Title of the episode:
The case of the Iranian citizens and the denial of the renewal of a self-employment residence permit in decision 00972 of 2025 Podcast text (English version): Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we analyse an important decision issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, Brescia division: decision number 00972 of 2025, published on thirty-one October two thousand and twenty-five, following deliberation in the chamber meeting of twenty-four September two thousand and twenty-five. The case concerns two Iranian citizens, a married couple holding a self-employment residence permit, who requested its renewal by submitting documentation relating to their participation in a limited liability company. However, the company was inactive and had recorded losses for several financial years. The Police Headquarters of Brescia therefore rejected both applications, considering that the applicants had failed to demonstrate the economic capacity required by law. The applicants challenged the rejections, arguing that the documents they had filed — together with the availability of funds in their bank accounts — were sufficient to prove their financial capacity. During the judicial proceedings, they also submitted additional documents, including bank statements and further records. Decision number 00972 of 2025 dismissed both appeals and clarified several key points for anyone dealing with self-employment permits. The Court reiterated that the renewal of this type of residence permit requires actual, current income deriving from lawful sources, at a level sufficient to ensure the sustenance of the foreign national and their family. Mere participation in a company is not enough, especially when that company is inactive or operating at a loss, and a non-productive asset — such as a residential property — cannot substitute proof of income. The judges also reaffirmed a fundamental principle: the public administration must base its assessment exclusively on documents that were known or could have been known during the administrative procedure. Documents produced only in court, even if they existed before the rejection, cannot be used to challenge the lawfulness of a decision that was properly motivated at the time it was adopted. This avoids any form of implicit “restoration of terms” not provided for by law. Another relevant point concerns the preliminary notice of rejection. The Police Headquarters issued one preliminary notice, to which the applicants responded. According to the Court, a second notice was not required: once the administration had examined the reply and deemed the additional documentation insufficient, it could legitimately proceed to reject the application. This decision therefore confirms a strict approach: in the field of self-employment, intentions, projects, and entrepreneurial plans still in their initial stage are not enough. Applicants must demonstrate real, current, and continuous income supported by complete documentation, submitted in due time to the administration. The case of these two Iranian citizens is emblematic of a consolidated interpretative trend that places strong emphasis on the concrete and sustainable nature of the foreign national’s stay. A trend that has become increasingly influential and that significantly affects those applying for the renewal of a self-employment residence permit. Thank you for listening. I look forward to welcoming you to the next episode of the podcast Immigration Law.