Communicated on 23 September 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 21768/19
Mansur GHADAMIAN
against Switzerland
lodged on 18 April 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the expulsion of an Iranian national, who was born 1940 in Iran. He entered Switzerland legally at the age of 29 (1969). He married D.B. in 1971, and has two adult sons with her (who are Swiss citizens). They divorced in 1989. The applicant worked as a doctor in Switzerland and was always financially independent. Because of his age and his long stay in Switzerland, he claims no longer to have any more ties to Iran.
Due to his criminal record the applicant was warned by the Migration Office in 1989 and 1990 for the first time. Between June 1999 and 2005 the applicant was convicted of numerous crimes and sentenced on several occasions to prison or monetary penalties. In February 2000 the Immigration Police expelled him from Switzerland for an indefinite period of time. These decisions became final and binding. After his release from prison, the Immigration Police repeatedly called on the applicant to leave Switzerland by 31 December 2001 at the latest. In December 2001 and July 2005 he informed the authorities that he had left the country but according to the police report, he had not left Switzerland. In February 2008 the applicant asked the Migration Office (MO) to revoke the expulsion and to grant him a residence permit. The MO refused the request, pointing out to him that he was residing illegally in Switzerland and ordered him to leave Switzerland immediately. In May 2008 the applicant applied again for a residence permit as a pensioner. The Migration Office declared the application inadmissible and ordered him again to leave the country.
In August 2015 the applicant applied once again for a residence permit. The MO refused in July 2016 his request. His appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Administrative Court of Aargau (27 June 2018) and the Federal Supreme Court (29 October 2018).
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy