Facts

The appellant, a Macedonian national, entered Switzerland in 1991 under family reunification and was granted a residence permit. In 1994, he was granted a settlement permit. In 2010, he was sentenced to a total prison term of 24 months for multiple robberies, attempted robberies, multiple attempted coercion, multiple threats, and multiple violations of the Narcotics Act. The Migration Office of the Canton of St. Gallen subsequently revoked the settlement permit and ordered the appellant to leave Switzerland after his release from the measure.

The appellant appealed this decision to the Security and Justice Department of the Canton of St. Gallen, which rejected the appeal. The Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Security and Justice Department. The appellant then applied to the FSCA to overturn the judgment of the Administrative Court as well as the decisions of the Migration Office and the Security and Justice Department, and to allow him to remain in Switzerland as a settled person.

Considerations

The FSCA examined the admissibility of the appeal and concluded that the appeal in public law matters was admissible, as the appellant claimed a right to the continued existence of the settlement permit.

The court rejected the appellant's complaint that the lower court had violated procedural fairness by deciding too early on the foreign police consequences of the committed offenses. It found that the lower court had justified the revocation of the settlement permit based on the appellant's conviction for a long-term prison sentence and the associated serious immigration offense.

The court also examined the appellant's complaint that the lower court had rejected his requests for a psychiatric expert opinion and a current conduct report, as well as for the production of medical records, without justification. However, it found that the lower court had denied the relevance of the legal prognosis for the outcome of the judgment and that the rejection of the evidence requests was therefore not objectionable.

The court also rejected the appellant's complaint that the lower court had violated the principle of good faith by confirming the revocation of the settlement…