Refus de visa et SIS quand la décision est illégale

Refus de visa et SIS : quand la décision est illégale Un travailleur obtient une autorisation, mais le visa est refusé. L’administration évoque le SIS sans preuve concrète. Le juge annule la décision. Principe essentiel : le SIS ne peut pas être une justification abstraite. La motivation doit être réelle et vérifiable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ISfj3CWtU

Denegación de visado de estudios: cuando el juez obliga a la Administración a revisar el caso

https://ift.tt/gDhYfX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFiU-gcQVFk

When Integration Is Not Enough: The Quiet Erosion of “Special Protection” in Italy

 When Integration Is Not Enough: The Quiet Erosion of “Special Protection” in Italy

In Italy’s immigration system, one of the most consequential – and increasingly contested – legal tools is the so-called “special protection” permit. Designed to safeguard fundamental rights when traditional forms of asylum do not apply, it was meant to reflect a simple principle: a person who has built a life in Italy should not be uprooted without a serious and proportionate reason.

Yet, in practice, that principle is being steadily narrowed.

Across the country, administrative authorities are adopting a restrictive approach, often denying protection to individuals whose stories are deemed “economic” in nature. The reasoning is familiar: poverty, unemployment, and lack of opportunities in the country of origin are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds to remain in Italy.

Formally, this is correct. But substantively, it risks missing the point.

The real legal question is not whether a person left their country for economic reasons. It is whether, after years in Italy, they have developed a level of social, professional, and personal integration that would make forced return a disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights.

This is where the system shows its fractures.

Many applicants today present clear evidence of integration: stable housing, regular employment, vocational training, and social ties within their communities. They pay taxes, contribute to the economy, and participate in daily life. In every meaningful sense, they are no longer “temporary” presences.

And yet, these elements are often treated as secondary – or worse, irrelevant.

The underlying problem lies in how “vulnerability” is interpreted. Administrative decisions tend to reserve protection for extreme cases: serious illness, family dependency, or risk of inhuman treatment. Integration, by contrast, is seen as insufficient unless accompanied by additional hardship.

But this approach clashes with European human rights standards.

The European Court of Human Rights has long held that “private life” includes not only personal identity, but also the network of social and professional relationships that individuals build over time. Work, in particular, is not just a source of income – it is a space where people form connections, develop skills, and define their place in society.

Removing someone from that context is not a neutral administrative act. It is a disruption of a life that has already taken shape.

This is why the law requires a comparative assessment: authorities must weigh the individual’s level of integration in Italy against the conditions they would face upon return. It is not enough to say that the country of origin is “generally safe.” The real issue is whether the person can realistically reintegrate there without suffering a significant regression in their dignity and living conditions.

Too often, this comparative analysis remains superficial.

Decisions rely on standardized formulas, emphasizing the absence of conflict or persecution, while overlooking the concrete reality of the individual’s life in Italy. The result is a growing gap between the legal framework – which is grounded in constitutional and human rights principles – and its actual application.

Courts are increasingly called upon to bridge this gap.

Judicial review plays a crucial role in ensuring that administrative decisions are not only lawful, but also reasonable and proportionate. Judges are required to look beyond formal categories and assess the full picture: the person’s work history, social ties, and prospects in both countries.

In many cases, this leads to a different outcome.

The broader issue, however, remains unresolved. Italy is facing a structural question: what does it mean, today, to “belong” to a society? Is legal status the only criterion, or should integration – in its real, lived dimension – carry decisive weight?

The answer will shape not only immigration law, but the social fabric of the country.

If integration is encouraged but ultimately ignored, the system risks sending a contradictory message: participate, work, adapt – but do not expect recognition.

A legal framework that fails to account for the human reality of integration does more than deny protection. It undermines the very idea of a rules-based system grounded in fairness, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights.

And in the long run, that is a cost no legal system can afford.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Protezione speciale, convertibilità e disciplina transitoria dopo il Decreto Cutro

 Protezione speciale, convertibilità e disciplina transitoria dopo il Decreto Cutro

Abstract
La recente sentenza del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana, numero 702 del 2026, si inserisce nel complesso dibattito relativo alla convertibilità del permesso di soggiorno per protezione speciale a seguito dell’entrata in vigore del Decreto Legge numero 20 del 2023, convertito con modificazioni nella Legge numero 50 del 2023. L’analisi della decisione evidenzia come la disciplina transitoria continui a rappresentare uno spazio normativo rilevante, idoneo a garantire la sopravvivenza della convertibilità nei casi in cui la domanda originaria di protezione sia stata presentata anteriormente alla riforma. Il contributo esamina il quadro normativo e giurisprudenziale, valorizzando la funzione sistematica della protezione complementare quale strumento di equilibrio tra esigenze di controllo e tutela dei diritti fondamentali.

