Denial of residence to foreigner with criminal record despite family tiesDenegatoria de residencia a extranjero con antecedentes penales pese a vínculo familiar

VI.- On the migration policy of the Costa Rican State. From the very outset, it must be noted that migration policy is part of the sovereignty of a Nation and includes the regulation of the entry and stay, temporary or permanent, of foreigners in its territory, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. In our case, the exercise of that sovereign power derives from Articles 6 and 19 of the Political Constitution and from various international instruments, among which the Convention on the Status of Foreigners, ratified by Costa Rica by Law No. 40 of 20 December 1932, stands out; the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live; ILO Convention No. 149 concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers; and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. Under this framework, foreigners who intend to enter our country must comply with the requirements demanded for that purpose by the domestic legal system and submit to the legal norms of our country that determine the legality or not of their stay in the country and its consequences. Likewise, it involves the exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with the prevailing block of legality, and the power to decide on the stay of a foreigner in the national territory rests exclusively with the Executive Branch, when it finds that it is harmful, or compromises the tranquility or public order, or when special circumstances so advise. For this purpose, the Administration has a series of legal means to make that power effective, which are regulated, among others, in the Migration Law, such as, for example, the requirements and conditions for the granting of visas or residencies. All these means allow exercising control over foreign residents and grant, in effect, a wide margin of discretion to execute its migration policies. But the exercise of these purely legal powers, however discretionary they may be, cannot be unrestricted or, even less, disregard the limits that the legal system itself imposes on it, nor the elementary principles of justice, logic, and convenience (Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the General Law of Public Administration), which form part of the legal system. From that standpoint, the General Law of Migration and Foreigners (Ley General de Migración y Extranjería), No. 8764 of 19 August 2009, published in La Gaceta No. 170 of 01 September 2009, establishes that legal framework "... regulates the control of migrant persons and the integration of these persons into society is promoted, based on the principles of respect for human life, cultural and personal diversity, solidarity, gender equity, as well as the human rights guaranteed in the Political Constitution, the treaties, and international conventions duly signed, ratified, and in force in the country." -Article 3-. Likewise, among other sub-legal norms that complement that regulatory framework, we can also cite the Regulation for Migration Control (Reglamento de Control Migratorio), Executive Decree number 36769-G, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 184 of 26 September 2011, and the Regulation for Foreigners (Reglamento de Extranjería), Executive Decree number 37112-GOB, published in Supplement No. 64 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 95 of 17 May 2012. It is worth noting that in the latter, specifically in Article 355, it was expressly established that the first of these decrees corresponds to the executive regulation of the LGME: "By means of Executive Decree No. 36769-G, published in La Gaceta No. 184 of 26 September 2011, the Regulation to the General Law of Migration and Foreigners, called Regulation for Migration Control, was enacted." (Highlighting not in the original). For these purposes, that regulatory body grants the power to the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) to determine the conditions for the entry of non-resident persons into the country, being enabled to establish the criteria for the classification of restricted visa, consular visa, and visa-free entry. For this Court, it is clear that migration policy is a matter of great national relevance, being that it forms a substantial part of public order and national security. This indeed derives from section 6, subsection 3 of the cited Law No. 8764 insofar as it indicates that the purpose of migration regulation is the due control of the entry, stay, and exit of foreign persons from the country, in accordance with national development and public security policies. This social impact (in various areas, as it includes economic matters, health, housing, public order, security, among others), imbues this subject matter with a marked public interest. Such is the case of the effect of migrations in the area of employment levels in domestic work, a topic that, by way of mere reference, is addressed by section 7 of the previously mentioned Law, in its subsection 1) insofar as it indicates as a guideline for migration policy: "The search for complementarity between national and migrant labor, in such a way that there is no displacement of national labor due to the incorporation of immigrant workers." This is also evidenced in the various grounds that allow the prevention of entry into the country, even to persons who already possess an entry visa, a matter regulated in section 61 ibid. Likewise, that marked interest is denoted in mandate 63 ejusdem which indicates that for current reasons of public security and health, duly substantiated, the Executive Branch may impose entry restrictions on a specific foreign person or foreign group. In any case, the public relevance of the matter is expressed clearly in canon 2 of Law No. 8764. Article 12 of the cited law confers on the General Directorate of Migration the authority to execute migration policy, with a wide range of powers, some of which are listed in Article 13 of that legal source. In the specific case of refugees, the LGME stipulates that the regulations on entry, exit, and stay for foreign persons who request that condition shall be governed in accordance with the Political Constitution, the conventions ratified and in force in Costa Rica, and the other legislation in force (Article 41). A refugee is understood to be a person who: “1) Owing to well-founded fears of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, gender, membership of a particular group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fears, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”; or else, “2) Not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fears, is unwilling to return to it” (Article 106). The Commission on Restricted Visas and Refuge (Comisión de Visas Restringidas y Refugio) of the DGME is the competent body to decide on the approval or denial of refugee status, by means of a duly reasoned resolution. In the latter case, a motion to reconsider may be filed against the corresponding resolution before the same Commission, and an appeal may be filed before the TAM (Article 118). The cited legislation is complemented by the Regulation for Refugee Persons (Reglamento de Personas Refugiadas), executive decree No. 36831 of 28 September 2011.

VII.- On the specific case. Synopsis. On 19 July 2006, the plaintiff requested from the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) the granting of a residence card (cédula de residencia), claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen, file number 31546. By means of a receipt of requirements issued on 19 July 2006, application number 135-32465, the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners set forth the following requirements for the petition submitted by the plaintiff: -certification of criminal record, - deposit of ¢125 for the application and ¢2.50 per sheet -fiscal stamps-, -certified copy of the spouse's ID card (cédula de vínculo), -birth certification, and -certification of the marriage bond. By a handwritten note dated 31 August 2006, the applicant requested that he be granted more time to provide the birth certificate and the certificate of criminal record, referring to the procedure he must carry out to bring those documents authenticated by the embassy of Costa Rica in South Africa. However, despite said request, it was not until 09 July 2012, that the applicant filed a new petition for residence, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Ricans. In that procedure he indicated: -that since 28 February 2006 he contracted marriage with a Costa Rican citizen, having fathered a child by the name of [Name 003], born on 15 February 2011, as recorded in the Civil Registry, Birth Section of the Province of San José, volume 2109, page 162, entry 23; -that having a consolidated marital bond and having a Costa Rican child, he requests that a residence card be granted based on the bond with Costa Rican citizens, wife and child. In addition to the above, he indicates that on 18 October 2001 he was sentenced to five years in prison by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela (Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela), file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, a sentence he completed on 12 November 2006. He stated that it was materially impossible for him to provide a birth certificate from his country of origin. The administrative file contains a certification dated 19 June 2012 from the National Institute of Criminology (Instituto Nacional de Criminología), which indicates that the plaintiff served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of Imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession or Holding of Cocaine for Purposes of Trafficking or International Transport to the detriment of Public Health, a penalty imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela (Tribunal de Juicio de Alajuela), for acts occurring on 13 July 2001, File 01-201843, a case for which, additionally, he served Preventive Detention from 14 July 2001 to 12 November 2001. As a consequence of this, by Resolution No. 135-368475-Administrativa of 12 hours 48 minutes on 09 January 2013, from the Assessment Sub-process (Subproceso de Valoración) of the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners, it resolved the request filed by the plaintiff on 09 July 2012, rejecting it as unfounded. Fundamentally it stated: "SECOND: (...) From the above transcribed, it is clearly extracted that a foreigner who has been convicted by the authorities of his country or the national authorities, is not exempt from complying with all the requirements that are requested to process the intended status, in addition to the above, in compliance with the Principle of Legality enshrined in Articles 11 of the Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration, [this Directorate] is unable to authorize and/or renew the residence card in our country to those foreigners who have a crime such as those the appellant has, for which reason the status sought by the applicant cannot be granted. THIRD: That from the analyzed regulations we can confirm that this General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners acts under the protection of the functions conferred upon it by Law and proceeds in accordance with the Costa Rican legal system, based on Articles 13 subsections 2) and 36), 129 subsection 9) and 193 of the General Law of Migration and Foreigners (Ley General de Migración y Extranjería) number 8764, as well as Constitutional jurisprudence, therefore, it is the criterion of this General Directorate, to REJECT AS UNFOUNDED, THE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENCE, of [Name 004]. (...)". Likewise, it established that once said act was final, he was urged to leave the national territory within the peremptory period of 3 business days. Against this decision, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider with a subsidiary appeal, alleging lack of reasoning regarding the reasons why he is considered a threat in matters of security and public order. He rebukes that his petition was resolved with Law No. 8764, since the petition was filed when Law No. 7033 was in force, and therefore the most beneficial law should be applied to him. He further indicates that he has a marital bond with a Costa Rican, having fathered two children, so regardless of having been convicted, that does not affect the application, being a circumstance not analyzed. As a third ground for the appeal, he indicates that the interest of his minor children must prevail. By Resolution No. 135-396894-Administrativa, of 09 hours 25 minutes on 23 July 2013, the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners ordered the rejection of the motion to reconsider filed. By Resolution No. 478-2015-TAM of 10 hours on 23 July 2015, the Administrative Migration Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio) ordered the rejection of the appeal.

