Yekaterina Trifonova, Political Correspondent, Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Russia is introducing sweeping changes to its migration legislation. Two bills approved by the Federation Council amend the laws On Citizenship and On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens, as well as the Code of Administrative Offences. The reforms tighten screening for those seeking to enter and remain in the country while making it easier to deport offenders. Lawyers, however, warn that bureaucratic hurdles and increasingly automated decision-making could affect not only serious offenders but also law-abiding migrants.
The most significant change concerns citizenship and residence permits. Any unspent criminal conviction, regardless of where the offence was committed, will now automatically disqualify an applicant. The legislation abolishes distinctions based on the seriousness of the crime, meaning any criminal conviction can result in refusal. Applicants for temporary residence permits or permanent residence must also provide an official criminal record certificate from their country of origin. Failure to do so will lead to rejection, while permits already issued may be revoked. Whereas migrants with criminal records previously retained at least a theoretical chance of legalising their status, criminal history has now become a permanent barrier
A second package of amendments substantially expands the grounds for deportation. The number of administrative offences that can trigger expulsion has nearly doubled to 45. Procedures have also changed: cases involving evasion of punishment will now be heard where the violation is discovered, while requests for immediate deportation must be considered without delay. Previously, family ties and many years of residence in Russia were regarded as mitigating circumstances. They are no longer decisive. Any criminal conviction effectively bars access to citizenship, while even an administrative offence may now result not only in a fine but also in immediate deportation.
Boris Asriyan, chairman of the Dynasty Bar Association, says taking criminal convictions into account when granting citizenship is reasonable and serves the public interest. However, he questions how foreign convictions will be assessed, given that many countries have no equivalent to Russia’s system for expunging convictions. If such procedures do not exist abroad, will Russian time limits for rehabilitation apply, or will the issue remain unresolved? Asriyan notes that only convictions recognised under Russian law will constitute grounds for refusal. That raises another challenge: matching foreign criminal offences to corresponding provisions of the Russian Criminal Code. Since this involves subjective interpretation by individual officials, inconsistent decisions and corruption risks cannot be ruled out. Moreover, no two criminal codes are identical, which makes uniform application particularly difficult.
Maya Shevtsova, adviser to the Federal Chamber of Lawyers, points to another concern: excessive automation of legal consequences. The law makes no distinction based on the seriousness of the offence, intent, the age of the conviction or the individual’s subsequent conduct. As a result, a conviction for a serious violent crime and one arising from negligence, such as a traffic accident, may carry identical consequences if the conviction has not yet been expunged. In her view, this approach does not always comply with the principles of fairness and proportionality. She also highlights a bureaucratic obstacle. Obtaining criminal record certificates in some countries can take months and often requires legalisation and translation, while the documents themselves may have only a short period of validity. Law-abiding applicants may therefore be refused not because they pose a threat but simply because they cannot obtain the necessary paperwork, for example in countries with destroyed archives or ongoing armed conflict.
Shevtsova is even more critical of the broader grounds for administrative deportation. Behind every deportation order lie real human consequences: families separated, Russian children losing contact with a parent, breadwinners removed and Russian citizens forced to relocate abroad to remain with deported relatives. For that reason, she argues, family circumstances, years of residence, employment and tax payments should not merely be mentioned in legislation but should genuinely influence decisions. Yet where deportation becomes effectively mandatory, courts and Interior Ministry officials lose the ability to consider individual circumstances
Administrative cases are handled under tight deadlines, while foreign nationals often lack Russian language skills, interpreters or legal representation. If a deportation order is enforced immediately, any mistake may become irreversible, with the individual expelled before a higher court has the opportunity to review the case. According to Shevtsova, the reforms represent a shift away from individual assessment towards a model of maximum screening and rapid removal. While understandable from a security perspective, she says the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards risks affecting not only genuine threats but also migrants who have lived, worked and integrated into Russian society for many years.
Aram Muradov, a lawyer at the Minushkina & Partners Bar Association, says Russia’s migration legislation has changed dramatically in recent years. Defending foreign nationals has become increasingly difficult, and the latest amendments make it almost impossible. Any criminal conviction will now result in refusal, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Muradov is particularly concerned by the transfer of powers to order immediate deportation from courts to Interior Ministry officials. In practice, he says, one of the biggest problems is the delayed delivery of official decisions.
Lawyers frequently receive deportation orders only after the deadline for appeal has expired, while courts rarely agree to restore missed deadlines. The new system, he argues, will only make matters worse. Since February 5, 2025, deportation orders have been issued directly by Interior Ministry officials, making information about such decisions far less accessible. In many cases, migrants discover they have been deported only when attempting to re-enter Russia, by which time the ten-day appeal period has already expired.
Kristina Tyurina of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Bar Association adds that deportation is overwhelmingly imposed in its compulsory form, with migrants placed in detention centres, while voluntary supervised departure is used only rarely. Expanding the list of deportable offences will inevitably increase pressure on the bailiff service and raise public spending.
Regarding criminal record certificates, Tyurina warns of unintended consequences. Obtaining genuine documents from some countries is extremely difficult, which could encourage greater use of forged certificates. That would increase the workload of migration authorities and create further grounds for revoking residence permits already issued.
Lawyers generally agree that the problems targeted by the new legislation are real, including migrants’ involvement in mass unrest, extremism, forged documents and attempts by individuals with criminal backgrounds to legalise their status. However, they question whether simply broadening the grounds for refusal and deportation will solve those problems. More likely, they argue, it will increase the number of formal refusals and deportations without necessarily improving the effectiveness of migration control. The new rules create a much stricter screening system, but they leave unresolved questions about legal certainty, procedural safeguards and the human consequences of enforcement
Without addressing those issues, the reforms risk affecting not only offenders but also migrants who have long been integrated into Russian society. The heaviest burden, lawyers say, will ultimately fall on their families, including spouses and children who are Russian citizens.
ORIGINAL: NG/Tougher to Gain Citizenship, Easier to Be Deported
