Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.A.] , Serbian citizen, married to [B.A.] , a compatriot entitled to settle in Switzerland.
  • Respondents: Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich and Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich.

Facts:

  • [A.A.] has repeatedly stayed in Switzerland without a permit since 2010. On February 20, 2015, he received a residence permit under the spouse reunification scheme, which was repeatedly extended.
  • At the end of August or beginning of September 2020, [A.A.] and [B.A.] dissolved their marital community with the intention of divorcing.
  • During his stay, [A.A.] was summoned 33 times, with the total amount of the summonses exceeding CHF 59,000. The [A.] family was supported by social welfare to the tune of CHF 28,647.50 during the marital community.
  • [A.A.] obtained several criminal convictions in Switzerland, including for driving while unfit, employing foreigners without a permit, and exceeding the speed limit.
  • The Migration Office rejected [A.A.] 's application for an extension of his residence permit with a decision of June 22, 2021, and set a deadline for him to leave Switzerland by August 31, 2021.
  • The cantonal appeals against this decision were unsuccessful (decision of the Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich of February 1, 2022, and judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich of August 25, 2022).
  • [A.A.] filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich of August 25, 2022 be overturned and that the Migration Office be instructed to approve his application for an extension of his residence permit.

Considerations

The appeal is directed against the final judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich of August 25, 2022 and concerns a matter of public law. The appellant is entitled to bring the case before the Federal Supreme Court. The appeal was filed in time and in the correct form and concerns a matter of public law.

The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal in public law matters for a violation of law under Art. 95 and 96 FSCA. It applies the law ex officio but only examines the submissions made, unless any further legal deficiencies are obvious. With regard to the violation of fundamental rights, there is a qualified obligation to raise and substantiate objections.

The appellant initially alleges a violation of his right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.). The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant does not explain in what way the statements and evaluations in the previous instance's decision are supposed to be generalizing. Assuming that his submissions meet the requirements of the obligation to raise objections, there is consequently no violation of the right to be heard.

Furthermore, the appellant alleges a violation of Art. 50…