Facts
The Philippine citizen [A.A.] married the Swiss citizen [B.A.] on 14 February 2012. On 28 February 2012, she received a residence permit. Her four children from previous relationships entered Switzerland on 15 April 2013 with a tourist visa. [A.A.] applied for family reunification for her children on 24 June 2013. The Migration Office of the Canton of Solothurn only approved the reunification for the youngest child [F.] , while the applications for the children [D.] and [E.] were rejected.
[A.A.] and [B.A.] appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which dismissed the appeal and set a deadline of 30 April 2014 for the children [D.] and [E.] to leave Switzerland. [A.A.] and [B.A.] then appealed to the Federal Court and requested approval of the reunification for the children [D.] and [E.] .
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and came to the conclusion that the appeal in public law matters is admissible, as the appellants assert a permit claim in a justifiable manner.
The court rejected the appellants' view that Art. 42 para. 2 AuG is unconstitutional, as this does not correspond to the will of the legislature. It found that the appellants have no claim to family reunification under Art. 42 para. 2 AuG, as Switzerland has not concluded a free movement agreement with the Philippines.
The court then examined whether the conditions for a subsequent family reunification within the meaning of Art. 47 para. 4 AuG are met. It found that the one-year deadline for the reunification of the children [D.] and [E.] was…