Family reunification of a spouse and father of recognized refugees

Facts

The complainants, [A.X.] , [B.X.] and [D.Y.] , are recognized refugees who have been granted asylum in Switzerland. [A.X.] and [B.X.] are mother and daughter, who came to Switzerland in 2007 and were recognized as refugees in 2009. [A.X.] married [D.Y.] in Sudan in 2011 and gave birth to a second daughter, [C.] , who was born in Switzerland. The Migration Office of the Canton of St. Gallen rejected the application for family reunification for [D.Y.] , as the family is dependent on social welfare benefits and [A.X.] has never made an effort to work.

The complainants applied to the Federal Court to overturn the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen and to allow [D.Y.] to enter Switzerland for family reunification. They argued that the contested decision violates Art. 8 ECHR and Art. 13 Cst. and that their private interests in family reunification outweigh the financial interests in refusing it.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined whether the complainants have a right to family reunification. It found that the complainants, as recognized refugees with asylum, have a statutory right to a permit under Art. 43 AuG. The Court noted that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not provide a right to enter and stay or to a specific residence permit, but still protects the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court stated that the question of whether family reunification is to be permitted depends on the circumstances of the individual case. It noted that the cantonal authorities must examine family reunification and any potential legal claims under alien law in accordance with Art. 43 et seq. AuG or Art. 8 ECHR or Art. 13 Cst. The Court found that the complainant and her children have a secure legal status in Switzerland and that their ties to Switzerland as their country of asylum are relatively close.

The Court examined the financial situation of the complainants and found that the cantonal authorities had assumed that the family is dependent on social welfare benefits and that [A.X.] has never made an effort to work. The Court noted that the complainant has been living in Switzerland since January 2007 and has not been gainfully employed,…