VIII.- On the analysis of the validity of the contested acts. A first aspect on the merits that is of fundamental clarification is the delimitation of the legal order to apply in this process. The foregoing because the plaintiff rebukes that his request was attended to and resolved with legal norms that were not in force at the time of filing his petition and that were applied to him retroactively to his detriment. As was indicated in the previous section, on 19 July 2006, the plaintiff requested from the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners the granting of a residence card, claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen, however, the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners required some requisites from him. Despite the fact that by note dated 31 August 2006, he petitioned for an extension of time to provide those formal requirements (detailed above), the administrative file contains no additional action on his part activating the procedure. It was not until 09 July 2012, that the applicant filed a new petition for residence, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Ricans, in which he set forth the details of his marriage and his paternal relationship with the minor [Name 003], born on 15 February 2011. Likewise, he informed the Migration Administration of his criminal conviction records, specifically, the one imposed in file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, conducted before the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, a sentence he completed on 12 November 2006. It is in the processing and decision of this 2012 petition, and not the 2006 one, that the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners, Assessment Sub-process (Sub Proceso de Valoración), issued Resolution 135-368475-Administrativa of 12 hours 48 minutes on 09 January 2013. This aspect becomes even clearer if the content of that act is analyzed, insofar as it details that new petition. Indeed, if we look at the second recital (resultando) of that act, it indicates: "SECOND: That on 09-07-2012 Mr. [Name 004] filed a new request for residence based on being the father of a Costa Rican.". Thus, at the time the plaintiff filed his new petition, it is insisted, the one that was analyzed in the denial conduct, the norm in force was Law No. 8764 of 01 March 2010. Ergo, even though at the time of the first request, filed in July 2006, the norm in force was the General Law of Migration and Foreigners, No. 7033, that legislation had already been repealed by the moment the petition was filed again in July 2012, given that Law No. 8764 entered into force on 19 August 2009. From that standpoint, the specific petition had to be analyzed in accordance with that latter reference and not with Law No. 7033. Consequently, there is no retroactive application of the alluded regulations, to the detriment of section 34 of the Magna Carta, as is claimed. As a derivation of the above, it should be noted that in accordance with the content of that applicable legal regime, that is, Law No. 8764, it is the competence of the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners to analyze and verify the conduct of foreigners who seek to access a migratory status in Costa Rica. In this way, the migration power allows and enables the establishment of measures regulating the entry of foreigners, as well as their stay. These conditions are applicable even in cases where the migration petition is based on the existence of a family bond of the petitioner, and that single condition does not lead to an individual non-application of the indicated conduct conditions. In that sense, sections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 of Law No. 8764, highlight this alluded power. In what is relevant to the present matter, Article 70 of the cited Law No. 8764 establishes with all clarity: "Legal stay shall not be authorized to a foreign person who has completed a sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) in the last ten years, in Costa Rica or abroad, provided the illicit act is recognized as such in our legislation, without prejudice to the authorization of provisional stay established in Article 72 of this Law." From that normative content, it follows clearly that the requirement of criminal record certification from the applicant is not, by any means, an arbitrary or disproportionate conduct, since even in cases of petition based on a family bond, that is no obstacle to accrediting said requirement. This is a condition that must be analyzed by the Migration Administration and that enables, without a doubt, the denial of the intended migratory status, when it has been established in the respective administrative file that the applicant has completed a sentence for an intentional crime in the ten years prior to the petition. Contrary to what the plaintiff indicates, no inertia is observed by the Administration in processing his 2006 procedure, and despite having been required to provide several requisites, he abandoned that application, filing a new one in July 2012 as has been indicated. Therefore, the requirement to provide certification of criminal conviction records is consistent with administrative legality. Based on that aspect, it has been fully proven in the file that the claimant served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of Imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession or Holding of Cocaine for Purposes of Trafficking or International Transport to the detriment of Public Health, a penalty imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela, for acts occurring on 13 July 2001, File 01-201843, a case for which, additionally, he served Preventive Detention from 14 July 2001 to 12 November 2001. This follows from the certification dated 19 June 2012 from the National Institute of Criminology. In addition to this, the plaintiff himself informs of this circumstance in his petition of July 2012. As of the date of filing the request and the issuance of the final decision of the procedure (09 January 2013), the alluded criminal record was fully in force, and pursuant to canon 11 of the Law of the Judicial Registry and Archives (Ley del Registro y Archivos Judiciales), No. 6723 of 10 March 1982, it is possible to consider the criminal records of a person up to ten years after completing the sentence. From this viewpoint of analysis, the consideration of that circumstance in the decision of the request under examination constitutes a legitimate exercise of administrative powers and the application of a condition expressly recognized by the legal system, which demonstrates that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements necessary to obtain the sought migratory status. Contrary to what the claimant asserts, the final act denying him is not devoid of due substantiation or reasoning. From the analysis of that formal conduct, it is evident that in accordance with section 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, which regulates the principle of reasoning of administrative acts, such which it bases its decision. The act clearly sets forth the relevant fact of having served prison time for an intentional crime within the prior ten-year period, which ultimately is the basic reason determining the content of the act. Viewed thus, based on that conditioning fact, it sets forth the legal considerations on the basis of which it reaches the final decision. Therefore, no absence, insufficiency, or imperfection is evident in the formal element of reasoning of Resolution No. 135-368475-Administrativa.

IX.- In that order, a similar situation must be indicated regarding the other acts issued in the course of the proceeding. Both Resolution 135-396894-Administrativa of 09 hours 25 minutes on 23 July 2013 that rejects the motion to reconsider, and Resolution No. 478-2015-TAM of 10 hours on 23 July 2015 that refers to the appeal filed, analyze the set of circumstances pointed out above, while at the same time addressing all the grievances that supported the ordinary administrative remedies. This last action provides the plaintiff with elements of justification to support the contested rejection, insofar as it explains that although the national legal system recognizes the possibility (expectation) for foreigners to petition for a migratory status or manage its renewal, based on the accreditation of a bond with a Costa Rican person, the right to reside in the country is not an absolute right, since the same Law No. 8764 establishes that if the person engages in criminal conduct, the migration authorities must deny their regular stay in the country. In that vein, that decision of the administrative improper superior ( jerarca impropio administrativo ) states: "IV.- On the merits. ...The migration legislation, as indicated by the appealed resolution, and specifically in Article 70, expressly indicates that legal stay shall not be authorized to a foreign person who has completed a sentence for an intentional crime in the last ten years. Applied to the specific case, given that the applicant completed a sentence of five years and four months in the year two thousand five, his situation falls within the assumptions of this article; it is for this reason that it is the consideration of this Tribunal that the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners is correct when denying the request of the appellant...". Furthermore, regarding the claim made in the July 2012 request to avail himself of Transitory Provision II of the Regulation for Foreigners, Executive Decree No. 37112-G, that authority indicates that although it is a norm that allows fathers or mothers of minor Costa Rican persons to regularize their migratory status in the country, this is only by dispensing with the requirement of regular entry or a valid visa, emphasizing that this norm did not enable the waiver of the other requirements not provided by the petitioner. Indeed, the regulations invoked by the applicant in his procedure, as indicated by the Administrative Migration Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio), allow dispensing only with the requirement of regular entry and stay, but do not constitute a norm that empowers or enables the non-application of the condition set forth in canon 70 of Law No. 8764 which has provided support for the rejection under controversy. On the other hand, the act issued in the appellate venue indicates to the appellant the reasons why the family reunification precedents he cites in his favor are not applicable to him, as it has been reliably proven that he committed an illicit act and served prison time within the 10 years prior to the decision of the matter. Again, that condition, having been proven in the case file, is a determining element that demonstrates the legality of the resolution. The existence of that record, current at the time of resolving the application, fully supports what was established in that administrative venue, without the accreditation of the existence of a family bond through marriage and paternity with Costa Ricans allowing a waiver of those requirements so many times referred to. In that order, one can see among many, judgment number 2010-16512 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). Furthermore, this collegiate body shares the State's argument that the petitioner failed to prove the subjective conditions that would have led to a favorable outcome of his migratory request, for the stated reasons. In the same way, even if it were understood that the former Law No. 7033 should have been applied to resolve his request, it should be noted that this regime also does not permit the granting of a permanent residence regime to a foreigner with a criminal record. Specifically, section 58, subsection c) of the Regulation to the General Law of Migration and Foreigners, Decree No. 19010 of 11 May 1989, which regulated Law No. 7033, indicated as a requirement to obtain permanent residence status in the country, to provide (among other documents) certification of criminal records. It should be noted that this norm was issued as a result of what was prescribed by section 38 of the Law which established that: "The procedure, requirements, and conditions to enter the country, according to the mentioned categories and their subcategories, as well as the period of stay, shall be set in the corresponding regulation." For its part, canon 60, subsection 10) of Law No. 7033 provided the power to deny migratory status to foreigners whose records suggest that national security, public order, or the lifestyle will be compromised. A similar treatment was observed in canons 54 and 63 of the former Migration Law No. 8487. In summary, even applying the norms postulated by the claimant, the indicated circumstances would lead to the same result that derives from the contested acts. It should be noted that if the plaintiff considers that as of today the restriction imposed by section 70 of Law No. 8764 does not apply to him, because the ten-year period of record validity that derives from canon 11 of Law No. 6723 has already elapsed, as indicated by the State in support of its defense of lack of current interest, he can certainly file a new petition; however, that does not introduce a vice, either original or supervening, in the contested conduct.

