martedì 24 febbraio 2026

New on TikTok: Seasonal Permit: If You Don’t Follow the Procedure, You Don’t Get the Permit Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I am an Italian immigration lawyer. Today I want to talk about a very practical and often misunderstood issue: the seasonal work residence permit and the obligation to strictly comply with the administrative procedure required by law. The seasonal permit is not a flexible residence title. It is a permit that exists only within a clearly defined administrative framework. The procedure involves the employer, the Immigration Desk at the Prefecture, and only at a later stage the Police Headquarters. Each step must be completed in the correct order. Skipping even one of them can invalidate the entire application. This principle was clearly reaffirmed by a recent decision of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, First Ter Section, issued in January 2026, in a case registered under general register number 15944 of 2025. In that case, the Police Headquarters declared a first application for a seasonal work residence permit inadmissible because a key procedural step was missing: the signing of the residence contract at the Immigration Desk. The applicant had submitted the request directly to the Police, arguing that the failure to complete the procedure was attributable to the employer. The Court was unequivocal. In the absence of the residence contract, the decision of inadmissibility is a mandatory and bound administrative act. The Police have no discretion. Factors such as social integration, family ties, or even ongoing employment relationships are legally irrelevant if the statutory procedure has not been properly completed. The judgment also clarifies an important additional point. When the issue lies in a delay or inactivity by the Prefecture, the solution is not to bypass the procedure, but to activate the appropriate legal remedies provided by law, such as proceedings against administrative silence. The takeaway is simple and should not be underestimated: with seasonal permits, procedure is substance. Administrative rules are not mere formalities; they are the legal foundation of the right to stay. We will continue to analyse real cases like this, because in immigration law, knowing the rules — and respecting them — truly makes the difference. See you in the next episode of the Immigration Law Podcast.

https://ift.tt/V423dkW
alle
Etichette: , ,

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)

New on TikTok: Residence Permit Conversion: the opinion is not decisive and integration is not always required Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo. Today we examine a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, First Ter Section, published on 23 February 2026, concerning a case registered under general docket number 4952 of 2025. This decision deals with a very practical issue, and—let’s be clear—one that is often mishandled by the authorities: the conversion of a residence permit for minors into a work permit. The case concerns a young foreign national whose application for conversion was rejected by the Police Headquarters. According to the administration, he had not participated in a social integration program for at least two years, and he had not obtained the required opinion under Article 32 of the Italian Immigration Act. The Court intervenes decisively and clarifies the legal framework. First point: there is not just one pathway for obtaining this type of conversion. The law provides two distinct alternatives. On the one hand, minors who are entrusted or under guardianship; on the other, minors who have participated in a social integration program for at least two years. And this is exactly where the administration made its mistake: it applied the two-year integration requirement to a situation where it was not legally required. Second point, even more relevant in practice: the opinion of the Committee for Foreign Minors is mandatory, but it is not binding. And most importantly, it cannot automatically justify a refusal. The Court makes this very clear: any delay or failure in issuing that opinion cannot be attributed to the applicant. On the contrary, it is the administration that has the duty to obtain it ex officio as part of the administrative procedure. In this case, the applicant had also demonstrated a genuine path of integration, including lawful employment and updated supporting documentation. Despite this, the administration relied on a rigid and formalistic interpretation of the law. And this is the core message of the judgment: immigration law cannot be applied as a mere bureaucratic mechanism. The authorities must assess each case concretely, exercising their discretion according to principles of reasonableness and proportionality. As a result, the Court upheld the appeal, annulled the refusal, and ordered the administration to re-examine the case, acquire the required opinion, and verify whether the conditions for granting a residence permit are met—even under a different legal basis. This decision reaffirms a fundamental principle: individuals must not bear the consequences of administrative inefficiencies. It is the administration that must ensure the proper functioning of the procedure, in compliance with the law. And when it fails to do so, the court steps in. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. See you next time.

https://ift.tt/Rvwdgy8