Facts

The appellant, a Serbian national born in 1956, entered Switzerland in 1985, was granted a residence permit in 1994 and a settlement permit in 1997. Since 18 July 2017 he has been married to a Swiss national, the mother of his second son.

During his stay he repeatedly committed criminal offences (property offences, road traffic offences; eight convictions with custodial sentences totalling six months and three weeks, 87 day-fines and fines of Fr. 4'150.--).

On 22 October 2004 the Migration Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft issued him a warning because of 34 debt collection certificates totalling Fr. 113'016.90 and called on him to meet his financial obligations. Between 2000 and 2018 he had four companies registered in the commercial register; one of them (sole proprietorship '[E.] ') ended in bankruptcy, closed for lack of assets. [F. GmbH] was founded in 2013; on 10 April 2013 he transferred all of its shares to his mother, then 84 years old, and remained managing director; in 2017 the company was deleted ex officio.

On 12 January 2016 the Migration Office revoked the settlement permit and ordered his removal (debt collection certificates of Fr. 442'695.40). In November 2016 the Government Council declined to enter into the matter because he refused to cooperate; in August 2017 the Cantonal Court set this aside and remitted the case for a decision on the merits. On 16 October 2018 the Government Council dismissed the appeal; on 8 May 2019 the Cantonal Court dismissed the appeal.

By appeal in public law matters, the appellant requested the Federal Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the Cantonal Court and remit the case for an extension of the settlement permit. In the alternative, he requested an examination of a hardship residence permit. The Government Council requested dismissal.

The question at issue was whether the appellant, in particular through his financial conduct, had breached or endangered public order (Art. 63 para. 1 lit. b FNIA) and whether the revocation is proportionate.

Considerations

The appeal in public law matters is admissible against the revocation of the settlement permit, since in principle there is an entitlement to its continuation (Art. 83 lit. c FSCA e contrario, Arts. 42, 82 lit. a, 86 para. 1 lit. d, 89 para. 1, 90, 100 para. 1 FSCA). The request for the grant of a hardship permit (Art. 30 para. 1 lit. b FNIA) is inadmissible, as it concerns a discretionary decision of the cantonal authority (Art. 83 lit. c no. 2 FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion but only examines complaints that have been raised; for complaints of violation of fundamental rights a qualified duty to raise complaints applies (Art. 106 FSCA). Findings of fact and the assessment of evidence may only be reviewed for arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) (Art. 105 FSCA).

New facts and evidence (genuine and non-genuine novas, Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA) were not taken into account, since the cantonal court had not applied any new legal basis. This concerns in particular the lease agreement, flight tickets, boarding passes, the marriage certificate, and the 2019 annual salary statement and debt enforcement office statements.

Under Art. 63 para. 1 lit. b FNIA, the settlement permit may be revoked if the person has seriously breached or endangered public security and order; this also applies after more than 15 years of uninterrupted residence (Art. 63 para. 2 FNIA). Wilful non-fulfilment of public-law or private-law obligations may constitute a breach (Art. 80 para. 1 lit. b old ASEO; now Art. 77a para. 1 lit. b ASEO). Mere non-fulfilment is not sufficient; wilfulness requires self-inflicted fault and qualified culpability, and the burden of proof lies with the migration authority. After a warning, the decisive question is whether debts continue to be wilfully incurred and what remedial efforts have been made.

The lower court rightly affirmed wilfulness: the debts arose in particular from taxes, social insurance contributions, medical and hospital bills, and private-law claims that remained unpaid for more than 15 years. Despite repeated requests, the appellant did not provide plausible reasons for the increase in…