Facts
The Turkish national the appellant entered Switzerland in October 2021 and married the Swiss citizen the (ex-)husband in November 2021. The Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich then granted her a residence permit. In June 2022, the (ex-)husband informed the Migration Office that his marital intent had ceased. With an order for separation of spouses dated 9 June 2023, the District Court of Dielsdorf approved the separation of the spouses and noted that they had already been living separately since the end of November 2022.
With a decision dated 16 April 2024, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich refused to extend the appellant’s residence permit. She lodged cantonal legal remedies against this decision, which were unsuccessful (appeal decision of the Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich dated 17 June 2024; judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 27 March 2025).
The appellant then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. She requested that the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 27 March 2025 be set aside and that the Migration Office be ordered to extend her residence permit. Alternatively, she requested that the contested judgment be set aside and that the Migration Office be instructed to apply to the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) for her provisional admission. She also requested the granting of free legal aid and the granting of suspensive effect to her appeal. The Divisional Presidency granted the appeal suspensive effect by order dated 2 May 2025.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal. Since the appellant claimed an entitlement to a permit derived from Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b FNIA, the public law appeal was admissible. The other conditions for taking a decision under Art. 42, Art. 89 para. 1 and Art. 100 para. 1 FSCA were also met, so the Federal Supreme Court took the appeal into consideration.
The subject of the dispute was whether the cantonal authorities had correctly refused to extend the appellant’s residence permit after she had separated from her Swiss husband. It was undisputed that the marital community had lasted less than three years, which meant that an extension of the permit under Art. 50 para. 1 lit. a FNIA could not be considered. The appellant alleged a violation of Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b in conjunction with para. 2 FNIA and claimed that her (ex-)husband had subjected her to enormous psychological pressure, which constituted a form of domestic violence. In addition, the economic conditions in Turkey were extremely precarious, and it was to be expected that, as a woman divorced twice and with a Western orientation, she would be socially isolated by the increasingly conservative Turkish society if she were to return there.
The Federal Supreme Court recalled that, within the meaning of Art. 50 para. 1 lit. b in conjunction with para. 2 lit. a FNIA, any form of domestic violence is relevant, provided it is systematic and of a certain continuity or intensity. Psychological or socio-economic pressure can constitute a post-marital hardship case if the mental integrity of the person concerned is severely impaired and it cannot reasonably be expected of them to maintain the marriage for permit law…