Thus, the claim must be rejected with regard to the annulment allegations." VI.- On the immigration policy of the Costa Rican State. From the outset, it must be noted that immigration policy is part of the sovereignty of a Nation and includes the regulation of the entry and stay, whether temporary or permanent, of foreigners in its territory, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. In our case, the exercise of this sovereign power derives from Articles 6 and 19 of the Political Constitution and from various international instruments, among which the Convention on the Status of Foreigners, ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 40 of December 20, 1932; the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live; Convention 149 concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers; and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means, stand out. Under this framework, foreigners seeking to enter our country must comply with the requirements demanded for that purpose by the domestic legal system and submit to the legal norms of our country that determine the legality or otherwise of their stay in the country and its consequences. Likewise, it involves the exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with the current block of legality, and it is exclusively the competence of the Executive Branch to decide on the stay of a foreigner in the national territory when it finds that it is harmful, or compromises public tranquility or order, or when special circumstances so advise. For this purpose, the Administration has a series of legal means to make that power effective, which are regulated, among others, in the Migration Law, such as, for example, the requirements and conditions for granting visas or residencies. All these means allow exercising control over foreign residents and grant, in effect, a wide margin of discretion to execute their immigration policies. But the exercise of these purely legal powers, however discretionary they may be, cannot be unrestricted or, even less, disregard the limits imposed by the legal system itself, nor the elementary principles of justice, logic, and convenience (Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the General Law of Public Administration), which form part of the legal system. From that standpoint, the General Law of Migration and Aliens, No. 8764 of August 19, 2009, published in La Gaceta No. 170 of September 1, 2009, establishes that legal framework "... regulates the control of migrant persons and promotes their integration into society, based on the principles of respect for human life, cultural and personal diversity, solidarity, gender equity, as well as the human rights guaranteed in the Political Constitution, the treaties and international conventions duly signed, ratified, and in force in the country." -Article 3-. Likewise, among other infralegal norms that complement this regulatory framework, we can also cite the Regulation of Immigration Control (RCM), Executive Decree number 36769-G, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 184 of September 26, 2011, and the Aliens Regulation (RExt), Executive Decree number 37112-GOB, published in Supplement No. 64 to the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 95 of May 17, 2012. It is worth noting that in the latter, specifically in Article 355, it was expressly established that the first of these decrees corresponds to the executive regulation of the LGME: "By means of Executive Decree No. 36769-G, published in La Gaceta No. 184 of September 26, 2011, the Regulation to the General Law of Migration and Aliens, called the Regulation of Immigration Control, was enacted." (Highlighting is not from the original). For the purposes, that normative body confers the power on the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens to determine the conditions for the entry of non-resident persons into the country, being enabled to establish the criteria for the classification of restricted visa, consular visa, and entry without visa. For this Tribunal, it is clear that immigration policy deals with a matter of great national relevance, being a substantial part of public order and national security. This indeed follows from numeral 6, subsection 3, of the cited Law No. 8764, insofar as it indicates that the purpose of immigration regulation is the due control of the entry, stay, and exit of foreign persons to the country, in accordance with national development and public security policies. This social impact (in various areas, as it includes economic matters, health, housing, public order, security, among others), imbues this subject with a marked public interest. This is the case of the effect of migrations on the levels of employment in domestic work, a topic that, by way of simple reference, is addressed by ordinal 7 of the aforementioned Law, in its subsection 1), insofar as it indicates as an orientation of immigration policy: "The search for complementarity between national and migrant labor, in such a way that there is no displacement of the national labor force by the incorporation of immigrant workers." This is further evidenced in the various grounds that allow the impediment of entry into the country, even to persons who already possess an entry visa, a matter regulated in ordinal 61 ibidem. Likewise, that marked interest is denoted in mandate 63 ejusdem, which states that for current reasons of public security and health, duly substantiated, the Executive Branch may impose entry restrictions on a specific foreign person or foreign group. In any case, the public relevance of the matter is clearly expressed in canon 2 of Law No. 8764. Article 12 of the cited law confers on the General Directorate of Migration the authority to execute immigration policy, with a wide range of competences, some of which are listed in Article 13 of that legal source. In the specific case of refugees, the LGME stipulates that the regulations on entry, exit, and stay for foreign persons requesting that condition shall be governed in accordance with the Political Constitution, the ratified and current conventions in Costa Rica, and the other legislation in force (Article 41). A refugee is understood as the person who: "1) Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, gender, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country"; or, "2) Not having a nationality and being outside the country of their former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it" (Article 106). The Commission on Restricted Visas and Refuge of the DGME is the competent body to rule on the approval or denial of refugee status, through a duly reasoned resolution. In the second case, against the corresponding resolution, a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) may be filed before the same Commission and an appeal before the TAM (Article 118). The cited legislation is complemented by the Regulation of Refugees (RPR), Executive Decree No. 36831 of September 28, 2011.

VII.- On the specific case. Synopsis. On July 19, 2006, the plaintiff petitioned the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens for the granting of a residency card, claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen, file number 31546. By means of a requirements voucher issued on July 19, 2006, request number 135-32465, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens ordered the following requirements for the petition presented by the plaintiff: -certification of criminal record, - deposit of ¢125 for the request and ¢2.50 per page -fiscal stamps-, -certified copy of the spouse's identification card, -birth certification, and -certification of the marital bond. By a handwritten note dated August 31, 2006, the petitioner requested an extension of time to provide the birth certificate and criminal record certificate, referring to the procedure that must be completed to bring those documents authenticated by the Costa Rican embassy in South Africa. However, despite said requirement, it was not until July 9, 2012, that the petitioner presented a new residency petition, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Rican citizens. In that proceeding, he indicated: -that since February 28, 2006, he contracted marriage with a Costa Rican citizen, having procreated a son named [Name 003], born on February 15, 2011, as recorded in the Civil Registry, Birth Section of the Province of San José, volume 2109, page 162, entry 23; -that having a consolidated marital bond and having a Costa Rican child, he requests the granting of a residency card due to the bond with Costa Rican citizens, wife and child. In addition to the above, he states that on October 18, 2001, he was sentenced to five years in prison by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, a sentence he completed on November 12, 2006. He explained that it was materially impossible for him to provide a birth certificate from his country of origin. The administrative file contains a certification dated June 19, 2012, from the National Institute of Criminology, which indicates that the plaintiff served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession or Tenure of Cocaine for Purposes of International Trafficking or Transportation to the detriment of Public Health, a sentence imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela, acts that occurred on July 13, 2001, File 01-201843, a cause for which he also served Preventive Detention from July 14, 2001, to November 12, 2001. As a consequence of this, by resolution No. 135-368475-Administrative of 12:48 p.m. on January 9, 2013, from the Subprocess of Assessment of the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens, it resolved the proceeding brought by the plaintiff on July 9, 2012, rejecting it as inadmissible. Its fundamental reasoning stated: "SECOND: (...) From the foregoing transcript it is clearly extracted that a foreigner who has been convicted by the authorities of their country or by national authorities is not exempt from complying with all the requirements requested to process the intended status, in addition to the above, in compliance with the Principle of Legality enshrined in Articles 11 of the Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration, this Directorate is unable to authorize and/or renew the residency card in our country for those foreigners who have a crime such as the one the appellant has, for which reason the status sought by the applicant cannot be granted to him. THIRD: From the analyzed regulations, we can confirm that this General Directorate of Migration and Aliens acts protected by the functions conferred upon it by Law and that it proceeds in accordance with the Costa Rican legal system, based on Articles 13 subsections 2) and 36), 129 subsection 9) and 193 of the General Law of Migration and Aliens number 8764, as well as Constitutional jurisprudence, therefore, it is the criterion of this General Directorate, TO REJECT AS INADMISSIBLE, THE RESIDENCY APPLICATION, of [Name 004]. (...)". Likewise, it established that once said act became final, he was ordered to leave the national territory within the peremptory period of 3 business days. Against this decision, the plaintiff filed a motion for revocation (revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal, alleging a lack of reasoning regarding the reasons for which he is considered a threat in matters of security and public order. He reproaches that his petition was resolved with Law No. 8764, since the petition was formulated when Law No. 7033 was in force, and therefore the most beneficial law should be applied to him. He further indicates that he has a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen, having procreated two children, so despite having been convicted, this does not affect the application, being a circumstance not analyzed. As a third ground for the appeal, he indicates that the interest of his minor children must prevail. By resolution No. 135-396894-Administrative, at 9:25 a.m. on July 23, 2013, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens ordered the rejection of the revocation filed. By resolution No. 478-2015-TAM at 10:00 a.m. on July 23, 2015, the Administrative Immigration Tribunal ordered the rejection of the appeal.

