TRINITI JUREX represented a Turkish citizen who had been admitted to a Lithuanian higher education institution and applied for a temporary residence permit in Lithuania on the basis of studies.

The Migration Department’s specialists refused to issue the permit, alleging that the applicant’s submitted information was not consistent with reality and that there were grounds to suspect a risk of illegal migration. The decision was primarily based on an interview with the applicant, during which her answers were assessed as unclear, inconsistent, or insufficiently detailed.

One of the additional arguments raised was that the applicant allegedly did not have sufficient English language skills, which was used to question her ability to successfully pursue her studies. It should be noted that the Migration Department is not empowered to assess language proficiency requirements for academic studies when the applicant has already been admitted to a higher education institution and meets its admission criteria.

It is worth noting that the applicant had already commenced her studies remotely from September and had been actively participating in the programme for several months while her application was pending before the Migration Department.

TRINITI JUREX challenged this decision, arguing that a purely subjective assessment of interview responses cannot, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds to conclude that false information was provided or to question the applicant’s genuine intention to study. It was also emphasized that such responses may be influenced by various objective factors, including language barriers, stress, or the specific interview setting, none of which in themselves negate the study purpose.

The court agreed with these arguments and held that the Migration Department’s decision was unlawful, unfounded, and disproportionate. In the court’s view, a subjective interpretation of interview answers alone is not sufficient to establish that false information was provided or that the applicant lacks genuine study intentions.

The court annulled the Migration Department’s decision and ordered the authority to reconsider the application.

As the Migration Department did not appeal the judgment, it became final, and the client was also awarded reimbursement of legal costs.