Grounds for revocation, principle of proportionality, right of appeal.
Last reviewed
03.06.2026
Statute as of
01.01.2024
Statute citations
3 linked
Reading time
24 min read
As of: 01.06.2026 · Snapshot
Revocation of the residence permit or settlement permit — Art. 62 and 63 FNIA
Effective date
Frequently asked
4 answers on this topic.
Concrete questions people ask about Revocation — art. 62/63 FNIA.
art. 62 Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (B/L/G permit): main reasons: false information in the application, conviction to a longer term of imprisonment (general rule: 12+ months), significant or repeated offences, permanent receipt of social assistance, failure to comply with the integration agreement. art. 63 Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (C permit): higher threshold — serious conviction, crime against public safety, permanent dependence on social assistance.
: AI initial draft, pending endorsement by CLR (Lawyer-of-Record). Publication only permitted after senior counsel approval (ADR-018).
What this is about — and what it is not about
The revocation of a residence or settlement permit is the administrative cancellation of an existing right of residence. It is carried out by means of a ruling by the cantonal migration office and may be accompanied by a removal order and an entry ban.
In Swiss immigration law, four scenarios must be clearly distinguished – they have different legal bases, procedures and consequences:
Non-renewal of a B permit: The permit expires normally and is not renewed, either at the request of the applicant or ex officio. No grounds for revocation are required; however, the ordinary conditions for granting the permit must continue to be met.
Revocation of a B or C permit (Art. 62/63 AIG): Active administrative cancellation of the permit during its period of validity, based on a legal ground for revocation.
Removal (Art. 64 ff. AIG): An administrative order to leave the country. Removal is the consequence of the revocation or unlawful stay, not the revocation itself.
Forced removal from the country (Criminal Code, Art. 66a / 66a bis): Criminal sanction imposed by the criminal court – not an immigration law act of the migration authorities, but a consequence of a criminal conviction. It is ordered by the criminal court itself and merely executed by the cantonal migration office and the SEM.
This document deals with the revocation of immigration status under Articles 62 and 63 of the AIG. Criminal law-based removal from the country is only discussed insofar as it affects the immigration procedure.
AIG Art. 62 — Revocation of the short-term or residence permit (B permit)
Fedlex·Art. 62 AIG (SR 142.20) governs the revocation of the short-term and residence permit (L and B). The provision is formulated as a discretionary one – the authority may revoke, but is not obliged to do so. The exercise of discretion is subject to the principle of proportionality under Fedlex·Art. 96 AIG (see below).
The grounds for revocation under Art. 62 para. 1 are:
lit. a: The foreign national made false statements or concealed material facts during the permit application procedure.
lit. b: The foreign national has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than six months, or a criminal measure within the meaning of Articles 59–61 or 64 of the Swiss Criminal Code has been ordered against him or her.
lit. c: The foreign national has seriously violated public security and order in Switzerland or abroad, or has endangered them, or has endangered internal or external security.
lit. d: The foreign national fails to comply with a condition attached to the ruling.
lit. e: The foreign national or a person for whom they are responsible is dependent on social welfare.
Art. 62 para. 2 states that the revocation, as referred to in para. 1 lit. b, is not permissible if the person concerned has resided continuously and lawfully in Switzerland for more than 15 years – however, this only applies to the specific circumstances described in that paragraph, and not to the other grounds for revocation.
Practical significance of these grounds for revocation in cantonal practice (by frequency, very rough indication):
lit. e (social welfare) and lit. b (criminal conviction) account for the majority of revocation proceedings in relation to B residence permits.
lit. a (false information) typically appears in situations where information provided in the original application process – in particular regarding marital status, previous convictions or habitual residence – is challenged in retrospect.
lit. c (breach of security) is triggered in conjunction with fedpol or NDB notifications, occurs infrequently in terms of numbers, but is particularly strict from a legal perspective.
lit. d (breach of conditions) applies to permits issued subject to conditions (e.g. breach of integration agreement).
AIG Art. 63 — Revocation of the C settlement permit
Art. 63 FNIA governs the revocation of the C settlement permit. The requirements are stricter than those in Art. 62 for the B residence permit – the C settlement permit enjoys enhanced protection against revocation.
