Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Residence Permit and Criminal Records_ The Limits of Administrative Discretion
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Residence Permit and Criminal Records_ The Limits of Administrative Discretion
Title:
Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we address a central issue in the daily practice of immigration offices and administrative litigation: the relationship between criminal records and the refusal to renew a residence permit, and in particular the limits that the Public Administration faces when exercising its discretionary powers. I take inspiration from a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Valle d’Aosta, Single Section, published on November 10, 2025, issued in proceedings registered under role general number 1 of 2025, decided at the hearing of October 16, 2025. It is a decision that deserves close attention because it reaffirms principles that are too often disregarded in administrative practice. The case concerned the refusal to renew a residence permit for job seeking, justified by the Police Headquarters through a generic reference to numerous entries in police databases and in the inter-agency information system, described as evidence of an alleged social dangerousness, without however any concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The Court clarified a fundamental point: the mere existence of criminal or police records can never result in an automatic refusal or an automatic loss of the right to stay. The Administration is required to provide specific reasoning explaining why, today and in concrete terms, the individual would represent a danger to society. It is not sufficient to list records or to rely on standardized formulas. In the case examined, the administrative judge found an evident lack of reasoning, further aggravated by a particularly significant conduct of the Administration: despite two evidentiary orders, the Police Headquarters failed to produce any documentation supporting its assertions. This silence, according to the Court, allowed the application of Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, drawing evidentiary inferences in favor of the applicant. The message that emerges is clear and must be stated plainly: discretionary power in immigration matters is not arbitrary power. Even where issues of public order and security are involved, the Administration must comply with the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the current relevance of its assessment. Immigration law is not a law-free zone, but an area in which legal guarantees apply just as they do in any other field of administrative action. This judgment fits within a now well-established line of case law that calls for a change in mindset: a judicial past cannot be used as a permanent sentence to irregular status. It is always necessary to assess the individual’s subsequent conduct, social and employment integration, the time elapsed since the facts, and above all the absence of any current dangerousness. From a practical standpoint, this decision is an important tool for legal defense. It demonstrates that refusals based on generic wording and vague references to databases are vulnerable in court, especially when the Administration is unable—or unwilling—to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. In a system that demands integration and respect for the rules, the State too must respect its own rules. Legality is not a one-way street. And when the Administration errs, the judge is called upon to restore the balance. We will continue to return to these issues, because it is here that the gap between law on the books and law in practice becomes most evident. My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law.
Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.
Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we address a central issue in the daily practice of immigration offices and administrative litigation: the relationship between criminal records and the refusal to renew a residence permit, and in particular the limits that the Public Administration faces when exercising its discretionary powers. I take inspiration from a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Valle d’Aosta, Single Section, published on November 10, 2025, issued in proceedings registered under role general number 1 of 2025, decided at the hearing of October 16, 2025. It is a decision that deserves close attention because it reaffirms principles that are too often disregarded in administrative practice. The case concerned the refusal to renew a residence permit for job seeking, justified by the Police Headquarters through a generic reference to numerous entries in police databases and in the inter-agency information system, described as evidence of an alleged social dangerousness, without however any concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The Court clarified a fundamental point: the mere existence of criminal or police records can never result in an automatic refusal or an automatic loss of the right to stay. The Administration is required to provide specific reasoning explaining why, today and in concrete terms, the individual would represent a danger to society. It is not sufficient to list records or to rely on standardized formulas. In the case examined, the administrative judge found an evident lack of reasoning, further aggravated by a particularly significant conduct of the Administration: despite two evidentiary orders, the Police Headquarters failed to produce any documentation supporting its assertions. This silence, according to the Court, allowed the application of Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, drawing evidentiary inferences in favor of the applicant. The message that emerges is clear and must be stated plainly: discretionary power in immigration matters is not arbitrary power. Even where issues of public order and security are involved, the Administration must comply with the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the current relevance of its assessment. Immigration law is not a law-free zone, but an area in which legal guarantees apply just as they do in any other field of administrative action. This judgment fits within a now well-established line of case law that calls for a change in mindset: a judicial past cannot be used as a permanent sentence to irregular status. It is always necessary to assess the individual’s subsequent conduct, social and employment integration, the time elapsed since the facts, and above all the absence of any current dangerousness. From a practical standpoint, this decision is an important tool for legal defense. It demonstrates that refusals based on generic wording and vague references to databases are vulnerable in court, especially when the Administration is unable—or unwilling—to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. In a system that demands integration and respect for the rules, the State too must respect its own rules. Legality is not a one-way street. And when the Administration errs, the judge is called upon to restore the balance. We will continue to return to these issues, because it is here that the gap between law on the books and law in practice becomes most evident. My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law.
Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.
View all episodes
By Avv. Fabio LoscerboTitle:
Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we address a central issue in the daily practice of immigration offices and administrative litigation: the relationship between criminal records and the refusal to renew a residence permit, and in particular the limits that the Public Administration faces when exercising its discretionary powers. I take inspiration from a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Valle d’Aosta, Single Section, published on November 10, 2025, issued in proceedings registered under role general number 1 of 2025, decided at the hearing of October 16, 2025. It is a decision that deserves close attention because it reaffirms principles that are too often disregarded in administrative practice. The case concerned the refusal to renew a residence permit for job seeking, justified by the Police Headquarters through a generic reference to numerous entries in police databases and in the inter-agency information system, described as evidence of an alleged social dangerousness, without however any concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The Court clarified a fundamental point: the mere existence of criminal or police records can never result in an automatic refusal or an automatic loss of the right to stay. The Administration is required to provide specific reasoning explaining why, today and in concrete terms, the individual would represent a danger to society. It is not sufficient to list records or to rely on standardized formulas. In the case examined, the administrative judge found an evident lack of reasoning, further aggravated by a particularly significant conduct of the Administration: despite two evidentiary orders, the Police Headquarters failed to produce any documentation supporting its assertions. This silence, according to the Court, allowed the application of Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, drawing evidentiary inferences in favor of the applicant. The message that emerges is clear and must be stated plainly: discretionary power in immigration matters is not arbitrary power. Even where issues of public order and security are involved, the Administration must comply with the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the current relevance of its assessment. Immigration law is not a law-free zone, but an area in which legal guarantees apply just as they do in any other field of administrative action. This judgment fits within a now well-established line of case law that calls for a change in mindset: a judicial past cannot be used as a permanent sentence to irregular status. It is always necessary to assess the individual’s subsequent conduct, social and employment integration, the time elapsed since the facts, and above all the absence of any current dangerousness. From a practical standpoint, this decision is an important tool for legal defense. It demonstrates that refusals based on generic wording and vague references to databases are vulnerable in court, especially when the Administration is unable—or unwilling—to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. In a system that demands integration and respect for the rules, the State too must respect its own rules. Legality is not a one-way street. And when the Administration errs, the judge is called upon to restore the balance. We will continue to return to these issues, because it is here that the gap between law on the books and law in practice becomes most evident. My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law.
Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.
Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we address a central issue in the daily practice of immigration offices and administrative litigation: the relationship between criminal records and the refusal to renew a residence permit, and in particular the limits that the Public Administration faces when exercising its discretionary powers. I take inspiration from a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Valle d’Aosta, Single Section, published on November 10, 2025, issued in proceedings registered under role general number 1 of 2025, decided at the hearing of October 16, 2025. It is a decision that deserves close attention because it reaffirms principles that are too often disregarded in administrative practice. The case concerned the refusal to renew a residence permit for job seeking, justified by the Police Headquarters through a generic reference to numerous entries in police databases and in the inter-agency information system, described as evidence of an alleged social dangerousness, without however any concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The Court clarified a fundamental point: the mere existence of criminal or police records can never result in an automatic refusal or an automatic loss of the right to stay. The Administration is required to provide specific reasoning explaining why, today and in concrete terms, the individual would represent a danger to society. It is not sufficient to list records or to rely on standardized formulas. In the case examined, the administrative judge found an evident lack of reasoning, further aggravated by a particularly significant conduct of the Administration: despite two evidentiary orders, the Police Headquarters failed to produce any documentation supporting its assertions. This silence, according to the Court, allowed the application of Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, drawing evidentiary inferences in favor of the applicant. The message that emerges is clear and must be stated plainly: discretionary power in immigration matters is not arbitrary power. Even where issues of public order and security are involved, the Administration must comply with the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the current relevance of its assessment. Immigration law is not a law-free zone, but an area in which legal guarantees apply just as they do in any other field of administrative action. This judgment fits within a now well-established line of case law that calls for a change in mindset: a judicial past cannot be used as a permanent sentence to irregular status. It is always necessary to assess the individual’s subsequent conduct, social and employment integration, the time elapsed since the facts, and above all the absence of any current dangerousness. From a practical standpoint, this decision is an important tool for legal defense. It demonstrates that refusals based on generic wording and vague references to databases are vulnerable in court, especially when the Administration is unable—or unwilling—to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. In a system that demands integration and respect for the rules, the State too must respect its own rules. Legality is not a one-way street. And when the Administration errs, the judge is called upon to restore the balance. We will continue to return to these issues, because it is here that the gap between law on the books and law in practice becomes most evident. My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law.
Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.