Facts
The Chilean national [X.] came to Switzerland in 1983 at the age of eleven together with her family, where she was granted asylum. In 1990, she received the settlement permit. In 1991, she returned to Chile to pursue her studies there. When she was just under thirty years old, her mother applied for "humanitarian reasons" for a permit for her to stay for the purpose of employment, which was however rejected.
[X.] traveled to Switzerland again in 2003, where she soon after married the 27 years older Swiss citizen [Y.] and received a residence permit to stay with her husband. In 2006, their daughter [Z.] was born, who also acquired Swiss citizenship due to the presumption of Art. 255 CC. However, during the extension procedure of the residence permit, it was found that [Y.] was staying in the Dominican Republic and had acquired a house there. The Migration Office therefore rejected [X.]'s application, as it assumed that the marriage only existed formally.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the obvious interest of daughter [Z.] to be allowed to grow up in Switzerland must be given priority. Even if the complainant's marriage is to be classified as an abuse of rights, this…