of refoulement (Art. 33 GRC), which also bars, in revocation procedures, the enforcement of removal to the home state in so far as there is a risk of persecution there.

More on this under Recognised refugees in Switzerland.

The exact procedural sequence between asylum-law withdrawal and immigration-law revocation is complex in the individual case and may depend on the individual constellation.

Special constellation — revocation of the F permit

The F permit (provisional admission) is subsidiary protection that is granted where the enforcement of removal is not reasonable, permissible or possible.

A revocation of the F permit occurs where:

• the obstacles to enforcement cease to exist (e.g. changed situation in the country of origin, restoration of reasonableness),
• a ground for cancellation under Art. 84 AsylA, respectively the provisions on provisional admission (Art. 83 ff. FNIA), is present,
• the person concerned voluntarily returns to the home state or obtains a home-country passport in circumstances that call into question the original need for protection.

More on this under Provisional admission (F permit).

Entry ban after revocation — Art. 67 FNIA

The revocation of a permit may — but need not necessarily — be combined with an entry ban under Art. 67 FNIA. The entry ban is imposed by the SEM (not by the cantonal migration office) and can bar re-entry into the entire Schengen area.

Duration: the ordinary entry ban is limited in time; in the event of a serious endangerment of public security and order it may be imposed for a longer period and, in particularly serious cases, for an indefinite period (Art. 67 FNIA). The concrete duration depends on the gravity and circumstances of the individual case.

SIS alert: an entry ban may be entered as an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and in that case bars re-entry into all Schengen states, not only into Switzerland.

Re-entry after expiry of the ban period: after the expiry of the ban period, re-entry may in principle be applied for — but it is not automatically admissible. A new permit must be applied for under the ordinary rules (for third-country nationals under Art. 18 ff. FNIA; for EU/EFTA nationals under the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, AFMP, SR 0.142.112.681).

Early cancellation: upon application, the SEM may cancel an entry ban early in the event of changed circumstances (Art. 67 para. 5 FNIA).

Suspension for short entries: in hardship cases (in particular to exercise family-law rights such as visits to children, or in the event of medical emergencies of close relatives), the SEM may suspend an entry ban on a one-off basis — the suspension must be applied for in advance and does not exist as an entitlement.

Hardship fallback under Art. 30 FNIA

Where the revocation becomes final and binding, the legal possibility remains of filing a new residence application under the hardship provision of Art. 30 para. 1 let. b FNIA (permit in a serious personal hardship case).

The requirements for a hardship case are high, and a preceding revocation feeds into the authority's overall assessment. The hardship application is practically relevant in particular in the case of:

• significantly changed facts (e.g. new medical constellation, demonstrated resocialisation after a longer period),
• children growing up in Switzerland whose removal stands at a critical biographical threshold,
• victims of human trafficking (with a separate basis under Art. 30 para. 1 let. e FNIA).

Whether a hardship case exists in the individual case is a case-specific legal assessment that SIP does not undertake.

More on this under Hardship provision under Art. 30 FNIA.

Appeal procedure — purely factual practice notes

These notes are purely factual and do not replace any appeal strategy (Anti-Scope, see below).

• Appeal deadline: 30 days from receipt of the ruling. Not extendable. The deadline begins with receipt of the registered ruling, not with the date of the ruling. Anyone who is on holiday or has not collected the mail risks missing the deadline.
• Form: a written appeal, dated, signed, with submissions and a statement of grounds. The exact formal requirements are governed by the applicable procedural law — in the cantonal procedure by the respective cantonal administrative justice act, in the federal procedure by the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVG/APA, SR 172.021).
• Free legal aid: in the case of indigence, free legal aid may be applied for — it comprises exemption from procedural costs and the assignment of free legal representation (Art. 65 VwVG, respectively the cantonal-law equivalents). The conditions are indigence and a procedure that is not from the outset devoid of any prospect of success.
• Suspensive effect: as a rule, the appeal has suspensive effect — the removal may not be enforced during the appeal procedure. The suspensive effect may, however, be withdrawn in the individual case (Art. 55 VwVG); a separate application for restoration of the suspensive effect is then necessary.
• Statement of grounds for the appeal: a substantiated engagement with the contested ruling — in particular with the proportionality assessment (Art. 96 FNIA) — is required. Merely formulaic appeals are as a rule unsuccessful.

Important authorities and contacts

Priority of legal representation: in a revocation procedure, representation by a lawyer entered in the cantonal bar register (BfR) is strongly recommended. The complexity of the proportionality assessment, the strictness of the deadlines and the irreversible consequences of a final and binding removal require professional representation.

A revocation ruling is often a traumatic event — it threatens a person's livelihood and triggers a 30-day deadline within which an appeal must be lodged.

Immediate steps for those affected:

1. Document receipt of the ruling: note the date of receipt — the 30-day deadline begins with receipt.
2. Contact a lawyer: entered in the cantonal bar register (BfR), specialised in immigration law. In the case of indigence, apply for free legal aid.
3. Crisis-Card (psychological support):
   • Tel. 143 (The Helping Hand): 24-hour availability, multilingual, free of charge, anonymous.
   • Caritas Switzerland: advice centres in all cantons, multilingual.
   • HEKS (Relief Organisation of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland): legal and social advice for migrants.
   • OSAR (Swiss Refugee Council): specialised in asylum and refugee constellations, legal advice through regional legal advice centres.
4. Keep official correspondence: all letters from the migration authority, all envelopes with postal stamps, all previous rulings.

Further immediate help is offered by the Crisis-Cards, in particular Your permit is about to expire for permit-risk constellations.

Anti-Scope (STRICT)

In this area, SIP expressly does not provide:

• No appeal strategy: SIP gives no information on which arguments have prospects of success in a concrete appeal.
• No defence strategy: SIP assesses no individual lines of defence in the case of a criminal conviction or criminal expulsion.
• No positioning recommendation: SIP does not recommend whether, in the statement procedure (step 2 above), certain facts should be disclosed or withheld.
• No assessment of prospects of success: SIP does not say whether an appeal has "a prospect of success" — this is a case-specific legal assessment. Professional legal representation and the professional obligations of lawyers are governed by the Federal Act on the Freedom of Movement of Lawyers (Lawyers Act, LLCA, SR 935.61); individual legal advice in the concrete case is the responsibility of a lawyer entered in the cantonal bar register.

For individual questions, a lawyer entered in the cantonal bar register (BfR) must be consulted immediately.

Cross-References

• Your permit is about to expire — Crisis-Card for permit-related emergencies
• Hardship provision under Art. 30 FNIA — hardship fallback after revocation
• Debt enforcement and the right of residence (planned) — interplay of debt-enforcement proceedings and revocation in social-assistance constellations
• Recognised refugees in Switzerland — Refugee-B and withdrawal under AsylA Art. 63
• The B residence permit — B permit
• C settlement permit — C permit and proportionality doctrine (BGE/ATF cluster)
• Provisional admission (F permit) — F permit, obstacles to enforcement, revocation constellations
• FNIA and OASA — terminology glossary — FNIA/OASA glossary and overview of norms

---