4. At the final-instance level, the subject matter of the dispute is whether the lower instance rightly confirmed the revocation of the appellant’s settlement permit. 4.1. The lower instance based its decision on the ground for revocation pursuant to Art. 63 para. 1 let. c FNIA (dependence on social assistance). In view of the social assistance benefits received (cf. let. A.c above; see also judgments 2C_263/2025 of 20 January 2026 consid. 5.2.2; 2C_422/2025 of 3 December 2025 consid. 5.4.1; each with references), the appellant rightly does not dispute the existence of this ground for revocation. 4.2. Where the ground for revocation of dependence on social assistance exists, it must further be examined whether the resulting measure terminating residence appears proportionate ( Art. 5 para. 2 FC , Art. 96 FNIA ). A comprehensive balancing of interests is required between the public interest in the measure terminating residence, established in positive law in Art. 63 para. 1 let. c FNIA, and the private interest of the foreign national in remaining in Switzerland. 5.3.4. In light of the foregoing, on an overall assessment, the weighty public interest in the measure terminating residence outweighs the appellant’s private or family interest in remaining in Switzerland. The measure terminating residence is consequently proportionate, leaving, in principle, no room for a warning under Art. 96 para. 2 FNIA. [...] 5.4 The contested judgment complies with federal and international law. [...] 6.1. In conclusion, the appeal is unfounded and must therefore be dismissed. [...] The Federal Supreme Court therefore rules: 1. The appeal is dismissed.