Recently, the practices of the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) have become extremely strict. Consequently, the euphoria of the early years has faded. Today we are witnessing a wave of mass rejections of applications for the granting or renewal of S status for Ukrainian citizens.
I am regularly approached by people whose cases have already reached an impasse. In fact, by analysing these cases, I see the same pattern. Rejections occur not because people lack rights. Instead, they happen due to fatal mistakes made during the application stage and the choice of an incorrect legal strategy.
Below, I will examine the main reasons why the system issues refusals. Furthermore, I will explain how to proceed correctly.
Mistake No. 1: The wrong approach and ‘emotional’ statements
The Swiss immigration system is a cold, perfectly streamlined bureaucratic mechanism. Therefore, the main mistake applicants make is relying on emotions, advice from forums, or rumours.
When submitting appeals or requests for a review of the case (Wiedererwägung), many mistakenly overload their applications with emotions and complaints about their hardships. Remember: officials are not interested in your emotions. You must speak to them in a language they understand. Specifically, you must use dry legal facts, evidence, and references to relevant UN conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Ignorance of procedural rules and a lack of proper medical reports from Swiss doctors often lead to failure. Consequently, cases fall apart while still on the clerk’s desk.
Mistake No. 2: Incorrect strategy regarding removal to a ‘third country’
The most common reason for rejections today is the application of the ‘safe third country’ rule. For instance, if you were in another European country prior to arriving in Switzerland, the SEM and the court will rule with 99% certainty that you must return there. Additionally, the court assumes that country is obliged to ensure your safety.
How people usually act (incorrect strategy): They try to emotionally convince the migration authorities that they feel more comfortable in Switzerland. They argue that healthcare is better here or that relatives live here. However, for a Swiss court, this is not a valid argument. The court operates on the presumption that another EU country is also safe. Therefore, the case is lost.
How to proceed (correct strategy): You need to use facts to strike at the weakest point of this decision. In practice, a legal vacuum often arises. Switzerland sends you to an EU country, but the authorities of that state officially refuse to take you back. Consequently, this happens because you have already left their territory.
Your task is not to argue with the SEM in abstract terms. Instead, you must document the third country’s refusal. An official written refusal from another EU state constitutes a powerful legal basis. With this document in hand, you can initiate a review of the case. Ultimately, this compels Switzerland to take responsibility, as the court’s decision has proved unenforceable in practice.
Expert summary
The system counts on you giving up or getting intimidated after the first refusal. However, in any difficult situation, there is a correct way out. You need to know this. That is precisely why you should entrust your fate to professionals who know this system from the inside.
I have been through this process myself and know the Swiss legal system in practice. If you have received a rejection from SEM or face the threat of deportation, do not waste precious time. Instead, contact us for a professional analysis of your situation and to develop a workable defence strategy.
LLCA Team info@llca.ch