The grounds for revocation under Art. 63 para. 1 are:
lit. a: The conditions under Art. 62 para. 1 lit. a (false statements) or lit. b (lengthy term of imprisonment or criminal sanction) are met.
lit. b: The foreign national has seriously violated public safety and order in Switzerland or abroad, or has endangered them, or has endangered internal or external security.
lit. c: The foreign national or a person for whom they are responsible is permanently and to a considerable extent dependent on social assistance.
Art. 63 para. 2 makes it clear that the revocation of a C settlement permit, which has been held continuously and in accordance with the law for more than 15 years, is only permissible for the reasons set out in Art. 63 para. 1 lit. b and Art. 62 para. 1 lit. b – the social welfare situation referred to in lit. c therefore no longer applies to long-established C permits.
The key difference between Art. 62 and Art. 63: For the C permit, the thresholds are higher (e.g. the social welfare situation requires permanent and significant dependence, not just current dependence on social welfare), and certain grounds for revocation of the B permit (lit. d, lit. e without "permanent + significant") do not apply.
Proportionality — Art. 96 LEI/LStrI/FNIA
Art. 96 FNIA requires the authorities, when exercising their discretion, to take into account the public interest and the personal circumstances, as well as the degree of integration of the foreign nationals.
In the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, this principle has been further developed into a proportionality test, which weighs up the following elements:
Severity of the grounds for revocation (e.g. duration and extent of the prison sentence, amount and duration of dependence on social welfare, severity of the breach of security),
Duration of stay in Switzerland,
Family relationships and personal circumstances (in particular Article 8 of the ECHR – right to family life and private life),
Level of integration (language, employment, social integration, behaviour),
Possibilities for return to the country of origin (in particular in cases of prolonged stay),
Behaviour since the grounds for revocation (e.g. in the event of a criminal conviction: probation, rehabilitation).
Leading decisions on the principle of proportionality (selection, for illustrative purposes):
BGE 139 I 145: Proportionality in the event of revocation after a long period of residence.
BGE 139 I 31: Balancing family life under Article 8 of the ECHR when revoking a C residence permit.
BGE 137 II 297: Standard of “second generation born in Switzerland”
For detailed cross-references to the Federal Supreme Court’s case law on proportionality, see permits/permit_c_settled.md, section “Revocation and Proportionality”.
VERIFY: The BGE references cited here are established as leading decisions; the precise selection and currency (in particular, more recent Federal Supreme Court judgments from 2024-2026) must be verified by Senior Counsel before publication.
Dependence on social welfare as grounds for revocation
The social welfare situation (Art. 62 para. 1 lit. e for B, Art. 63 para. 1 lit. c for C) is one of the most common grounds for revocation in cantonal practice – and at the same time one of the most politically and socially sensitive.
Difference between B and C permits:
B permit (Art. 62 para. e): Receiving social welfare is generally sufficient. In practice, however, not every instance of claiming social welfare will lead to revocation; the authorities will examine the duration, amount and prospects of economic independence.
C permit (Art. 63 lit. c): The threshold is set higher in law – it requires permanent and significant dependence on social welfare. Mere temporary receipt is not sufficient.
Cantonal practice clusters (for general information only, not legal advice):
Aargau Administrative Court 2024: Stricter interpretation – even in the case of B residence permits, revocation proceedings are initiated if even moderate social welfare benefits are received. Cross-reference to life-events/le_betreibung_impact.md for the interaction with debt enforcement situations.
Geneva practice: Moderate — the Geneva migration authority typically examines the overall situation more closely (level of integration, prospects for reintegration into the labour market, health reasons for receiving social assistance).
Zurich: Moderate strictness — the practice varies depending on the municipality and the individual case worker at the migration authority.
Other cantons: The lists of practice clusters are kept in the respective ca_*.md files.
VERIFY: A complete list of cantonal practice regarding the revocation of social welfare benefits should be compiled for Senior Counsel review. In particular, it should be examined whether the Aargau interpretation referenced here is still valid as of 2026 or has been amended by a Federal Supreme Court decision.