VIII.- On the analysis of the validity of the contested acts. A first aspect on the merits that requires fundamental clarification is the delimitation of the legal order to apply in this process. This is because the plaintiff reproaches that the proceeding was handled and resolved with legal norms that were not in force at the time of presenting his petition and that were applied retroactively to his detriment. As was indicated in the previous section, on July 19, 2006, the plaintiff petitioned the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens for the granting of a residency card, claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen; however, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens required some conditions from him. Despite the fact that through a note dated August 31, 2006, he requested an extension of time to provide those formal requirements (detailed above), there is no record in the administrative file of any additional action on his part activating the procedure. It was not until July 9, 2012, that the petitioner presented a new residency petition, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Rican citizens, in which he sets forth the details of his marriage and his paternal relationship with the minor [Name 003], born on February 15, 2011. Likewise, he informed the Immigration Administration about his criminal conviction records, specifically, the one imposed in file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, processed before the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, a sentence he completed on November 12, 2006. It is in the knowledge and decision of this 2012 proceeding, and not the one from 2006, that the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens, Subprocess of Assessment, issues resolution 135-368475-Administrative at 12:48 p.m. on January 9, 2013. This aspect becomes even clearer if the content of that act is analyzed insofar as it details that new petition. Indeed, if one looks at the second recital of that act, it indicates: "SECOND: That on 09-07-2012 Mr. [Name 004] presented a new residency proceeding for being the father of a Costa Rican citizen." In this way, at the moment the plaintiff formulates his new petition, it is reiterated, the one that was analyzed in the denial conduct, the current norm was Law No. 8764 of March 1, 2010. Ergo, while at the time of the first proceeding, formulated in the month of July 2006, the current norm was the General Law of Migration and Aliens, No. 7033, that legislation had already been repealed at the time the petition was presented again in July 2012, given that Law No. 8764 entered into force on August 19, 2009. From that standpoint, the specific petition had to be analyzed pursuant to that latter reference and not under Law No. 7033. Consequently, there is no retroactive application of the aforementioned regulation, to the detriment of ordinal 34 of the Magna Carta, as is alleged. As a derivation of the above, it should be noted that in accordance with the content of that applicable legal regime, i.e., Law No. 8764, it is the competence of the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens to analyze and verify the behavior of foreigners seeking to access an immigration status in Costa Rica. In this way, the immigration power allows and enables the establishment of measures regulating the entry of foreigners, as well as their stay. These conditions are applicable even in cases where the immigration petition is based on the existence of a family bond of the applicant, with that sole condition not leading to an individual non-application of the indicated behavioral conditions. In that sense, ordinals 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 of Law No. 8764 reveal this aforementioned power. Regarding what is relevant to the present matter, Article 70 of the cited Law No. 8764 clearly establishes: "Legal stay shall not be authorized for a foreign person who has served a sentence for an intentional crime in the last ten years, in Costa Rica or abroad, provided that the illicit act is recognized as such in our legislation, without prejudice to the authorization of provisional stay established in Article 72 of this Law." From said normative content, it clearly follows that the requirement of a criminal record from the petitioner is not, by any means, an arbitrary or disproportionate conduct, since even in cases of a petition based on a family bond, this is no obstacle to accrediting that requirement. It is a condition that must be analyzed by the Immigration Administration and that enables, without a doubt, the denial of the intended immigration status, when it has been established in the respective administrative file that the petitioner has served a sentence for an intentional crime in the ten years prior to the petition. Contrary to what the plaintiff indicates, no inertia on the part of the Administration is observed in the handling of his 2006 proceeding, given that despite having been required to provide several requirements, he abandoned that application, formulating a new one in July 2012, as has been pointed out. Therefore, the requirement to provide the certification of criminal conviction records is consistent with administrative legality. Based on that aspect, it has been taken as fully proven in the file that the claimant served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession or Tenure of Cocaine for Purposes of International Trafficking or Transportation to the detriment of Public Health, a sentence imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela, acts that occurred on July 13, 2001, File 01-201843, a cause for which he also served Preventive Detention from July 14, 2001, to November 12, 2001.

This is evident from the certification dated June 19, 2012, from the Instituto Nacional de Criminología. In addition to that, the plaintiff (accionante) himself reports that circumstance in his petition of July 2012. As of the date of filing the proceeding and the issuance of the procedure's final decision (January 9, 2013), the aforementioned criminal record was fully in effect, given that, under the terms of canon 11 of the Ley del Registro y Archivos Judiciales, No. 6723 of March 10, 1982, it is possible to consider a person's criminal record up to ten years after the sentence (pena) has been served. From that perspective of analysis, the consideration of that circumstance in the decision of the proceeding under review constitutes a legitimate exercise of administrative powers and the application of a condition expressly recognized by the legal system, which highlights that the plaintiff did not meet the necessary requirements to obtain the migratory status sought. Contrary to what the plaintiff argues, the final act denying his request is not devoid of proper statement of reasons (fundamentación) or reasoning (motivación). From the analysis of that formal conduct, it is evident that, in accordance with numeral 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, which regulates the principle of reasoning (motivación) of administrative acts, that expression of will sets forth the factual and legal grounds on which it bases its decision. The act clearly sets forth the relevant fact of having served a prison sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) within the prior ten-year period, which, in the end, is the basic reason determining the content of the act. Thus viewed, based on that conditioning fact, it sets forth the legal considerations on the basis of which it reaches the final decision. Therefore, no absence, insufficiency, or imperfection in the formal element of the reasoning (motivación) of resolución No. 135-368475-Administrativa is evident.

IX.- In that vein, a similar situation must be noted regarding the other acts issued in the course of the procedure. Both resolución 135-396894-Administrativa of 09 hours 25 minutes on July 23, 2013, which rejects the motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria), and resolución No. 478-2015-TAM of 10 hours on July 23, 2015, which addresses the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed, analyze the set of circumstances noted above, while at the same time addressing all the grievances that supported the ordinary administrative remedies (medidas recursivas). This latter action provides the plaintiff (accionante) with elements of justification to support the challenged rejection, insofar as it explains that, although the national legal system recognizes foreigners' possibility (expectation) to petition for a migratory status or seek its renewal based on proof of a relationship with a Costa Rican person, the right to reside in the country is not an absolute right, since Ley No. 8764 itself establishes that if a person engages in criminal conduct, the migratory authorities must deny their regular stay in the country. Along these lines, that decision by the improper administrative superior sets forth: "IV.- On the merits. ...The immigration legislation, as indicated in the appealed resolution, and specifically in article 70, expressly indicates that legal stay shall not be authorized for a foreign person who has served a sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) within the last ten years. As applied to the specific case, given that the applicant served a sentence of five years and four months in the year two thousand five, his situation falls within the scenarios of this article; therefore, it is the consideration of this Tribunal that the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería is correct in denying the appellant's request...". Furthermore, regarding the claim formulated in the proceeding of July 2012 to avail himself of Transitory II of the Reglamento de Extranjería, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 37112-G, that authority indicates that, while this is a rule that allows the fathers or mothers of Costa Rican minors to regularize their migratory status in the country, it does so only by dispensing with the requirement of regular entry or a valid visa, emphasizing that this rule did not enable the waiver of the other requirements not provided by the petitioner (petente). Indeed, the regulations invoked by the applicant (gestionante) in his proceeding, as indicated by the Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio, only allow dispensing with the requirement of regular entry and stay, but do not constitute a rule that empowers or makes possible the non-application of the condition provided for in canon 70 of Ley No. 8764, which has sustained the denial that is the subject of the dispute. On the other hand, the act issued at the appeal stage indicates to the appellant the reasons why the family reunification precedents he cites in his favor are not applicable to him, given that it was reliably proven that he committed an offense and served prison time within the 10 years prior to the decision of the matter. Again, that condition, having been deemed proven in the case file, is the determining element that highlights the legality of what was decided. The existence of that record, in effect at the time of resolving the petition, fully supports what was established in that administrative venue, without proof of the existence of a family bond through marriage and parenthood with Costa Ricans allowing a waiver of that requirement so many times referenced. In this regard, judgment number 2010-16512 from the Sala Constitucional can be seen, among many. Moreover, this collegiate body shares the State's argument that the petitioner (petente) failed to prove the subjective conditions that would have led to a favorable outcome of his migratory petition, for the reasons stated. Similarly, even if one were to understand that the former Ley No. 7033 is what should have been applied to resolve his proceeding, it should be noted that that regime likewise does not permit granting a permanent residence status to a foreigner with a criminal record. Specifically, numeral 58, subsection c) of the Reglamento a la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, Decreto No. 19010 of May 11, 1989, which regulated Ley No. 7033, required, as a prerequisite for obtaining permanent residence status in the country, the submission of (among other documents) a certification of criminal records. It should be noted that this regulation was issued as a result of what was prescribed by ordinal 38 of the Law, which established that: "The procedure, requirements, and conditions for entering the country, according to the mentioned categories and their subcategories, as well as the length of stay, shall be established in the corresponding regulations." For its part, canon 60, subsection 10) of Ley No. 7033 provided for the power to deny migratory status to foreigners whose records lead one to presume that national security, public order, or the way of life will be compromised. Similar treatment was observed in canons 54 and 63 of the former Ley de Migración No. 8487. In summary, even applying the rules advocated by the claimant, the circumstances noted would lead to the same result that is apparent from the challenged acts.

It should be noted that if the plaintiff (accionante) considers that the restriction imposed by numeral 70 of Law No. 8764 no longer applies to him as of the present date, because the ten-year period of validity of registration derived from canon 11 of Law No. 6723 has already elapsed, as indicated by the State in support of its defense of lack of current interest, he may well file a new petition; however, this does not incorporate either an original or a supervening defect in the challenged conduct. Thus, the claim must be dismissed as regards the annulment allegations.” In the specific case of refugees, the LGME stipulates that the regulations on entry, exit, and stay for foreign persons requesting that status shall be governed in accordance with the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), the treaties ratified and in force in Costa Rica, and other current legislation (Article 41). A refugee is understood to be a person who: *“1) Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, gender, membership of a particular group or political opinions, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”*; or *“2) Not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”* (Article 106). The Restricted Visas and Refuge Commission (Comisión de Visas Restringidas y Refugio) of the DGME is the competent body to decide on the approval or denial of refugee status, by means of a duly reasoned resolution. In the latter case, the corresponding resolution may be challenged through a motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria) before the same Commission and an appeal (apelación) before the TAM (Article 118). The cited legislation is complemented by the Refugee Persons Regulation (Reglamento de Personas Refugiadas, RPR), Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) No. 36831 of September 28, 2011.

