OK, basically a Russian guy, Pelin Alexandru (Fei Lin) lost his Taiwan residence after the court ruled he lied on his visa application. He used a second passport to hide a prior deportation ban from illegal work
Taipei High Administrative Court Judgment: Case No. 549 of 2024 (112 Annual Appeal), dated May 28, 2025 (114 ROC), dismissing plaintiff Pelin Alexandru’s appeal against the National Immigration Agency’s revocation of his residence and permanent residence permits.
The plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Facts and Reasons
I. Procedural Matters
Upon filing the lawsuit, the legal representative was Zhong Jingkun, later changed to Lin Hong’en during proceedings. The new legal representative’s statement to assume the litigation (Vol. 2, p. 223) is approved as proper.
II. Factual Summary
The plaintiff entered Taiwan on August 24, 2005 (ROC 94), with a Russian passport (No. 0000000000; English name: AVGUSTALEXANDER; Chinese: Fu Gushi, hereinafter “Fu Gushi identity”). He obtained an Alien Residence Permit for study on August 30, 2005, and later for employment on April 19, 2010. Due to illegal work, the Ministry of Labor revoked his work permit and ordered departure; the Agency canceled his residence. He departed March 30, 2014 (ROC 103), banned from entry for 3 years (until March 31, 2017, ROC 106).
During the ban, on April 23, 2014, he used a Moldovan passport (No. 00000000; English: PELIN ALEXANDRU; Chinese: Fei Lin, hereinafter “Fei Lin identity”), concealing the illegal work and deportation order, applied for a stay visa at Taiwan’s Moscow Representative Office. He obtained the visa unlawfully, then residence permit (No. 0000000000) on July 9, 2014, and permanent residence (No. 0000000000) on August 4, 2020. In December 2021, upon public report, the Agency learned of false information in his visa application. On November 4, 2022, it issued orders (North Yi Service Nos. 11101274111 and 1110274112, collectively “original disposition”) revoking residence under Immigration Act Art. 32(1), canceling alien residence certificate; revoking permanent residence under Art. 33(1), canceling permanent certificate, ordering departure. Plaintiff appealed to MOI, rejected; then sued. Agency supplemented basis with Arts. 32(2) and 33(2) via letter March 3, 2025 (No. 1140029861).[judicial]
III. Plaintiff’s Claims
-
Unaware of ban; application data truthful, documents genuine. Stay visa form checked based on Fei Lin identity; language barriers (Chinese/English not native); no explanation by Agency. Investigations (Jan 4 & Jul 27, 2022) used only English translation, records in Chinese not verified verbatim, no recording; clerk testified plaintiff’s expressions unclear, not verbatim. Thus, no intent/fault.
-
Last Russian residence and 103/5/10 entry attached photos; Agency could have checked revocation cause by then—exceeds 2-year revocation period. Original disposition punitive, barred by 3-year Administrative Penalty Act statute from June 2014 violation. Supplement in 2025 exceeds Admin Procedure Act Art. 121(1) 2 years.
-
Seeks revocation of appeal decision and original disposition.
IV. Agency’s Defense -
Plaintiff departed early March 30, 2014, knew violation. Hid facts using dual identity for unlawful visa/residence. Lived in Taiwan years, PhD studies, manager—capable of understanding visa form. Investigations with English interpreter agreed by plaintiff; signatures confirm no objection; no recording required for admin probe. Evidence proves intent.
-
Not punitive; applies Admin Procedure Act. Confirmed dual identity fraud via Dec 2021 report and 2022 investigations—within 2 years. Supplement doesn’t change essence or harm defense.
-
Dismiss appeal.
V. Undisputed Facts and Issues
Facts as above undisputed except: (1) Legality of revocation under Immigration Act Arts. 32(1)(2), 33(1)(2)? (2) Punitive, time-barred? (3) Exceeds Admin Procedure Act 2-year period? Evidenced by dispositions, appeal decision, passports, visa form, investigations, supplement letter.
VI. Court’s Judgment
(A) Applicable Laws
• Passport Visa Regulations: Regulate visas for sovereignty/national interest. Stay visa for short-term; residence for long-term.[judicial]
• Immigration Act (at time): Entry with valid visa grants permission; apply ARC within 15 days. Prohibit entry with unlawful/forged visa (Art. 18(1)(2)). Revoke residence if false data (32(1)) or unlawful document (32(2)); same for permanent (33(1)(2)). Purpose: Manage entry/immigration for security.
• Admin Penalty Act Art. 27(1): 3-year extinction.
• Admin Procedure Act Art. 117: Revoke unlawful post-remedy; 121(1): Within 2 years of knowing cause.
(B) Plaintiff’s Intent in Using Unlawful Visa -
Timeline undisputed. Visa form falsely denied criminal/refusal/deportation/illegal work/other names/work history—signed. Plaintiff studied PhD at Chinese Culture U., NTU Mandarin scholarship—proficient, no language barrier. Intent clear. Claims unaware/identity/language unaccepted.
-
Investigations admin, not formal interview—no recording mandate. Interpreter proper; witness (clerk) testified clear process, plaintiff confirmed before signing. Visa falsehood undisputed; proves concealment intent despite no confession.
(C) Not Punitive; No Penalty Time-Bar
Revocation under 32(2)/33(2) prevents harm from unlawful residence affecting management/security—not sanction for vigilance. Regulatory, not Admin Penalty Act.
(D) Within 2-Year Period -
“Knowing” starts clock for beneficial revocation (Supreme Admin Ct precedents). Immigration actions apply Admin Procedure Act substantively.
-
Agency knew via Dec 2021 report, Jan 4, 2022 investigation—disposition Nov 4, 2022 within 2 years. Entry photos claim speculative.
-
Supplement allowed if pre-existing, no change to nature/defense harm (Supreme Admin Ct 113 Shang 152). Facts in original disposition match; debated fully—valid.
VII. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s claims rejected. Original disposition’s mis-citation fixed by supplement; appeal decision proper. Suit groundless, dismissed per Admin Litigation Act Art. 98(1). Dated ROC 114.5.28.
Judges: Chief Chung Qihuang, Lin Jiaxian, Cai Hongren.
