Facts

The appellants, [A.A.] , holder of a residence permit, and his son [B.A.] , born in 2001, both of Mauritian nationality, applied to the Federal Supreme Court following a judgment of the Administrative Chamber, 1st Section, of the Court of Justice of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, of 3 September 2019 (ATA/1319/2019). That judgment dismissed their appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance of the Canton of Geneva of 19 December 2017, which upheld the decision of the Cantonal Office of the Population and Migration of the Canton of Geneva to refuse family reunification of [B.A.] with his mother. The conditions of art. 47 FNIA were not met.

Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellants, represented by counsel, essentially request that a residence permit be granted to [B.A.] , with suspensive effect. They allege a violation of the right to private life (art. 13 para. 1 Cst.) and of the prohibition of arbitrariness (art. 9 Cst.) in the application of art. 16 para. 1 AniWA/GE and of art. 47 FNIA. They argue that the serious illness of the appellant's spouse constituted a case of force majeure justifying an extension of the 12-month period of art. 47 para. 1 FNIA.

The son, who is an adult, resided in Switzerland without a residence permit.

Considerations

Under art. 83 let. c no. 2 FSCA, a public law appeal is inadmissible in matters of foreign nationals' law against decisions concerning a permit to which neither federal law nor international law confers an entitlement. The Federal Supreme Court recalls its case law on the right to respect for private life (art. 8 ECHR and art. 13 Cst.), which depends fundamentally on the duration of lawful residence in Switzerland: beyond ten years, serious grounds are required to refuse or revoke a permit; below that threshold, strong integration may suffice (ATF 144 I 266). As the son resided without a permit, he cannot invoke private or family life in relation to his mother, the determinative time being the time at which the Federal Supreme Court rules (ATF 145 I 227).

Art. 44 FNIA is discretionary in nature and does not confer any right of residence, and the same applies to art. 47 para. 1 FNIA read together with art. 44 FNIA. The public law appeal is therefore inadmissible, the only remaining avenue being the subsidiary constitutional appeal (art. 113 et seq. FSCA).

For this appeal, the appellants must have a legal interest in the annulment or modification of the decision (art. 115 let. b FSCA; ATF 133 I 185). However, as they have no entitlement to a residence permit and cannot independently invoke the prohibition of arbitrariness, they do not hold a protected legal position conferring standing to challenge the merits on this basis.

The complaint of arbitrariness in the application of art. 17 para. 1 AniWA/GE, concerning the extension of procedural time limits in cases of force majeure, is inadmissible: the appellants do not explain how this cantonal procedural provision would apply to the time limits of federal substantive law under art. 47 FNIA, in breach of…