Important distinction: Receiving social assistance and being dependent on social assistance are not the same. Supplementary benefits to old age and survivors' insurance/disability insurance (SB) are not social assistance within the meaning of Art. 62/63 AIG and do not lead to revocation. Disability insurance benefits, unemployment insurance benefits and KVG premium reductions are also not social assistance.
Criminal conviction as grounds for revocation
A longer-term term of imprisonment is grounds for revocation under both Art. 62 lit. b and Art. 63 lit. a (by reference).
Practical benchmark: ‘longer-term imprisonment’: The Federal Supreme Court’s case law has established a threshold of ≥1 year of unconditional imprisonment (or partially conditional imprisonment of ≥1 year in total). Measures under Articles 59–61 or 64 of the Swiss Criminal Code (inpatient therapeutic measure, detention) meet the grounds for revocation, regardless of the length of the sentence.
VERIFY: The “one-year threshold” originates from the case law of the Federal Supreme Court; current clarifications (Federal Supreme Court decisions 2024-2026) must be examined by Senior Counsel.
Relationship to criminal law-based removal from the country (Criminal Code, Art. 66a)
Since the implementation of the deportation initiative came into force (1 October 2016), Article 66a of the Criminal Code also applies – this is the criminal law provision on expulsion from the country. This is not an immigration law measure, but a sanction imposed by the criminal court.
Mandatory expulsion from the country (Art. 66a StGB): If convicted of a catalogue offence (including, among others, murder, intentional homicide, grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery, aggravated serious sexual offence, aggravated fraud against social insurance schemes, aggravated money laundering, and multiple drug offences), the criminal court must order a mandatory expulsion from the country for a period of 5 to 15 years, regardless of the length of the sentence.
Hardship clause (Art. 66a para. 2 StGB): The criminal court may, in exceptional cases, waive the order for removal if this would cause “serious personal hardship” for the foreign national and the public interest in the removal does not outweigh the private interests of the foreign national in remaining in Switzerland.
Non-compulsory expulsion from the country (Art. 66a ff. of the Criminal Code): In the case of other offences, the criminal court may order expulsion from the country for a period of 3 to 15 years.
Anti-Scope (STRICT): SIP does not provide criminal law strategy, assessment of individual defence or hardship arguments, or evaluation of the prospects of success of a hardship application under Art. 66a para. 2 StGB. This advice must be provided by a lawyer specialising in criminal law, or a lawyer with corresponding specialisation — ideally in conjunction with legal representation specialising in immigration law.
Procedure — the six steps
A revocation procedure typically proceeds in the following steps:
Step 1 — Preliminary assessment by the cantonal migration office (investigation): The migration authority becomes aware of a possible ground for revocation (e.g. through notification of a criminal conviction, through notification of social welfare payments by the municipality, or through its own investigation) and initiates revocation proceedings with a preliminary assessment or an investigation notice.
Step 2 — Statement by the person concerned: The migration authority grants the right to be heard — the person concerned is given the opportunity to comment on the facts and the planned measures. This deadline for submitting a statement is typically 14 to 30 days. This deadline is crucial: Failure to submit a statement or submitting an incomplete statement may significantly complicate any subsequent appeal.
Step 3 — Ruling with revocation: If the grounds for revocation are confirmed, the migration authority issues a ruling. This typically includes:
the revocation of the permit,
the removal order with a deadline for departure,
where appropriate, the ordering of an entry ban (Fedlex·Art. 67 AIG, separate SEM procedure),
information on legal remedies (deadline for lodging an appeal: 30 days from the date of receipt of the ruling).
Step 4 — Appeal to the cantonal administrative court (or cantonal appeal commission, depending on the canton): Within 30 days of receiving the ruling. The deadline is not extendable. Failure to comply will result in the ruling becoming final. The appeal generally has suspensory effect, but this may be denied in individual cases.
Step 5 — Appeal to the Federal Administrative Court: An appeal may be lodged with the Federal Administrative Court against the cantonal decision on appeal within 30 days (Fedlex·Art. 33 lit. h VGG i.V.m. Fedlex·Art. 5 VwVG), provided that the Federal Administrative Court has jurisdiction (in particular, in the case of SEM decisions on entry bans).
