Administrative liability for violating stay regulations: the problem of distinguishing between illegal migrants and asylum seekers

Goal. The purpose of this study is to identify the conflict between the policy of increasing administrative liability for violations of the migration regime in the Russian Federation and the protective norms of legislation on refugees and asylum seekers, including the principle of non-deportation, as well as the limits of application of Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation to this category of foreign citizens.

Method. The study is based on an analysis of current federal legislation, including the Concept of the State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation for 2026-2030, the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and the materials of the law enforcement practice of general jurisdiction courts. The study also focuses on the historical and legal analysis of the stages of the evolution of administrative and legal regulation of migration in Russia from the 1990s to the present.

Results. The paper shows that the transition of Russian migration policy from targeted repressive measures to a model of constant and digitalized control (registries, digital records, and so on) is explained both by economic expediency and by the demand of Russian society for more comprehensive migration control. In addition, the author's criticism of the formal approach of law enforcement officers is presented, in which the very fact of violating the residence regime is stated without taking into account the forced nature of the asylum seeker's movement. Arguments have been made in favor of the need for a court or administrative authority to verify the person's actual ability to legalize or safely leave the country, as well as the risk of persecution upon return to their home country. It has been shown that the issue is primarily procedural.

Conclusion. The article proves that the solution to the identified conflict lies not in the complete exclusion of asylum seekers from administrative liability, but in the refusal to apply the general rules of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation to them in a subsidiary and formal manner, and in the individualization of administrative coercion. The author proposes to enshrine at the level of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the obligation to establish the reasons for the violation of the migration regime when a person claims that their life or health is at risk, to provide for the suspension of administrative deportation during the consideration of an asylum application, and to ensure judicial control over the validity of the detention of such persons in temporary detention centers for foreign citizens.

1. Kharaeva O.A. Migration management and models of migration policy: book review of “Global and Regional Dimension of Migration Processes”. Demographic Review. 2020;7(4):166–172. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v7i4.12048.

2. Kent J., Norman K.P., Tennis K.H. Changing motivations or capabilities? Migration deterrence in the global context. International Studies Review. 2020;22(4):853–878. DOI: 10.1093/isr/viz050.

3. Krasinets E.S. Labor migration to Russia: trends, mechanisms and regulatory instruments. In: Bulavina M.A., Gerasimov V.I., editors. Big Eurasia: Development, Security, Cooperation: Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference; 2025 Nov 26–28; Moscow. Issue 9, Pt 2. Moscow: UMC Publishing House; 2026. p. 597–600. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-6055394-5-2.

4. Grigoryeva K.S. Migrants as “persons susceptible to terrorist ideology”: institutional analysis of the Russian case of migration securitization. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2021;24(3):58–85. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31119/jssa.2021.24.3.4.

5. Popova S.M., Yanik A.A., Karpova S.F. Transformation of Russian migration policy: stages, features, problems (1989–2023). Administrative and Municipal Law. 2023;(4):24–51. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2023.4.43666. EDN: VBXQFC.

6. Khonkhodzhaev F.T., Akramov Sh.Yu. Institutions and practices of migration regulation in Russia: key problems of labor migrants’ status. In: Ryazantsev S.V., Mishchuk S.N., Khramova M.N., editors. Migration Bridges in Eurasia: Global and Regional Dimensions. Moscow; 2021. p. 201–207. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.38006/00187-097-5.2021.201.207.

7. Maksimenko A.F. The problem of fictitious registration of foreign citizens at the place of stay in Russia. Molodoi Uchenyi. 2018;(28(214)):45–46. (In Russ.).

8. Gimpelson V.E., Kapelyushnikov R.I., editors. In the shadow of regulation: informality in the Russian labor market. Moscow: HSE Publishing House; 2014. 536 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-7598-1090-2.

9. Florinskaya Yu.F. Employers and foreign migrants in the labor markets of large Russian cities: interaction under new conditions. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2018;(2):144–154. (In Russ.).

10. Bedrina E.B., Neklyudova N.P. Implementation of migration policy in the Sverdlovsk Region through the eyes of experts: search for management solutions. Ars Administrandi. 2024;16(1):98–123. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2024-1-98-123. EDN: CZTRYW.

11. Struchkov Yu.N. Certain aspects of administrative-legal coercion in the sphere of migration as a method of ensuring law and order. Migration Law. 2025;(1):42–44. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18572/2071- 1182-2025-1-42-44. EDN: LAAURO.

12. Kirillov M.A. On the principle of individualization of punishment enforcement in the criminal-executive legislation of the Russian Federation. Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2015;(1(29)):101–103. (In Russ.). EDN: TMQJAN