**VII.- Regarding the specific case. Synopsis.** On July 19, 2006, the plaintiff petitioned the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) for the granting of a residence card, claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen, file number 31546. By means of a requirements receipt issued on July 19, 2006, application number 135-32465, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) ordered the following requirements for the petition submitted by the claimant: -certification of criminal record, - deposit of ¢125 for the application and ¢2.50 per page -fiscal stamps-, -certified copy of the bondholder's ID card, -birth certification and -certification of the bond. By handwritten note dated August 31, 2006, the applicant requests an extension of time to provide the birth certificate and criminal record certificate, referring to the procedure that must be carried out to bring those documents authenticated by the Costa Rican embassy in South Africa. However, despite said request, it was not until July 9, 2012, that the applicant submitted a new residence petition, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Ricans. In that proceeding, he stated: -that since February 28, 2006, he contracted marriage with a Costa Rican citizen, having procreated a son named [Name 003], born on February 15, 2011, as recorded in the Civil Registry, Births Section of the Province of San José, volume 2109, page 162, entry 23; -that having a consolidated marital bond and a Costa Rican son, he requests that a residence card be granted based on the bond with Costa Rican citizens, wife and son. In addition to the above, he states that on October 18, 2001, he was sentenced to five years in prison by the Criminal Court (Tribunal Penal) of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, a sentence he completed on November 12, 2006. He stated that it was materially impossible for him to provide a birth certificate from his country of origin. The administrative file contains a certification dated June 19, 2012, from the National Institute of Criminology (Instituto Nacional de Criminología), indicating that the claimant served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession of Cocaine for the Purposes of International Trafficking or Transportation to the detriment of Public Health (Salud Publica), a sentence imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela, for acts occurring on July 13, 2001, File 01-201843, a cause for which he also served Pre-trial Detention from July 14, 2001, to November 12, 2001. As a consequence, by resolution No. 135-368475-Administrativa of 12:48 p.m. on January 9, 2013, from the Assessment Sub-Process (Subproceso de Valoración) of the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería), it resolved the petition filed by the claimant on July 9, 2012, rejecting it as inadmissible. It fundamentally stated: *“SECOND: (...) From the foregoing, it is clearly extracted that a foreigner who has been convicted by the authorities of his country or by national authorities is not exempt from complying with all the requirements requested to process the intended status. In addition to the foregoing, in compliance with the Principle of Legality enshrined in Articles 11 of the Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this Directorate is unable to authorize and/or renew the residence card in our country for those foreigners who have a crime such as those held by the appellant, therefore the status sought by the applicant cannot be granted. THIRD: From the analyzed regulations, we can confirm that this General Directorate of Migration and Aliens acts under the powers conferred upon it by Law and proceeds in accordance with the Costa Rican legal system, based on Articles 13 subsections 2) and 36), 129 subsection 9) and 193 of the General Law of Migration and Aliens (Ley General de Migración y Extranjería) number 8764, as well as Constitutional jurisprudence, therefore, it is the criterion of this General Directorate to REJECT AS INADMISSIBLE THE RESIDENCE APPLICATION of [Name 004]. (...)”* In the same manner, it established that once said act became final, he was ordered to leave the national territory within the peremptory period of 3 business days. Against this decision, the plaintiff filed a motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal (apelación), alleging a lack of reasoning regarding the reasons why he is considered a threat to security and public order. He objects that his petition was resolved with Law No. 8764, since the petition was filed when Law No. 7033 was in force, and therefore the most beneficial law should be applied to him. He further indicates that he has a marital bond with a Costa Rican woman, having fathered two children, so despite having been convicted, this does not affect the application, and this circumstance was not analyzed. As a third ground for the appeal, he points out that the best interests of his minor children must prevail. By resolution No. 135-396894-Administrativa, of 9:25 a.m. on July 23, 2013, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) ordered the rejection of the filed motion for reversal. By resolution No. 478-2015-TAM of 10:00 a.m. on July 23, 2015, the Administrative Migratory Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio) ordered the rejection of the appeal (recurso de apelación).

**VIII.- On the validity analysis of the challenged acts.** A first substantive aspect that requires fundamental clarification is the delimitation of the legal framework applicable in this process. The foregoing, because the claimant objects that his petition was addressed and resolved with legal norms that were not in force at the time of filing his petition and that are applied retroactively to his detriment. As noted in the previous section, on July 19, 2006, the plaintiff petitioned the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) for the granting of a residence card, claiming to maintain a marital bond with a Costa Rican citizen; however, the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) ordered certain requirements. Despite the fact that by note dated August 31, 2006, he requested an extension of time to provide those formal requirements (detailed above), the administrative file contains no additional action on his part activating the procedure. It was not until July 9, 2012, that the applicant submitted a new residence petition, based on a marital bond and paternity with Costa Ricans, in which he sets forth the details of his marriage and his paternal relationship with the minor [Name 003], born on February 15, 2011. In the same manner, he informed the Migration Administration (Administración Migratoria) of his criminal conviction records, specifically, the one imposed in file number 0001-201843-0305-PE, processed before the Criminal Court (Tribunal Penal) of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, a sentence he completed on November 12, 2006. It is in the knowledge and decision of this 2012 petition, **and not the 2006 one**, that the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería), Assessment Sub-Process, issued resolution 135-368475-Administrativa of 12:48 p.m. on January 9, 2013. This aspect becomes even clearer if the content of that act is analyzed as it details that new petition. Indeed, if one looks at the second recital (resultando segundo) of that act, it indicates: *“SECOND: That on 07-09-2012, Mr. [Name 004] submitted a new residence petition for being the father of a Costa Rican.”* In this way, at the moment the claimant formulated his new petition, it is insisted, the one that was analyzed in the denial action, the norm in force was Law No. 8764 of March 1, 2010. Ergo, although at the time of the first petition, filed in July 2006, the norm in force was the General Law of Migration and Aliens (Ley General de Migración y Extranjería), No. 7033, that legislation had already been repealed at the moment the petition was resubmitted in July 2012, given that Law No. 8764 came into force on August 19, 2009. From this perspective, the specific petition had to be analyzed in accordance with that latter reference, not with Law No. 7033. Consequently, there is no retroactive application of the alluded regulation, to the detriment of Article 34 of the Magna Carta (Carta Magna), as alleged. As a derivation of the foregoing, it is worth noting that in accordance with the content of that applicable legal regime, that is, Law No. 8764, it is the competence of the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) to analyze and verify the conduct of foreigners who seek to access a migratory status in Costa Rica. In this way, the migratory authority allows and enables the establishment of regulatory measures for the entry and stay of foreigners. These conditions are applicable even in cases where the migratory petition is based on the existence of a family bond of the petitioner, it being that such a condition alone does not lead to an individual non-application of the indicated conduct conditions. In that sense, articles 2, 3, 5, 6, and 13 of Law No. 8764 demonstrate this alluded authority. In what is relevant to the present matter, Article 70 of the cited Law No. 8764 establishes with full clarity: *“Legal permanence shall not be authorized for a foreign person who has served a sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) in the last ten years, in Costa Rica or abroad, provided that the illicit act is recognized as such in our legislation, without prejudice to the authorization of provisional stay established in Article 72 of this Law.”* From said normative content, it is deduced transparently that requiring a criminal background check from the applicant is not, by any stretch, arbitrary or disproportionate behavior, since even in cases of petitions based on a family bond, this is not an obstacle to accrediting said requirement. This is a condition that must be analyzed by the Migration Administration (Administración Migratoria) and which enables, without a doubt, the denial of the intended migratory status, when it has been established in the respective administrative file that the applicant has served a sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) in the ten years prior to the petition. Unlike what the claimant states, no inertia on the part of the Administration is observed in the processing of his 2006 procedure, given that despite having been notified of the need to provide several requirements, he abandoned that application, formulating a new one in July 2012 as has been indicated. Therefore, the requirement to provide the criminal conviction record certification is congruent with administrative legality. From that aspect, it has been fully proven in the file that the plaintiff served a sentence of 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment for the Crime of Aggravated Possession of Cocaine for the Purposes of International Trafficking or Transportation to the detriment of Public Health (Salud Publica), a sentence imposed by the Trial Court of Alajuela, for acts occurring on July 13, 2001, File 01-201843, a cause for which he also served Pre-trial Detention from July 14, 2001, to November 12, 2001. This is derived from the certification dated June 19, 2012, from the National Institute of Criminology (Instituto Nacional de Criminología). In addition to this, the claimant himself provides information on this circumstance in his petition of July 2012. At the date of filing the petition and issuing the final decision of the procedure (January 9, 2013), the alluded criminal record was fully in effect, it being that under Article 11 of the Law on Judicial Records and Archives (Ley del Registro y Archivos Judiciales), No. 6723 of March 10, 1982, it is possible to consider a person's criminal record up to ten years after completing the sentence. From that perspective of analysis, the consideration of that circumstance in the decision regarding the petition under examination constitutes a legitimate exercise of administrative powers and the application of a condition expressly recognized by the legal system, which demonstrates that the plaintiff did not meet the due requirements to obtain the intended migratory status. Contrary to what the plaintiff claims, the final act denying his petition is not devoid of due justification (fundamentación) or reasoning. The analysis of that formal action reveals that in accordance with Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), which regulates the principle of reasoning (principio de motivación) of administrative acts, such manifestation of will expresses the factual and legal reasons on which it bases its decision. The act clearly sets forth the relevant fact of having served prison time for an intentional crime (delito doloso) within the prior ten-year period, which, in the end, is the basic motive determining the content of the act. Viewed thus, based on that conditioning fact, it sets forth the legal considerations upon which it arrives at the final decision. Therefore, no absence, insufficiency, or imperfection is evident in the formal element of the reasoning of resolution No. 135-368475-Administrativa.