Step 6 — Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court: Under strict conditions, an appeal may be lodged with the Federal Supreme Court against cantonal final decisions or decisions of the Federal Administrative Court — in immigration matters, typically as a subsidiary constitutional complaint (Art. 113 ff. BGG), as appeals in public law matters are excluded in many immigration law situations (Art. 83 lit. c BGG). The deadline is 30 days.
Estimated duration of the procedure:
Preliminary decision up to the ruling (steps 1-3): typically 3 to 12 months, often longer in cases involving social welfare.
Cantonal appeal procedure (step 4): typically 6 to 18 months.
Federal Administrative Court (Step 5): typically 12 to 24 months,
Federal Supreme Court (Step 6): typically 4 to 12 months.
During appeal proceedings, the enforcement of the removal order is generally suspended (suspensory effect), but the permit remains revoked – the person concerned is in a precarious interim situation. Employment is generally possible during appeal proceedings, provided that the original permit allowed employment and the suspensory effect has not been lifted – cantonal practice varies.
VERIFY: The division of responsibilities between the cantonal administrative court, the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Supreme Court varies depending on the specific case and the issuing authority. Senior Counsel must verify the sequence of steps presented here in light of the current procedural laws (VwVG, VGG, BGG).
Removal versus revocation — clarifying the terms
These two terms are often used synonymously in everyday language, but they have different legal meanings:
Revocation is the cancellation of the permit.
Removal is the administrative order to leave the country. It typically follows a revocation, but can also occur in other situations (e.g. in the case of unlawful presence without a prior permit).
Enforcement of removal: The cantonal migration office is responsible, in cooperation with the cantonal police and – in the case of assisted returns or special cases – the SEM and the federal police.
Obstacles to enforcement (Fedlex·AIG Art. 83-88): A removal order cannot be enforced if the enforcement:
unreasonable (e.g. concrete threat, medical condition, general situation in the country of origin).
not permitted (e.g. the prohibition of refoulement in the event of a risk of torture, as per Article 3 of the ECHR / Article 33 of the Refugee Convention).
not possible (e.g. the state refuses to accept the return, no travel documents available).
If obstacles to enforcement are identified, the SEM orders the provisional admission (F permit). Detailed cross-reference: permits/permit_f_provisional_admission.md.
Specific situation — refugees with a B permit (Refugee-B)
People with recognised refugee status initially receive a B permit as recognised refugees (Refugee-B). Special rules apply to them:
AsylA Art. 63 — Withdrawal of refugee status: Refugee status may be withdrawn if the conditions under Art. 1 C Section 1-6 of the Refugee Convention are met (e.g. if the person voluntarily reclaims the protection of their country of origin, or if the grounds for persecution cease to exist). The withdrawal of refugee status is not identical to the revocation of the residence permit — it is a prior change of status.
Only after the refugee status has been revoked (or if it has not been recognised) does the migration authority examine whether the residence permit can be revoked in accordance with Fedlex·Art. 62 AIG.
In the case of refugees with recognised refugee status, the international protection guarantees of the Geneva Convention on Refugees also apply — in particular, the prohibition of refoulement (Article 33 of the Geneva Convention), which also prevents the enforcement of a removal order to the country of origin in revocation proceedings, insofar as there is a risk of persecution there.
VERIFY: The interaction between the rejection under the Asylum Act (Art. 63 Asylum Act) and the revocation under the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (Art. 62 Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration) in refugee-B cases is procedurally complex. Senior counsel must review the presentation.
Specific situation — revocation of the F permit
The F permit (provisional admission) is a form of subsidiary protection granted when the enforcement of the removal order is unreasonable, inadmissible or impossible.
A revocation of the F permit occurs if:
the obstacles to enforcement are removed (e.g. changed situation in the country of origin, restoration of the possibility of return).
a ground for revocation according to Art. 84 AsylA / Art. 83 ff. LEI/LStrI/FNIA exists,
the person concerned voluntarily returns to their country of origin or obtains a passport from that country under circumstances that call into question the original grounds for granting protection.
The revocation of a permit may (but does not necessarily have to) be accompanied by an entry ban pursuant to Fedlex·Art. 67 AIG. The entry ban is issued by the SEM (not by the cantonal migration office) and prevents re-entry into the entire Schengen area.
