Key legal question
Whether the appeal met the Federal Supreme Court's formal reasoning requirements after a cantonal non-entry decision.
Extracted holding
No. The appellant did not specifically address either of the two independent grounds supporting the cantonal non-entry decision, so the appeal lacked sufficient reasoning.
Extracted reasoning
Under Art. 42(1)-(2) BGG, an appeal must state requests and reasons in concise form. When challenging a non-entry decision, the appellant must engage specifically with the non-entry grounds. That was not done here.