La pronuncia oggetto della presente analisi, pubblicata su Calameo al seguente link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f3dbbc30cfe4
offre un chiarimento particolarmente significativo in ordine all’ambito applicativo della disciplina transitoria prevista dall’articolo 7 del Decreto Legge numero 20 del 2023.

Il Collegio amministrativo è chiamato a pronunciarsi sulla legittimità di un provvedimento con cui l’Amministrazione aveva dichiarato l’improcedibilità di un’istanza di conversione del permesso di soggiorno per protezione speciale in permesso per motivi di lavoro, ritenendo applicabile la nuova disciplina restrittiva introdotta dal cosiddetto Decreto Cutro. La decisione si fonda su una ricostruzione rigorosa del dato normativo, alla luce anche dell’interpretazione fornita dal Consiglio di Stato, ed assume come criterio dirimente la data di presentazione della domanda originaria di protezione.

In tale prospettiva, la sentenza afferma un principio di particolare rilievo: la disciplina transitoria deve essere interpretata nel senso di garantire l’ultrattività del regime previgente per tutte le situazioni giuridiche già avviate prima dell’entrata in vigore della riforma. Ciò implica che la possibilità di conversione non può essere esclusa nei casi in cui la domanda di protezione internazionale sia stata presentata in epoca anteriore, indipendentemente dal momento in cui viene proposta l’istanza di conversione.

Questa impostazione si colloca in linea con i principi generali dell’ordinamento, in particolare con il divieto di retroattività in senso sfavorevole e con la tutela dell’affidamento legittimo. L’interpretazione accolta dal TAR Toscana evita che il mutamento normativo incida in modo irragionevole su posizioni giuridiche già consolidate, impedendo che l’esito della procedura amministrativa sia condizionato esclusivamente dalla durata dei procedimenti e dalle tempistiche dell’azione amministrativa.

Sotto il profilo sistematico, la decisione contribuisce a ridefinire il ruolo della protezione speciale nel contesto successivo al Decreto Cutro. Pur a fronte di un intervento legislativo volto a restringere gli spazi di regolarizzazione, la giurisprudenza amministrativa riconosce la permanenza di ambiti di operatività della convertibilità, soprattutto in presenza di situazioni radicate nel tempo. In questo senso, la protezione complementare continua a rappresentare uno strumento flessibile, capace di adattarsi alle esigenze concrete e di garantire un bilanciamento tra interessi pubblici e diritti individuali.

La pronuncia assume, inoltre, un valore operativo rilevante, offrendo indicazioni utili per l’attività difensiva sia in sede amministrativa sia in sede giurisdizionale. In particolare, essa consente di fondare strategie difensive incentrate sulla valorizzazione della data di presentazione della domanda originaria, quale elemento determinante ai fini dell’applicazione della disciplina previgente.

In conclusione, la sentenza in esame rappresenta un tassello importante nel processo di assestamento interpretativo successivo al Decreto Cutro. Essa conferma che la portata innovativa della riforma non può essere letta in termini assoluti, ma deve essere coordinata con le disposizioni transitorie e con i principi generali dell’ordinamento, al fine di evitare applicazioni distorsive e garantire una tutela effettiva dei diritti fondamentali.

Dichiarazione di trasparenza: il presente contributo si basa sull’analisi diretta della sentenza del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana numero 702 del 2026 e sulla normativa vigente, con particolare riferimento al Decreto Legge numero 20 del 2023, convertito nella Legge numero 50 del 2023. La coerenza normativa e l’attualità delle fonti sono state verificate alla data di redazione.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Visado de estudios: no basta una evaluación superficial

 

Refuzohet leja e qëndrimit për kërkim pune pas revokimit të lejes së punës: një vendim i rëndësishëm i TAR Emilia-Romagna

 Refuzohet leja e qëndrimit për kërkim pune pas revokimit të lejes së punës: një vendim i rëndësishëm i TAR Emilia-Romagna

---

Një vendim i fundit i Gjykatës Administrative Rajonale të Emilia-Romagna, Seksioni i Parë, i publikuar më 16 mars 2026, po tërheq vëmendjen e juristëve të së drejtës së imigracionit për shkak të sqarimeve të rëndësishme që sjell mbi kushtet për përfitimin e lejes së qëndrimit për kërkim pune.

