Facts
The Serbian national [A.] (born 1988) stated that he lived predominantly in Switzerland from 2015 until April 2018, without possessing the necessary immigration permit. In August 2022, he came to Switzerland again. The Migration Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft initially granted him a period of rest and reflection, as well as a temporary short-stay permit, as there were indications of a possible victim status of human trafficking. However, after the conclusion of the investigations, it was determined that there was no case of human trafficking.
[A.] then applied for the issuance of a hardship permit. The Migration Office and subsequently the cantonal authorities rejected his application. The Federal Supreme Court confirms these decisions. It concludes that the requirements for a residence permit under Art. 14 para. 1 lit. a of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings are not met. Despite his mental health issues, a return to Serbia is deemed reasonable for [A.] , as he has a social environment there and the medical care is ensured.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility requirements. It finds that the appeal in public law matters against the decision of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft is admissible, insofar as it is based on Art. 14 para. 1 lit. a of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. However, neither the appeal in public law matters nor the subsidiary constitutional appeal is admissible, insofar as the appellant invokes other provisions of the Foreigners Act or requests the order of temporary admission.
On the merits, the Federal Supreme Court concludes that the requirements for a residence permit under Art. 14 para. 1 lit. a of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings are not met.…