Changes in migration registration law planned

On July 19, 2017, the Russian Constitutional Court adopted a Decision on the case of Nathaniel Joseph Worden and Parker Drake Oldham, both US citizens who came to Russia on invitation of a religious organization. The foreign citizens held liable for an administrative offence as the inviting party registered them at the address where the organization was situated, but they resided in an apartment rented by the organization at a different address. Thus, the Samara Court found them liable for violating the regime of stay in the Russian Federation.

After analyzing provisions of Federal Law “On migration registration of foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Russian Federation”¹ (hereinafter the “Law”), the Constitutional Court decided that the Law is unclear as to a number of concepts, including the concept of “place of stay.” From the Court’s point of view, the concept of “place of stay” may be considered to be both the location of the inviting party and the place of residence of the foreign citizen.²

In addition, the Constitutional Court notes that as a rule it is the responsibility of an inviting party to notify of a foreign citizen’s arrival and register him with the Federal Migration Service, and therefore foreign citizens shall not be held liable for violation of migration registration rules, except in cases when foreign citizens must provide information about the place of their stay themselves by virtue of the Law. However, the Constitutional Court notes that the Law does not give an answer to the question on liability of a foreign citizen for violating the migration registration rules when the inviting party has fulfilled its duty and registered the foreign citizen, but in fact he resides elsewhere. According to the court’s opinion, in these circumstances, imposing liability only on the inviting party will not correspond to the principle of justice, as an inconsistency between the place of stay and the place of actual residence may be caused by behavior of the foreign citizen who, for example, has not informed of his place of residence intentionally in order to avoid control by the authorized bodies.

Thus, following consideration of the case, the Constitutional Court found that clarity is needed regarding issues of permissibility to use a location address of an invitation party as a place of registration, as well as the balance of obligations of a foreign citizen and an inviting party as concerns registration of the foreign citizen at the right address.

 Prior to amendments being made to the Law, the Constitutional Court proposes to abide by the following rules:

• If a foreign citizen has arrived in the Russian Federation on invitation of an organization and does not lose the legal connection with the organization during his stay in the Russian Federation, such foreign citizen is not obliged by reasons of the Law’s provisions held unconstitutional to register at the address of the accommodation provided to him by the inviting party where he temporarily stays, but may be registered at the address of the inviting party’s location;
• In other circumstances, foreign citizens and stateless persons must register at the place of their actual residence (unless other rules of migration registration are explicitly specified in the Law).

---------------------------------------------

¹ Part 1 and Clause 2 Part 2 of Article 20.

² Please note that here and elsewhere the text on foreign citizens likewise applies to stateless persons.