Vendimi lidhet me çështjen e regjistruar me numrin e përgjithshëm 344 të vitit 2026 dhe trajton një situatë shumë të zakonshme në praktikë. Një shtetas i huaj kishte hyrë ligjërisht në Itali me vizë pune, por marrëdhënia e punës nuk u realizua, pasi punëdhënësi nuk u paraqit për të nënshkruar kontratën e qëndrimit.

Në raste të tilla, praktika administrative zakonisht lejon që i huaji të aplikojë për një leje qëndrimi për kërkim pune, sidomos kur mungesa e punësimit nuk varet nga ai. Ky mekanizëm synon të mbrojë ata që kanë hyrë në mënyrë të rregullt dhe janë të gatshëm të integrohen në tregun e punës.

Megjithatë, në këtë rast gjykata ka ndjekur një qasje të ndryshme.

Sipas vendimit — i disponueshëm i plotë në këtë link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775df2d97653445

elementi vendimtar nuk ishte sjellja e punëdhënësit, por një akt administrativ paraprak: revokimi i lejes së punës që kishte bërë të mundur hyrjen në Itali.

Gjykata thekson se ky fakt ndryshon rrënjësisht kuadrin juridik. Kur leja e punës revokohet, e gjithë procedura e hyrjes konsiderohet e pavlefshme që nga fillimi. Nuk kemi të bëjmë thjesht me mungesë punësimi, por me zhdukjen e bazës juridike të qëndrimit.

Në këto kushte, leja e qëndrimit për kërkim pune nuk mund të jepet.

Vendimi vendos një dallim të qartë: kjo leje mund të jepet kur procedura e hyrjes është e vlefshme, por marrëdhënia e punës dështon për arsye që nuk varen nga punëmarrësi. Përkundrazi, kur vetë procedura është e pavlefshme, mungon çdo bazë juridike për dhënien e lejes.

Për këtë arsye, ankimi u rrëzua.

Ky vendim ka rëndësi të madhe praktike, pasi përforcon një interpretim më të rreptë të kushteve për marrjen e lejes për kërkim pune dhe nënvizon rëndësinë thelbësore të vlefshmërisë së procedurës fillestare administrative. Për avokatët dhe aplikantët, mesazhi është i qartë: kundërshtimi i revokimit të lejes së punës është vendimtar, sepse në të kundërt çdo kërkesë pasuese është e destinuar të refuzohet.

Në një perspektivë më të gjerë, vendimi pasqyron një tendencë të së drejtës së imigracionit për t’i dhënë përparësi rregullsisë formale të procedurave administrative, edhe përballë rrethanave individuale të personave të përfshirë.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Permiso de residencia de larga duración y ausencia prolongada cuando la integración no es suficient

Permiso de residencia de larga duración y ausencia prolongada: cuando la integración no es suficiente Bienvenidos a un nuevo episodio del podcast Derecho de Inmigración. Soy el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Hoy analizamos una sentencia relevante del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Lombardía, sección de Brescia, publicada el 8 de abril de 2026, relativa al asunto número ruolo generale 529 de 2022 . El caso se refiere a la revocación de un permiso de residencia UE para residentes de larga duración. El solicitante, ciudadano extranjero con muchos años de residencia en Italia, vio revocado su permiso debido a una ausencia del territorio de la Unión Europea superior a doce meses consecutivos. Y este es el punto central de la decisión. El tribunal administrativo reafirma un principio que a menudo se subestima en la práctica: el permiso de larga duración no es una situación estática. Se basa en una relación real, continua y predominante con el Estado de acogida. En este caso, la documentación demuestra claramente que, tras salir de Italia en diciembre de 2019, el solicitante no regresó hasta febrero de 2021. Por lo tanto, la ausencia supera el límite de doce meses previsto por el artículo 9 del texto único de inmigración. El solicitante intentó defenderse destacando su nivel de integración: larga permanencia en Italia, vida familiar estable y ausencia de elementos negativos. Sin embargo, el Tribunal adopta una posición clara: estos elementos no son relevantes para la aplicación de la norma. La lógica del legislador es distinta. No se trata solo de integración en sentido abstracto, sino de presencia efectiva y continuidad del vínculo con el territorio. Una vez superado el umbral de los doce meses, la ley presume que ese vínculo se ha interrumpido. Este es también un punto clave desde una perspectiva más amplia. El derecho a la residencia de larga duración no puede separarse de la presencia real en el país. Para que la integración tenga relevancia jurídica, debe ser actual, no solo pasada. La sentencia confirma así un principio riguroso pero coherente: el permiso de larga duración no se mantiene en caso de ausencia prolongada, incluso cuando existe una integración previa consolidada. Se trata de una cuestión con importantes implicaciones prácticas, que exige una gestión cuidadosa de los periodos de estancia en el extranjero. Nos escuchamos en el próximo episodio. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT8WXPkh_Mc

