Facts

The complainant 1, a Kosovo national, entered Switzerland in 1992 and has since held a settlement permit. He married a compatriot in 2012, who entered Switzerland in 2012 and holds a residence permit. The marriage produced two children. Complainant 1 was convicted several times, most recently to a prison sentence of four years and six months for assault and attempted murder with intent.

The Migration Office of the Canton of Solothurn revoked complainant 1's settlement permit and ordered him to leave the country on the day of his release from prison. Complainant 2's residence permit was not extended and she was expelled from Switzerland. Complainants 3 and 4, the two children, were also expelled from Switzerland.

The complainants appealed to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which dismissed the appeal. The complainants took the case to the Federal Court.

Considerations

I. Formal considerations

The Federal Court examines its jurisdiction and the further requirements for admission of its own motion. The appeal in public law matters is admissible insofar as it is directed against the revocation of complainant 1's settlement permit and the non-extension of complainant 2's residence permit.

II. Complaints of fact and formal complaints

The complainants allege that the lower court established the facts in various respects in an obviously incorrect manner. However, the complaints are unfounded, as the lower court correctly established the facts.

III. Complainant 1

The revocation of complainant 1's settlement permit is proportionate, as the public interest in ending his stay outweighs the private interest in his remaining in Switzerland. Complainant 1 has committed a very serious breach of the local legal order with an attempted murder with intent, and even a small risk of future crimes cannot be tolerated.

IV. Complainants 2-4

Complainant 2 is basically entitled to an extension of her residence permit, as she is married to complainant 1 and the spouses live together. The separate places of residence of the spouses are due to complainant 1's entry…