Duration: typically between 5 and 15 years, in particularly serious cases, indefinite (Art. 67 para. 3 LEI/LStrI/FNIA in conjunction with Art. 67 para. 6 LEI/LStrI/FNIA).
SIS-II entry: The entry ban is entered into the Schengen Information System (SIS-II) and prevents re-entry into all Schengen states, not just Switzerland.
Re-entry after a period of exclusion: After the period of exclusion has expired, re-entry can generally be applied for – however, it is not automatically permitted. The new permit must be applied for in accordance with the ordinary rules (Art. 18 ff. AIG for third-country nationals; FZA for EU/EFTA nationals).
Early lifting: At the request of the individual, the SEM may lift an entry ban prematurely if the circumstances have changed (Art. 67 para. 5 AIG).
Suspension for short-term entries: In hardship cases (in particular, to exercise family law rights such as visiting children, or in the event of medical emergencies involving close relatives), the SEM may temporarily suspend an entry ban – the suspension must be applied for in advance and does not constitute an entitlement.
VERIFY: The current SEM practice regarding the duration of entry bans in standard situations (social welfare, shorter prison sentences, security breaches of medium severity) varies over time. Senior Counsel must review current SEM guidelines.
Hardship case procedure under Art. 30 AIG
If the revocation becomes final, in theory there remains the possibility of submitting a new application for a residence permit under the hardship clause of Art. 30 para. 1 lit. b LEI/LStrI/FNIA.
In practice, this remedy is rarely successful, because a prior revocation typically undermines the credibility of the hardship argument. A hardship application remains possible, in particular, in the following cases:
significantly altered circumstances (e.g. new medical situation, complete resocialisation after a long period),
in the case of children who grow up in Switzerland and whose removal is pending at a critical stage in their lives.
in the case of victims of human trafficking (separate legal basis under Art. 30 para. 1 lit. e AIG).
These notes are purely factual and do not constitute an appeals strategy (Anti-Scope, see below).
Appeal deadline: 30 days from receipt of the ruling. Not extendable. The deadline begins upon receipt of the registered ruling, not from the date on the ruling. Anyone on holiday or who has not collected their post risks missing the deadline.
Form: Written appeal, dated, signed, stating the request and providing justification. The precise formal requirements vary depending on the cantonal procedural law (cantonal VRPG) and the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (VwVG).
Legal aid: If a person is in need, they can apply for legal aid — this includes exemption from court costs and the provision of a legal representative free of charge (Fedlex·Art. 65 VwVG / cantonal legal provisions). Requirements: financial need and a case that is not hopeless.
Suspensive effect: As a rule, the appeal has a suspensive effect — i.e. the removal may not be carried out during the appeal proceedings. However, the suspensive effect may be withdrawn in individual cases (Fedlex·Art. 55 VwVG); in such cases, a separate application for the restoration of the suspensive effect is necessary.
Grounds for appeal: A detailed examination of the challenged ruling, in particular of the proportionality assessment (Fedlex·Art. 96 AIG). Appeals that are merely formal in nature will generally be rejected.
Federal Administrative Court (in federal cases) or directly the Federal Supreme Court
Final instance
Federal Supreme Court (subsidiary constitutional complaint)
Entry ban
State Secretariat for Migration (SEM)
Enforcement of removal
Cantonal migration office + cantonal police; SEM in special cases
Priority: Legal representation: In a revocation procedure, legal representation by a lawyer registered in the cantonal bar register (Anwaltsregister, Bureau für die Anwaltsregister) is strongly recommended. The complexity of the proportionality assessment, the strict deadlines and the irreversible consequences of a final removal require professional representation.
Crisis Pathway (as per ADR-017, crisis_card_flag: true)
A revocation ruling is often a traumatic event – it threatens the individual’s livelihood and triggers a 30-day deadline within which an appeal must be lodged.
Immediate steps for those affected:
Document receipt of the ruling: Note the date of receipt – the 30-day deadline starts from the date of receipt.
Contact a lawyer: Registered with the cantonal bar register, specialising in immigration law. If eligible, apply for legal aid.