Permis de séjour de longue durée et absence prolongée quand l’intégration ne suffit pas

Permis de séjour de longue durée et absence prolongée : quand l’intégration ne suffit pas Bienvenue dans un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’immigration. Je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo. Aujourd’hui, nous analysons une décision importante du Tribunal administratif régional de Lombardie, section de Brescia, publiée le 8 avril 2026, relative à l’affaire numéro ruolo generale 529 de 2022 . L’affaire concerne la révocation d’un permis de séjour UE pour résidents de longue durée. Le requérant, ressortissant étranger résidant en Italie depuis de nombreuses années, s’est vu retirer son titre en raison d’une absence du territoire de l’Union européenne supérieure à douze mois consécutifs. Et c’est précisément le point central de la décision. Le juge administratif rappelle un principe souvent sous-estimé en pratique : le permis de séjour de longue durée n’est pas un statut figé. Il repose sur un lien réel, continu et prépondérant avec le territoire de l’État d’accueil. Dans le cas concret, les éléments documentaires montrent clairement qu’après avoir quitté l’Italie en décembre 2019, le requérant n’y est revenu qu’en février 2021. Il s’agit donc d’une absence supérieure à la limite de douze mois prévue par l’article 9 du texte unique sur l’immigration. Le requérant a tenté de faire valoir son niveau d’intégration : une longue présence en Italie, une vie familiale stable et l’absence d’éléments négatifs. Mais le Tribunal adopte une position claire : ces éléments ne sont pas pertinents pour l’application de la norme. La logique du législateur est différente. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une intégration abstraite, mais d’une présence effective et d’une continuité du lien avec le territoire. Une fois le seuil des douze mois dépassé, la loi présume que ce lien est interrompu. C’est également un point essentiel dans une perspective systémique. Le droit au séjour stable ne peut être dissocié de la présence réelle sur le territoire. Pour être juridiquement pertinente, l’intégration doit être actuelle, et non seulement passée. La décision confirme donc un principe rigoureux mais cohérent : le permis de séjour de longue durée ne subsiste pas en cas d’absence prolongée, même en présence d’une intégration antérieure solide. Il s’agit d’un thème aux implications concrètes importantes, qui impose une gestion attentive des périodes de séjour à l’étranger. Nous nous retrouvons dans le prochain épisode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClzeiYCtnoc

Long-Term Residence Permit and Prolonged Absence: When Integration Is Not Enough

https://ift.tt/OJiyWfr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkPYUjirS40

العنوان: رفض تأشيرة الدراسة يتطلب تقييمًا دقيقًا

 

Student Visa Denied: When the Court Forces the Administration to Reassess

https://ift.tt/KXrO9ih https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mctwZZ2AwD8

Long Term EU Residence Permit and Income Requirements When the Administrative Court Confirms the Re

