Council for Immigration Disputes overturns revocation of combined permit due to insufficient evidence of fraud

In judgment No. 302,421 of February 28, 2024, the Council for Immigration Disputes (RvV-CCE) overturned a decision of the Immigration Department (DVZ-IBZ). The decision concerned the revocation of a combined permit based on alleged fraud, but the elements invoked were found to be insufficiently substantiated.

Strict burden of proof in fraud claims

The Council for Immigration Disputes emphasizes that the Immigration Department is bound by a strict burden of proof when revoking a right of residence under Article 74/20, §2 of the Residence Act. Revocation is a discretionary power, and mere doubt is not sufficient. The RvV-CCE analyzed the concrete elements on which DVZ-IBZ based its decision:

1. Labor contract as a clerk:

   The employment contract was known at the time of application and accepted at the time. Thus, DVZ-IBZ could not base a new fraud claim on this agreement.

   
   

2. Unrealistic company car and residence:

   That a pastry chef would not have a company car and residence, according to DVZ-IBZ, is insufficiently substantiated and does not prove an intent to defraud.

   
   

3. Family relationship with employer:

   The fact that the applicant's sister works at the same company does not lead to proof of fraudulent intent, according to the DVZ-IBZ. DVZ-IBZ's wording that this raises “serious doubt” is insufficient.

   
   

4. Assignment of jurisdiction:

   The assessment of admission to work is beyond the competence of DVZ-IBZ. The Flemish Region, which is responsible for the labor component, assessed the application positively. There is no indication that the region ever considered revoking the admission to labor.

   
   

Conclusion

The RvV-CCE concludes that DVZ-IBZ's doubt about the applicant's employment is insufficient to establish fraud. There is no objective finding of falsity or misleading statements, nor any intentional element indicating fraudulent conduct.

This ruling emphasizes that DVZ-IBZ must handle fraud claims with care and cannot make decisions based on mere suspicion or lack of authority about other aspects of an application. plaintes pour fraude avec prudence et ne peut pas prendre de décisions fondées sur de simples soupçons ou un manque de compétence concernant d'autres aspects d'une demande.