**IX.-** In that order, a similar situation must be indicated regarding the other acts issued in the course of the proceeding. Both resolution 135-396894-Administrativa of 9:25 a.m. on July 23, 2013, which rejects the motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria), and resolution No. 478-2015-TAM of 10:00 a.m. on July 23, 2015, which refers to the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed, analyze the set of circumstances noted above, while also addressing all of the grievances that supported the ordinary administrative remedial measures. This last action provides the claimant with elements of justification to support the challenged rejection, insofar as it states that although the national legal system recognizes to foreigners the possibility (expectation) of petitioning for a migratory status or managing its renewal, based on the accreditation of a bond with a Costa Rican person, the right to reside in the country is not an absolute right, since Law No. 8764 itself establishes that if the person engages in criminal conduct, the migratory authorities must deny their regular stay in the country. Along these lines, that decision of the administrative improper hierarch states *“**IV.- On the merits.** ... Migration legislation, as indicated by the challenged resolution, and specifically in Article 70, expressly indicates that legal stay shall not be authorized for a foreign person who has served a sentence for an intentional crime (delito doloso) in the last ten years. Applied to the specific case, given that the applicant completed a sentence of five years and four months, in the year two thousand five, his situation falls within the assumptions of this article, it is for that reason that it is the consideration of this Tribunal that the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) is correct in denying the petition of the appealing party...”* Furthermore, regarding the claim formulated in the July 2012 petition to avail himself of Transitory Provision II of the Aliens Regulation (Reglamento de Extranjería), Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 37112-G, that authority indicates that although it consists of a norm that allows fathers or mothers of Costa Rican minors to regularize their migratory status in the country, this is only by dispensing with the requirement of regular entry or a valid visa, emphasizing that said norm did not enable the waiver of the other requirements not provided by the petitioner. Indeed, the regulation invoked by the applicant in his proceeding, as indicated by the Administrative Migratory Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio), allows for dispensing solely with the requirement of regular entry and stay, but does not constitute a norm that empowers or makes possible the non-application of the condition provided in Article 70 of Law No. 8764, which has provided the basis for the rejection under dispute. On the other hand, the act issued at the appellate level indicates to the appellant the reasons why the family reunification precedents he cites in his favor are not applicable to him, given that it has been reliably proven that he committed an illicit act and served prison time within the 10 years prior to the decision of the matter. Again, that condition, having been proven in the case file, is a determining element that demonstrates the legality of the decision. The existence of that record, in force at the time of resolving the application, fully supports what was established in that administrative venue, without the proof of the existence of a family bond through marriage and paternity with Costa Ricans allowing a waiver of those requirements so often referred to. In that order, among many, judgment number 2010-16512 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) can be seen. Furthermore, this collegiate body shares the State's argument that the petitioner did not manage to prove the subjective conditions that would lead to a favorable outcome for his migratory request, for the reasons stated. In the same manner, even if it were understood that the former Law No. 7033 is the one that should have been applied to resolve his petition, it is worth highlighting that that regime also does not permit the granting of a permanent residence regime to a foreigner who has a criminal record. Specifically, Article 58 subsection c) of the Regulation to the General Law of Migration and Aliens (Reglamento a la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería), Decree No. 19010 of May 11, 1989, which regulated Law No. 7033, indicated as a requirement to obtain permanent residence status in the country, the submission (among other documents) of a criminal record certification. It is worth noting that this norm was issued as a result of what was prescribed by Article 38 of the Law, which established that: *“The procedure, requisites, and conditions to enter the country, according to the categories and subcategories mentioned, as well as the period of stay, shall be established in the corresponding regulation.”* For its part, Article 60 subsection 10) of Law No. 7033 provided the power to deny migratory status to foreigners whose records make it presumed that national security, public order, or way of life will be compromised. Similar treatment was observed in Articles 54 and 63 of the former Migration Law No. 8487. In summary, even applying the norms postulated by the claimant, the circumstances indicated would lead to the same result that emerges from the challenged acts. It should be noted that if the claimant considers that as of today, the restriction imposed by Article 70 of Law No. 8764 does not apply to him, because the ten-year period of record validity derived from Article 11 of Law No. 6723 has already elapsed, as the State indicates in support of the defense of lack of current interest, he may well formulate a new petition; however, this does not incorporate a defect, neither original nor supervening, in the actions challenged. Thus, the claim must be rejected regarding the annulment allegations.

“VI.- Sobre la política migratoria del Estado costarricense. De pleno inicio, debe señalarse que la política migratoria es parte de la soberanía de una Nación e incluye la regulación del ingreso y permanencia, temporal o definitiva, de los extranjeros en su territorio, con la posibilidad de excepciones y limitaciones a sus derechos por vía legal. En nuestro caso, el ejercicio de esa potestad soberana deriva de los artículos 6 y 19 de la Constitución Política y de diversos instrumentos internacionales entre los que destacan la Convención sobre la Condición de los extranjeros ratificada por Costa Rica por Ley No. 40, de 20 de diciembre de 1932; la Declaración de Derechos Humanos de los Individuos que no son nacionales del país en que viven; el Convenio 149 de las Migraciones en Condiciones Abusivas y la Promoción de Igualdad de Trato de los Trabajadores Migrantes y el Protocolo contra el Tráfico Ilícito de los Migrantes por Tierra, Mar y Agua, con la posibilidad de excepciones y limitaciones a sus derechos por vía legal. Bajo esta tesitura, los extranjeros que pretendan ingresar a nuestro país deberán cumplir con los requisitos que al efecto exige el ordenamiento jurídico interno y someterse a las normas jurídicas de nuestro país que determinan la legalidad o no de su permanencia en el país y sus consecuencias. Asimismo, se trata del ejercicio de una potestad discrecional conforme al bloque de legalidad vigente y que compete exclusivamente al Poder Ejecutivo la potestad de decidir sobre la permanencia de un extranjero en el territorio nacional, cuando encuentre que es nociva, o compromete la tranquilidad o el orden público, o bien cuando circunstancias especiales así lo aconsejen. Cuenta para ello la Administración con una serie de medios jurídicos para hacer efectiva esa potestad y que se regulan entre otros, en la Ley de Migración, como lo son por ejemplo, los requisitos y condiciones para el otorgamiento de visas o residencias. Todos esos medios permiten ejercer el control sobre los residentes extranjeros y otorgan, en efecto, un amplio margen de discrecionalidad para ejecutar sus políticas migratorias. Pero el ejercicio de estas potestades, puramente legales, aún por muy discrecionales que fueran, no puede ser irrestricto o menos aún, desconocer los límites que el propio ordenamiento jurídico le impone, ni los principios elementales de justicia, lógica y conveniencia (artículos 15, 16 y 17 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), que forman parte del ordenamiento jurídico. Desde ese plano, la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 8764 del 19 de agosto del 2009, publicada en La Gaceta No. 170 del 01 de setiembre del 2009, establece, ese marco legal "... regula el control de las personas migrantes y se fomenta la integración de estas a la sociedad, con base en los principios de respeto a la vida humana, a la diversidad cultural y de las personas, a la solidaridad, la equidad de género, así como a los derechos humanos garantizados en la Constitución Política, los tratados y los convenios internacionales debidamente suscritos, ratificados y vigentes en el país." -artículo 3-. Asimismo, entre otras normas infralegales que complementan ese marco normativo, podemos citar también el Reglamento de Control Migratorio (RCM), Decreto Ejecutivo número 36769-G, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 184 del 26 de setiembre de 2011 y el Reglamento de Extranjería (RExt), Decreto Ejecutivo número 37112-GOB, publicado en el Alcance N° 64 al Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 95 del 17 de mayo de 2012. Valga decir que en éste último, concretamente en el artículo 355, se estableció expresamente que el primero de estos decretos corresponde al reglamento ejecutivo de la LGME: “Mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 36769-G, publicado en La Gaceta No. 184 del 26 de setiembre de 2011, se promulgó el Reglamento a la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, denominado Reglamento de Control Migratorio.” (Resaltado no es del original). Para los efectos, ese cuerpo normativo confiere la potestad a la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería para determinar las condiciones para el ingreso de personas no residentes al país, estando habilitada para establecer los criterios para la clasificación de visa restringida, visa consular e ingreso sin visa. Para este Tribunal, es claro que la política migratoria trata de una materia de gran relevancia nacional, siendo que forma parte sustancial del orden público y la seguridad nacional. Así en efecto se desprende del numeral 6 inciso 3 de la citada Ley No. 8764 en cuanto señala como finalidad de la regulación migratoria el debido control del ingreso, la permanencia y el egreso de personas extranjeras al país, en concordancia con las políticas de desarrollo nacional y seguridad pública. Esta incidencia social (en diversos ámbitos, pues incluye materia económica, salud, vivienda, orden público, seguridad, entre otros), impregna de un marcado interés público a esta temática. Es el caso del efecto de las migraciones en el ámbito de los niveles de ocupación en empleo doméstico, tema que a modo de simple referencia, aborda el ordinal 7 de la Ley de previa mención, en su inciso 1) en cuanto señala como orientación de la política migratoria: "La búsqueda de la complementariedad entre la mano de obra nacional y la migrante, en forma tal que no exista un desplazamiento de la mano de obra nacional por la incorporación de trabajadores inmigrantes.". Esto se pone en evidencia además, en las diversas causales que permiten el impedimento de ingreso al país, incluso a personas que ya poseen visa de ingreso, tema regulado en el ordinal 61 ibídem. Asimismo se denota ese marcado interés en el mandato 63 ejusdem que señala que por razones actuales de seguridad y salud públicas, debidamente fundamentadas, el Poder Ejecutivo podrá imponer restricciones de ingreso a determinada persona extranjera o grupo extranjero. En todo caso, la relevancia pública de la materia se expresa de manera diáfana en el canon 2 de la Ley No. 8764. El artículo 12 de la citada ley confiere a la Dirección General de Migración la autoridad para ejecutar la política migratoria, con una amplia gama de competencias, algunas de las cuales se enumeran en el artículo 13 de esa fuente legal. En el supuesto concreto de los refugiados, la LGME estipula que las regulaciones sobre ingreso, egreso y permanencia para las personas extranjeras que soliciten esa condición, se regirán conforme a la Constitución Política, los convenios ratificados y vigentes en Costa Rica, y la demás legislación vigente (artículo 41). Se entiende como refugiado o refugiada a la persona que: “1) Debido a fundados temores de ser perseguida por motivos de raza, religión, nacionalidad, género, pertenencia a determinado grupo u opiniones políticas, se encuentre fuera del país de su nacionalidad y no pueda o, por causa de dichos temores, no quiera acogerse a la protección de tal país”; o bien, “2) Al carecer de nacionalidad y por hallarse fuera del país donde antes tenía su residencia habitual, no pueda o, por causa de dichos temores, no quiera regresar a él” (artículo 106). La Comisión de Visas Restringidas y Refugio de la DGME es la instancia competente para resolver sobre la aprobación o denegatoria de la condición de refugio, mediante resolución debidamente fundamentada. En el segundo caso, contra la resolución correspondiente cabrá el recurso de revocatoria ante la misma Comisión y de apelación ante el TAM (artículo 118). La legislación de cita se ve complementada por el Reglamento de Personas Refugiadas (RPR), decreto ejecutivo Nº 36831 del 28 de setiembre del 2011.

