All Afghanistan is not at war and returns to the country can be made

Decisions for asylum seekers from Afghanistan have raised questions on how the Finnish Immigration Service can make negative decisions to persons who come from a country involved in armed conflicts.

The basis of all asylum decisions made by the Finnish Immigration Service is unconditional non-refoulement. According to non-refoulement, no one can be sent to a country where he or she faces a risk of being subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment.

It is good to remember that the meaning of granting international protection in accordance with the Aliens Act is not to guarantee everybody a similar life than people have in Finland but to give protection to persons who face the risk of personal persecution in their home country. In many countries, such as Afghanistan, the problems also include the lack of prospects for young people, poverty and financial problems but these are not grounds for international protection.

How can asylum seekers from Afghanistan receive a negative decision?

Asylum applications are not decided on the grounds of whether Afghanistan is generally considered an unsafe country or whether it is considered a safe travel destination for foreign nationals. The grounds of each asylum seeker are investigated individually.

In Afghanistan, the whole country is not at war and the overall situation in the country is not grounds for granting international protection. Persons facing the risk of persecution are granted asylum and subsidiary protection if the persons face the risk of being subjected to serious harm.

The situation in certain areas is such that no one is returned to these areas:

• The conflicts between the Taliban and the government are concentrated to the southern and eastern parts of the country. Afghanistan has 34 provinces and there are continuous, violent conflicts in the Helmand province and the nearby areas, so no one is returned there.
• ISIS is present in the eastern parts of Afghanistan. The government and international troops have performed extensive operations in the southern parts of the Nangarhar province to drive ISIS from the area. The government’s troops have carried out air strikes in this area and ISIS has carried out attacks on the civilian population. Because of these conflicts no one is returned to the southern parts if Nangarhar.

The conflicts in the areas in question do not, however, affect the majority of the population in Afghanistan in such a way that they could be granted international protection. For example, in the largest cities in Afghanistan there is no war. The five million inhabitants in Kabul, 500,000 inhabitants in Herat and 400,000 inhabitants in Mazar-i-Sharif live their everyday life.

Random terror attacks occur in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. Kabul is a metropolis and the likelihood of becoming a victim of a terror attack is small for civilians. The risk of becoming a victim of such occasional violence is not grounds for granting international protection.

Even if the person came from the previously mentioned conflict areas, he or she would not necessarily receive protection in Finland if it is possible for him or her to settle down in another area, for example, in the capital city. This can usually be expected from a healthy adult male.

In Finland, courts of law supervise the decisions made by the authorities

Finland is a constitutional state, which means that applications are decided based on the law, and a person can appeal a decision made by the authorities to a court of law.

The Administrative Court decides on all asylum appeals independently and always examines all preconditions for granting international protection or a residence permit.

If the situation of the asylum seeker or the situation in his or her home country changes during the appeal phase, the Administrative Court reviews the matter according to the current, that is, the changed situation when making its decision.

The Finnish Immigration Service does not alone determine the decision-making practice. In the majority of the cases, the Administrative Courts have confirmed the decisions made by the agency.

It is normal that some of the decisions are returned to the agency. The reason can, for example, be a new guideline or a changed situation in the asylum seeker’s life or his or her home country. In March of this year, four per cent of our decisions were revoked by the Administrative Court because of a procedural fault.

In Finland, the police is responsible for returning people to their home country

An asylum seeker can only be returned to his or her home country when the Finnish Immigration Service has investigated the need for protection and the Administrative Court has confirmed the decision after a possible appeal.

After the decision by the Administrative Court, the asylum seeker can apply for a prohibition of enforcement of the decision on refusal of entry. If the Supreme Administrative Court does not prohibit the return, according to law, the asylum seeker can be returned to his or her home country.

In Finland, the police are responsible for carrying out refusals of entry.

The asylum seeker has the right to apply for asylum again after he or she has received the decision on his or her previous application. If the application is submitted a short time after the previous decision and it does not present any new grounds for international protection, the application can be decided without a new asylum interview.

Then he or she will receive the decision quickly and the asylum seeker can be refused entry immediately after the service of the decision.

Further information for the media:

Hanna Helinko, Director of Legal Service and Country Information Unit, tel. +358 295 430 431, firstname.lastname@migri.fi

More information:

• If you read an asylum decision you should read all of it
• What is international protection about