Long-Term EU Residence Permit and Income Requirements: When the Administrative Court Confirms the Refusal Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, immigration lawyer. Today we discuss a decision of the Regional Administrative Court for Piedmont, published on 11 March 2026, which addresses an important issue in immigration law: the economic requirements necessary for obtaining the EU long-term residence permit and for renewing a residence permit for subordinate employment. The case concerns a foreign national who had submitted two applications to the Police Headquarters of Turin. On the one hand, he requested the EU long-term residence permit; on the other hand, he applied for the renewal of his residence permit for subordinate employment. The Police Authority rejected both requests. The applicant challenged the decision before the administrative court, arguing that the administration’s assessment was incorrect. According to the Police Authority, however, the income requirement had not been satisfied. The tax documentation showed that the applicant’s income for the fiscal years 2019 and 2020 was lower than the amount of the social allowance, which represents the minimum threshold required by law for obtaining the EU long-term residence permit. Furthermore, several pay slips submitted by the applicant during the judicial proceedings did not correspond with the electronic employment records linked to the INAIL insurance account, and the financial capacity of the employer also appeared uncertain due to delays in the submission of the company’s tax declarations. The court considered the administration’s assessment well-reasoned and adequately supported, noting that the applicant had not provided additional documentation demonstrating an improvement in his employment situation in the following years. Another argument raised in the appeal concerned the lack of translation of the administrative decision into the applicant’s native language. The court rejected this argument as well, recalling that the absence of translation does not automatically render the decision unlawful, but may only affect the time limits for bringing a judicial challenge. For these reasons, the Administrative Court for Piedmont dismissed the appeal, confirming the lawfulness of the decision adopted by the Police Authority. This judgment is significant because it reiterates a fundamental principle of immigration law: the income requirement is an essential condition both for the renewal of a work-related residence permit and, even more importantly, for obtaining the EU long-term residence permit. Thank you for listening to this episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. See you soon for the next episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6q7S7dLSjQ

Cuando el formalismo administrativo falla: un tribunal italiano anula la denegación de un permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo

 Cuando el formalismo administrativo falla: un tribunal italiano anula la denegación de un permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo

Una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Calabria ha puesto en evidencia un problema estructural en la gestión administrativa de la inmigración: el exceso de formalismo frente a la realidad concreta de las personas.

El caso se refiere a un trabajador extranjero que entró legalmente en Italia en el marco del sistema de cuotas de entrada para trabajo (decreto flussi). Sin embargo, entre la concesión del visado y su llegada al país, el empleador que había solicitado su contratación cesó su actividad. Sobre esta base, la Prefectura denegó la solicitud de un permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo (attesa occupazione).

Desde un punto de vista estrictamente formal, la decisión podría parecer coherente. Pero el tribunal adoptó una perspectiva distinta.

En su sentencia de 25 de febrero de 2026, el TAR Calabria anuló la decisión administrativa, señalando que la autoridad no llevó a cabo una instrucción adecuada ni ofreció una motivación suficiente. En particular, el tribunal subrayó que la administración no evaluó los efectos reales de la situación del solicitante, recordando la obligación de analizar “los efectos que los hechos expuestos por el recurrente tienen sobre el procedimiento administrativo” .

El trabajador había cumplido con todas las exigencias legales: entrada regular en el territorio, actuación diligente para regularizar su situación y voluntad concreta de incorporarse al mercado laboral. A pesar de ello, la administración rechazó su solicitud sin considerar posibles alternativas, como la posibilidad de encontrar un nuevo empleo, incluso en continuidad con la actividad empresarial original.

La sentencia pone de relieve un principio fundamental: el derecho de extranjería no puede aplicarse como un sistema rígido y automático. Su finalidad no es solo regular el acceso al territorio, sino también favorecer la integración laboral efectiva de quienes han ingresado legalmente.

El tribunal critica así una visión burocrática que ignora la evolución de los hechos y sanciona al trabajador por circunstancias ajenas a su voluntad. Por el contrario, exige una actuación administrativa basada en una evaluación concreta, razonable y proporcionada.

Esta decisión se inscribe en una tendencia más amplia de la jurisprudencia italiana, que busca limitar los excesos del formalismo administrativo en materia migratoria. Los jueces están reafirmando la necesidad de una administración más flexible, capaz de adaptarse a la realidad y de garantizar una tutela efectiva de los derechos.

Las implicaciones son relevantes. Para los trabajadores extranjeros, la sentencia representa una mayor protección frente a decisiones arbitrarias. Para la administración, constituye un claro recordatorio: no basta con aplicar las normas de manera mecánica, es necesario comprender y valorar cada caso en su contexto real.

En definitiva, el mensaje es claro: la gestión de la inmigración no puede reducirse a una lógica burocrática. Debe responder a criterios de racionalidad, justicia y efectividad.

Leer la publicación completa:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f514b4a75120

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428