VII.- Sobre el caso concreto. Sinopsis. En fecha 19 de Julio del año 2006, el actor gestionó ante la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, otorgamiento de cédula de residencia, alegando mantener vínculo matrimonial con ciudadana costarricense, julio del 2006, solicitud número 135-32465, la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería previno las siguientes exigencias de la petición presentada por el accionante: -certificación de antecedentes penales, - depósito ¢125 de solicitud y ¢2.50 por cada folio -especies fiscales-, -copia certificada cédula vínculo, -certificación de nacimiento y -certificación del vínculo. Por nota escrita a mano alzada de fecha 31 de agosto del 2006, el gestionante solicita se le conceda más plazo para aportar el certificado de nacimiento y certificado de antecedentes penales, haciendo referencia al trámite que debe realizar para traer esos documentos autenticados por la embajada de Costa Rica en Sudáfrica. Sin embargo, pese a dicho requerimiento, no es sino hasta el 09 de julio del 2012, que el gestionante presenta nueva petición de residencia, por vínculo matrimonial y paternidad con costarricenses. En ese trámite señaló: -que desde el 28 de febrero del 2006 contrajo matrimonio con ciudadana costarricense, habiendo procreado un hijo de nombre [Nombre 003], nacido el 15 de febrero del 2011, según consta en el Registro Civil, Sección de Nacimientos de la Provincia de San José, tomo 2109, página 162, asiento 23; -que al tener vínculo matrimonial consolidado y tener hijo costarricense, solicita se conceda cédula de residencia por vínculo con ciudadanos costarricenses, esposa e hijo. Aunado a lo anterior, señala que en fecha 18 de octubre del 2001 fue condenado a cinco años de cárcel por parte del Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, expediente número 0001-201843-0305-PE, pena que cumplió el 12 de noviembre del 2006. Expuso que le era materialmente imposible aportar certificado de nacimiento de su país de origen. En el expediente administrativo consta certificación de fecha 19 de junio del 2012 del Instituto Nacional de Criminología, en la que se indica que el accionante descontó sentencia de 5 años y 4 meses de Prisión por el Delito de Tenencia o Posesión Agravada de Cocaína con Fines de Tráfico o Transporte Internacional en daño de la Salud Publica, pena impuesta por el Tribunal de Juicio de Alajuela, hechos ocurridos el 13 de julio del 2001, Expediente 01-201843, causa por la cual, además, descontó Prisión Preventiva del 14 de julio del 2001 al 12 de noviembre del 2001. Como consecuencia de esto, por resolución No. 135-368475-Administrativa de las 12 horas 48 minutos del 09 de enero del 2013, del Subproceso de Valoración de la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería resolvió la gestión planteada por el accionante en fecha 09 de julio del 2012, rechazándola por improcedente. En lo fundamental expuso: "SEGUNDO: (...) De lo anteriormente trascrito se extrae claramente que un extranjero que haya sido condenado por las autoridades de su país o las autoridades nacionales, no está eximido de cumplir con todos los requisitos que se solicitan para gestionar el estatus pretendido, aunado a lo anterior en acatamiento del Principio de Legalidad consagrado en los artículos 11 Constitucional y 11 de la Ley General de ya Administración Pública, se encuentra imposibilitada para autorizar y/o renovar la cédula de residencia en nuestro país a aquellos extranjeros que posean delito como los que tiene el recurrente, por lo cual no puede concedérsele el estatus pretendido por el solicitante. TERCERO: Que de la normativa analizada podemos confirmar que esta Dirección General del Migración y Extranjería, actúa amparada a las funciones que por Ley le han sido conferidas y que se procede conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, con fundamento en los artículos 13 incisos 2) y 36), 129 inciso 9) y 193 de la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería número 8764, así como la jurisprudencia Constitucional, por lo tanto, es criterio de esta Dirección General, RECHAZAR POR IMPROCEDENTE, LA SOLICITUD DE RESIDENCIA, a [Nombre 004]. (...)". De igual manera, estableció que una vez firme dicho acto, se le conminaba a hacer abandono del territorio nacional en el plazo perentorio de 3 días hábiles. Contra esta decisión el actor formuló recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, acusando falta de motivación respecto de las razones por las que se le considera una amenaza en materia de seguridad y orden público. Reprocha que se resolviera su petición con la Ley No. 8764, ya que la petición se formuló cuando estaba vigente la Ley No. 7033, por lo que se le debe aplicar la ley más beneficiosa. Señala además que tiene vínculo matrimonial con costarricense, habiendo procreado dos hijos, por lo que al margen de haber sido condenado, eso no afecta la solicitud, siendo una circunstancia no analizada. Como tercer motivo del recurso señala que debe prevalecer el interés de sus hijos menores. Mediante la resolución No. 135-396894-Administrativa, de las 09 horas 25 minutos del 23 de julio del 2013, la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería dispuso el rechazo de la revocatoria formulada. Por resolución No. 478-2015-TAM de las 10 horas del 23 de julio del 2015, el Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio dispuso el rechazo del recurso de apelación.