Crisis Card (psychological support):
Tel. 143 (Dargebotene Hand): Available 24 hours a day, multilingual, free of charge, anonymous.
Caritas Switzerland: Advice centres in all cantons, multilingual.
HEKS (Swiss Interchurch Aid): Legal and social advice for migrants.
OSAR (Swiss Refugee Council): Specialises in asylum and refugee cases, providing legal advice through regional legal advice centres.
Keep official correspondence: All letters from the migration authorities, all envelopes with postmarks, all previous rulings.
Cross-Reference Crisis Cards: crisis/cr_*.md (in particular cr_permit_expiring_soon.md for permit risk scenarios).
Anti-Scope (STRICT)
SIP does not provide the following in this matter:
No appeal strategy: SIP does not provide information on which arguments are likely to be successful in a specific appeal.
No defence strategy: SIP does not assess individual defence strategies in the event of a criminal conviction or criminal expulsion from the country.
No guidance on disclosure: SIP does not provide guidance on whether certain facts should be disclosed or withheld in the consultation process (step 2 above).
No individual legal advice: SIP does not recommend any specific lawyers outside the Curated Lawyer Registry (CLR) as per the ADR-013 Marketplace model.
No assessment of prospects of success: SIP does not indicate whether an appeal has a “prospect of success” — this is a case-specific legal assessment that must be carried out exclusively by a lawyer registered with the FAC or a lawyer registered accordingly (Art. 12 LLCA).
For individual queries, a lawyer registered with the BfR or a lawyer registered accordingly should be consulted immediately.
Cross-References
crisis/cr_permit_expiring_soon.md — Crisis card for permit-related emergencies
life-events/le_haertefall_art30.md — Hardship case provision following revocation
life-events/le_betreibung_impact.md(planned) — Interaction between debt collection proceedings and revocation in social welfare cases.
permits/permit_a_recognised_refugee.md — Refugee-B permit and withdrawal under AsylA, Art. 63
permits/permit_b_resident.md — B residence permit
permits/permit_c_settled.md — C permit and the principle of proportionality (Federal Supreme Court case law)
permits/permit_f_provisional_admission.md — F permit, obstacles to enforcement, scenarios for revocation
framework/fw_aig_vzae_glossary.md — AIG/VZAE glossary and overview of regulations
Data compartment (ADR-015 Tier A)
This file belongs to the most sensitive data class (ADR-015 Tier A): search queries, read accesses and dwell times are recorded in a completely separate audit compartment which is not linked to the marketing funnel, not linked to Posthog/Plausible tracking and not linked to the CLR Marketplace backend. A person searching for information on revocations will not be profiled based on this search – neither commercially, nor for lead generation, nor in a way that would be accessible to authorities. Detailed specification in ADR-015 (Asylum data compartment, Tier A extended to revocation scenarios).
HARD GLOSSARY — non-negotiable Swiss federal codes / agency names.
"AIG" → "FNIA"
"Ausländer- und Integrationsgesetz" → "Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration"
"VZAE" → "OASA"
"BüG" → "SCA"
"Bürgerrechtsgesetz" → "Swiss Citizenship Act"
"FZA" → "AFMP"
"Freizügigkeitsabkommen" → "Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons"
"AsylG" → "AsylA"
"Asylgesetz" → "Asylum Act"
"nDSG" → "revFADP"
"DSG" → "FADP"
"SEM" → "SEM"
"Staatssekretariat für Migration" → "State Secretariat for Migration"
Last updated: 18.05.2026 — AI initial draft. Due to the particular sensitivity and potential liability associated with this content, publication is only permitted after: (a) countersignature by CLR (Lawyer-of-Record) in accordance with ADR-018, (b) verification of the VERIFY-marked sections (Federal Supreme Court references, Aargau case law 2024, 1-year threshold, SEM entry ban practice, procedural steps 6), (c) implementation of ADR-015 Tier A data compartment, (d) connection of the Crisis-Card Pathway in accordance with ADR-017. Next review scheduled: 18.08.2026 (90-day stale threshold).
As of: 01.06.2026 · Snapshot
Reflects the cited law as of the snapshot — not a check of current force.
