Facts
[A.] (born 1983), originally from Poland, has made several visits to Switzerland. On 16 January 2008, she entered Switzerland again and was granted an EU/EFTA residence permit valid until 30 April 2014 by the Migration Office of the Canton of Aargau on 22 April 2009 for the purpose of taking up employment. On 10 April 2010, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich issued her the same permit, as she was working in a catering business in the Canton of Zurich. The Migration Office extended the EU/EFTA residence permit until 30 April 2015 for job search, as she had last worked in Zurich until 10 June 2013. Since 1 February 2014, [A.] has been receiving social assistance. In December 2015, her son [C.] was born. The child's father, [E.] , is a national of North Macedonia and has been residing there so far.
On 20 August 2015, the Migration Office rejected [A.] 's application for an extension of the residence permit for the purpose of taking up employment, a decision upheld by the Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich in a decision on appeal dated 20 June 2016. However, on 26 January 2017, the Migration Office granted [A.] 's request for reconsideration, as she had taken up a position in the primary labour market. Accordingly, the EU/EFTA residence permit was extended by five years until 30 April 2020, with her financial situation to be reviewed again in one year and continued dependence on social assistance potentially leading to the revocation of the residence permit. In May 2017, the employment relationship ended due to pregnancy, and in September of the same year, her daughter [B.] was born. The marriage between [A.] and [D.] had been divorced since 10 February 2017.
On 15 April 2020, [A.] applied for an extension of the EU/EFTA residence permit for job search. The Migration Office rejected the application by decision of 4 January 2021. The legal remedies filed at the cantonal level were unsuccessful (decision on appeal of the Security Directorate dated 20 July 2021; judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 6 April 2022).
Considerations
The FSCA considered that while the appellant 1 ([A.] ) had been employed for a time, this could not be qualified as a genuine and actual economic activity within the meaning of the case law on Art. 6 para. 1 Annex I of the AFMP. In particular, her assignments were irregular and quantitatively too low to establish a right of residence as an employee.
A right of residence for the children (appellants 2 and 3) based on Art. 3 para. 6 Annex I AFMP was…