VIII.- Sobre el análisis de validez de los actos cuestionados. Un primer aspecto sobre el fondo que resulta de fundamental aclaración, es la delimitación del orden jurídica a aplicar en este proceso. Lo anterior por cuanto el accionante reprocha que la gestión fue atendida y resuelta con normas jurídicas que no estaban vigentes al momento de presentar su petición y que le son aplicadas de manera retroactiva en su detrimento. Como fue señalado en el aparte previo, en fecha 19 de Julio del año 2006, el actor gestionó ante la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, otorgamiento de cédula de residencia, alegando mantener vínculo matrimonial con ciudadana costarricense, sin embargo, la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería le previno algunos requisitos. Pese a que mediante nota del 31 de agosto del 2006, peticiona ampliación de plazo para aportar esas exigencias formales (arriba detalladas), no consta en el expediente administrativo acción adicional de parte suya activando el procedimiento. Es hasta el 09 de julio del 2012, que el gestionante presenta una nueva petición de residencia, por vínculo matrimonial y paternidad con costarricenses, en la que expone los datos de su matrimonio y su relación paternal con el menor [Nombre 003], nacido el 15 de febrero del 2011. De igual manera, informó a la Administración Migratoria sobre sus registros de condenas penales, en concreto, de la impuesta en el expediente número 0001-201843-0305-PE, llevado ante el Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, pena que cumplió el 12 de noviembre del 2006. Es en el conocimiento y decisión de esta gestión del año 2012, y no la del año 2006 , que la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, Sub Proceso de Valoración, emite la resolución 135-368475-Administrativa de las 12 horas 48 minutos del 09 de enero del 2013. Este aspecto adquiere aún mayor claridad si se analiza el contenido de ese acto en cuanto hace detalle a esa nueva petición. En efecto, si se mira el resultando segundo de ese acto se indica: "SEGUNDO: Que en fecha 09-07-2012 el señor [Nombre 004] presentó nueva gestión de residencia por ser padre de costarricense.". De ese modo, al momento en que el accionante formula su nueva petición, se insiste, la que fue analizada en la conducta denegatoria, la norma vigente era la Ley No. 8764 del 01 de marzo del 2010. Ergo, si bien al momento de la primer gestión, formulada en el mes de julio del 2006, la norma vigente era la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, No. 7033, esa legislación ya había sido derogada al instante en que se presentó nuevamente la petición en julio del 2012, dado que la Ley No. 8764 ingresó en vigencia el 19 de agosto del 2009. Desde ese plano, la petición en concreto debía ser analizada con arreglo a esa última referencia y no con la Ley No. 7033. En consecuencia, no existe una aplicación retroactiva de la normativa aludida, en detrimento del ordinal 34 de la Carta Magna, como se acusa. Como derivación de lo anterior, cabe señalar que de conformidad con el contenido de ese régimen legal aplicable, sea, la Ley No. 8764, es competencia de la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, analizar y verificar el comportamiento de los extranjeros que pretendan acceder a una condición migratoria en Costa Rica. De esa manera, la potestad migratoria permite y habilita el establecimiento de medidas de regulación de ingreso a los extranjeros, así como de su permanencia. Estas condiciones son aplicables aún en los casos en que la petición migratoria se sustente en la existencia de un vínculo familiar del petente, siendo que esa sola condición no lleva a una desaplicación individual de las condiciones de comportamiento señaladas. En ese sentido, los ordinales 2, 3, 5, 6 y 13 de la Ley No. 8764, ponen de manifiesto esta potestad aludida. En lo que viene relevante al presente asunto, el artículo 70 de la citada Ley No. 8764 establece con toda claridad: " No se autorizará la permanencia legal, a la persona extranjera que haya cumplido condena por delito doloso en los últimos diez años, en Costa Rica o en el extranjero, siempre y cuando el ilícito sea reconocido como tal en nuestra legislación, sin perjuicio de la autorización de permanencia provisional establecida en el artículo 72 de la presente Ley." A partir de dicho contenido normativo se desprende de manera diáfana que el requerimiento de antecedentes penales al gestionante, no es, ni por asomo, una conducta arbitraria o desproporcionada, pues aún en los casos de petición por vínculo familiar, ello no es óbice para acreditar dicha exigencia. Se trata de una condición que ha de ser analizada por la Administración Migratoria y que habilita, a no dudarlo, la negación del estatus migratorio pretendido, cuando se haya establecido en el respectivo expediente administrativo, que el gestionante haya cumplido condena por delito doloso en los diez años previos a la petición. A diferencia de lo que señala el accionante, no se observa una inercia de la Administración en la atención de su trámite del año 2006, siendo que pese haber sido prevenido del aporte de varios requisitos, dejó en abandono esa solicitud, formulando una nueva en julio del 2012 como se ha señalado. Por ende, la exigencia de aportar la certificación de registro de condenas penales resulta congruente con la legalidad administrativa. A partir de ese aspecto, se ha tenido por plenamente comprobado en el expediente, que el demandante descontó sentencia de 5 años y 4 meses de Prisión por el Delito de Tenencia o Posesión Agravada de Cocaína con Fines de Tráfico o Transporte Internacional en daño de la Salud Publica, pena impuesta por el Tribunal de Juicio de Alajuela, hechos ocurridos el 13 de julio del 2001, Expediente 01-201843, causa por la cual, además, descontó Prisión Preventiva del 14 de julio del 2001 al 12 de noviembre del 2001. Así se desprende de la certificación de fecha 19 de junio del 2012 del Instituto Nacional de Criminología. Aunado a ello, el mismo accionante informa sobre esa circunstancia en su petición de julio del 2012. A la fecha de presentar la gestión y de la emisión de la decisión final del procedimiento (09 de enero del 2013), el registro penal aludido se encontraba plenamente vigente, siendo que al tenor del canon 11 de la Ley del Registro y Archivos Judiciales, No. 6723 del 10 de marzo de 1982, es posible considerar los antecedentes penales de una persona hasta diez años después de cumplida la pena. Desde esa óptica de análisis, la consideración de esa circunstancia en la decisión de la gestión bajo examen, constituye un ejercicio legítimo de las potestades administrativas y la aplicación de una condición expresamente reconocida por el ordenamiento jurídico, que pone en evidencia que el actor no cumplía con los requisitos debidos para obtener la condición migratoria pretendida. Contrario a lo que la debida fundamentación o motivación. Del análisis de esa conducta formal se pone de manifiesto que acorde con el numeral 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que regula el principio de motivación de los actos administrativos, tal manifestación de voluntad expresa las razones de hecho y de derecho sobre las cuales sustenta su decisión. El acto expone con claridad el dato relevante de haber descontado prisión por delito dolosoen el plazo previo de diez años, lo que a la postre, es el motivo básico que determina el contenido del acto. Así visto, a partir de ese hecho condicionante, expone las consideraciones jurídicas con fundamento en las cuales, llega a la decisión final. No se evidencia por ende ausencia, insuficiencia o imperfección en el elemento formal de la motivación de la resolución No. 135-368475-Administrativa.

IX.- En ese orden, debe indicarse situación similar en cuanto a los demás actos dictados en el curso del trámite. Tanto la resolución 135-396894-Administrativa de las 09 horas 25 minutos del 23 de julio del 2013 que rechaza el recurso de revocatoria, como la resolución No. 478-2015-TAM de las 10 horas del 23 de julio del 2015 que se refiere al recurso de apelación planteado, analizan el conjunto de circunstancias arriba apuntadas, a la vez que se manifiestan sobre la totalidad de agravios que sustentaron las medidas recursivas ordinarias administrativas. Esa última actuación, aporta al accionante elementos de justificación para respaldar el rechazo cuestionado, en el tanto expone que si bien el Ordenamiento Jurídico nacional reconoce a los extranjeros la posibilidad (expectativa) de peticionar una condición migratoria o gestionar su renovación, a partir de la acreditación de un vínculo con una persona costarricense, el derecho de residir en el país, no resulta ser un derecho absoluto, ya que la misma Ley No. 8764 establece que si la persona despliega una conducta delictiva, las autoridades migratorias deben denegar su permanencia regular en el país. En esa línea, esa decisión del jerarca impropio administrativo expone "IV.- Sobre el fondo. ...La legislación migratoria, tal y como lo señala la resolución recurrida, y específicamente en el artículo 70, indica que haya cumplido condena por delito doloso en los últimos diez años, Aplicado al caso concreto, siendo que el solicitante cumplió una condena de cinco años y cuatro meses, en el año dos mil cinco, su situación se encuentra dentro de los supuestos de este artículo, es por ata razón, que es consideración de este Tribunal, que lleva razón la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería cuando deniega la solicitud de la parte recurrente...". Además, en cuanto a la pretensión formulada en la gestión de julio del 2012 sobre acogerse al transitorio II del Reglamento de Extranjería, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 37112-G, esa autoridad indica que si bien consiste en una norma que permite a los padres o madres de personas menores de edad costarricenses, regularizar su condición migratoria en el país, ello lo es únicamente prescindiendo del requisito de ingreso regular o visa vigente, haciendo énfasis en que esa norma no habilitaba la dispensa de los demás requisitos no aportados por el petente. En efecto, la normativa invocada por el gestionante en su trámite, tal y como lo indica el Tribunal Administrativo Migratorio, permite prescindir únicamente del requisito de ingreso y permanencia regular, mas no constituye una norma que faculte o posibilite la desaplicación de la condición prevista en el canon 70 de la Ley No. 8764 que ha dado sustento al rechazo objeto de controversia. Por otro lado, el acto dictado en sede apelativa indica al recurrente las razones por las cuales los precedentes de reunificación familiar que cita en su favor, no le resultan aplicables, al haberse acreditado fehacientemente que al haber incurrido en un ilícito y haber descontado prisión dentro de los 10 años previos a la decisión del asunto. De nuevo, esa condición al tenerse por probada en autos, es elemento determinante que pone en evidencia la legalidad de lo resuelto. La existencia de ese registro, vigente al momento de resolver la solicitud, respalda plenamente lo establecido en esa sede administrativa, sin que la acreditación de existencia de un vínculo familiar por matrimonio y paternidad con costarricenses, permita una dispensa de esa exigencias tantas veces referida. En ese orden pueden verse entre muchas la sentencia número 2010-16512 de la Sala Constitucional. Por demás, comparte este cuerpo colegiado el argumento del Estado en cuanto a que el petente no logró acreditar las condiciones subjetivas que dieran paso a obtener un resultado favorable de su pedimento migratorio, por las razones dichas. De igual manera, aún de entender que la anterior Ley No. 7033 es la que debió haber sido aplicada para resolver su gestión, cabe destacar que ese régimen tampoco permite el otorgamiento de un régimen de residencia permanente a un extranjero que cuente con antecedentes penales. En concreto, el numeral 58 inciso c) del Reglamento a la Ley General de MIgración y Extranjería, Decreto No. 19010 del 11 de mayo de 1989, que reglamentaba la Ley No. 7033, señalaba como requisito para obtener el estatus de residencia permanente en el país, aportar (entre otros documentos) certificación de antecedentes penales. Cabe destacar que sea norma se emitió como resultado de lo preceptuado por el ordinal 38 de la Ley que establecía que: "El procedimiento, requisitos y condiciones para ingresar al país, según las categorías y su categorías mencionadas, así como el plazo de permanencia, serán fijados en el correspondiente reglamento." Por su parte, el canon 60 inciso 10) de la Ley No. 7033 disponía la facultad de denegatoria de condición migratoria a los extranjeros cuyos antecedentes hagan presumir que la seguridad nacional, el orden público o el estilo de vida se verán comprometidos. Tratamiento similar se observaba en los cánones 54 y 63 de la anterior Ley de Migración No. 8487. En suma, aún aplicando las normas que postula el reclamante, las circunstancias apuntadas llevarían al mismo resultado que se desprende de los actos cuestionados. Cabe señalar que si el accionante considera que a la fecha no le aplica la restricción que impone el numeral 70 de la Ley No. 8764, por haber transcurrido ya el plazo decenal de vigencia de registro que deriva del canon 11 de la Ley No. 6723, tal y como lo indica el Estado en el sustento de la defensa de falta de interés actual, bien puede formular una nueva petición, empero, ello no incorpora un vicio ni originario ni sobrevenido en las conductas cuestionadas. Así las cosas, la demanda debe ser rechazada en cuanto a las alegaciones de orden anulatorio.”