Skip to Content

Support for decision-makers seeks correct, uniform and productive decision-making of a high standard

Migri
Publication date 4.5.2017 15.07
Press release

On 3 May 2017, Long Play published an article titled “The Finnish Immigration Service’s model documents direct people to make negative decisions.” At the Finnish Immigration Service, we value active public debate about our activities and are glad to share factual information as a basis for such debate. However, this article has described our agency in a manner that is extremely unfamiliar to those working here. The text describes our agency’s working methods and the support given for our work. This support does indeed exist, but its use and purpose have been misunderstood.

Personnel wellbeing and supervisory work are under enhanced monitoring using a variety of evaluations and analyses. The results of analyses performed in 2015–2017 do not support the experiences of asylum-related decision-making that were described in the article.

It is an outrageous idea that our employees would knowingly do their work badly, and sign their names to it. Officials have responsibility for the legality of their actions, so knowingly breaking the law by purposely making incorrect decisions is out of the question. The agency would never issue such directions either.

Our agency’s work has naturally required streamlining and development in these truly exceptional circumstances, as about 890 per cent more asylum seekers arrived in Finland in 2015 than in 2014. The agency has grown, working methods have changed and our organisation has been restructured, and some of our personnel have found these changes difficult. Our work at the agency has also been the subject of enormous and continual public interest.

It is in the best interests of both the agency and our customers if applicants do not have to wait years for a decision. The agency is already being criticised for the length of time taken to make decisions. This is why we have boosted the efficiency of our decision-making and hired new personnel.

Example decisions – both positive and negative – have been drawn up to support our work

The article published by Long Play mentions one of our tools: example decisions. The example decisions in Long Play’s possession are part of the agency’s internal training material. Using them without the requisite support and training can lead to incorrect decisions, which is in no one’s best interests.

The article states that the agency does not have any examples of positive decisions, which therefore steers people towards making negative decisions. This is not true, and this claim has not been checked with the agency.

The agency also has examples of positive decisions. In fact, the first new-style example decisions we drew up were positive ones. All decisions that involve evaluating the internal flight alternative also include a template for a positive decision.

Example decisions are not policies dictating who is to be granted international protection. Example decisions are just that, examples. They are not intended to be used or copied as they are, and this is also stated in the associated guidelines, comments and personnel training events.

Example decisions have been requested as educational and work support tools by decision-makers such as senior officers and unit directors. They have been introduced wherever we have identified a need for support and standardised policy.

Comparable tools are used in other European countries, and have also been used in Finland prior to 2015. As in any other expert tasks in any organisation, we have guidelines, templates and standardised formats to aid us in our work. They seek correct, uniform and productive decision-making of a high standard.

Example decisions and model documents are standard practice

Example decisions are used to ensure quality assurance and uniform decision-making in similar cases. Without example decisions, decisions in similar cases could have varied from each other – and even endangered an applicant’s legal protection.

As Long Play’s article states, it would be a waste of time to rewrite the basic structure and every legal reference from scratch each time. The agency made a total of just over 28,000 decisions in 2016.

Asylum seekers often gave similar reasons for applying for asylum. For example, stating that you are an alcohol retailer will not automatically result in asylum. The agency must establish whether the applicant would be under threat in their home country. During their interview, the applicant’s grounds for seeking asylum will be individually evaluated on the basis of the information they have provided, even if example decisions are used as an aid. If the example decision does not apply to the applicant’s case, the example decision will not be used.

Example decisions are not to be used as they are – and this is emphasised in all agency training. They are intended to be used primarily as aids when considering the phrasing of an applicant’s grounds for seeking asylum.

Example decisions have room for a lot of individual details, which ensures that each case is assessed individually. For example, the country info paragraphs cited by Long Play. This is to ensure they cannot be copied directly from previous decisions, and guarantees that decisions use the most up-to-date information about the country in question, which may change rapidly.

The need for example decisions was also highlighted in Long Play’s article, which questioned the use of example decisions whilst simultaneously berating the lack of models for assessing the best interests of a child.

Children’s best interests are always considered in decisions involving children

‘A child’s best interests’ is a legal principle that the Finnish Immigration Service always takes into consideration whenever a decision involving a child is made. The agency has separate guidelines for this, and regular training on the topic is also arranged. Children are more vulnerable asylum seekers than adults, and this is taken into account in decision-making.

Every case is unique and decisions consider the child’s overall situation: their personal background, situation and needs alongside other factors. However, if the family has been in Finland for a short while and the parents do not have grounds for international protection, the default decision is that the child’s interests are best served by being with their parents in their home country. That is, if the child does not have their own separate grounds for international protection. This is also the Administrative Court’s policy.

The majority of unaccompanied minors are granted permission to remain in Finland, and a broader assessment of their best interests is made than of children arriving with their parents.

It is true that there is always room for development in evaluating the best interests of a child, and we have paid attention to this by arranging additional training. Just because earlier decisions have not written about this in detail does not mean that children’s interests have not been evaluated or that the decision is incorrect.

Finland has ratified the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Geneva Refugee Convention, and the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that the principles of these agreements have been included in Finnish law and this legislation is applied accordingly.

Monitoring results is a normal part of daily work

The unnamed employees interviewed by Long Play state that some of the agency’s team leaders have sought a large number of negative decisions and that the number of decisions made is publicly tallied on flip charts.

Such tally charts have been in use at the agency for years, and all the decisions made by each team are recorded on them. However, there are no indicators as to whether the decisions were positive or negative. This is simply a daily monitoring tool with zero intent to pressure people. Results are recorded for the team as a whole, not for individual team members.

We meet every asylum seeker personally for an interview, and we fully understand that our decisions are significant to them and no applicant is simply a tally mark in a results table.

Long Play also states that employees like to handle the applications of families with children, as this will quickly get them several marks in the tally chart. The applications of families with children are prioritised whenever possible, because living in the uncertain situation associated with the asylum process for a protracted length of time is not in the best interests of families with children. It is not done to boost scores.

Monitoring the number of decisions made is part of work management, and Finland’s Administrative Procedure Act requires all agencies to be productive. Quantitative targets have been set for our agency, and individual targets have been derived for every unit, team and employee. These performance targets do not in any way define the number of positive or negative decisions that must be made.

Personnel have also requested us to continually evaluate supervisory work, so that our targets are monitored and made clearer to everyone, just as in any other line of work. Displaying our results is also seen in a positive light, as it is a visible indicator of what we have accomplished.

We monitor both quantitative and qualitative results. Quality is monitored in accordance with the performance agreement between the Ministry of the Interior and the Finnish Immigration Service in a number of ways: through decisions returned to the agency by the Administrative Court, supervisory work, and the agency’s internal legal control.

Officials are not pressured to make negative decisions

All of our guidelines emphasise that our agency has a duty to identify grounds for international protection.

The agency’s management has sought to make it clear that, as an independent agency, we make our own decisions and that our decisions must comply with legislation and human rights conventions. For instance, the agency does not have percentage targets for accepted and rejected applications, even though Finland’s acceptance rate is monitored in relation to other European countries.

The only guidelines that the government has given on asylum policy can be read in the Government Action Plan on Asylum Policy, which was published in December 2015. Although Parliament steers decision-making via the laws it passes, the agency makes its decisions in accordance with the Aliens Act.

The agency’s activities are also steered by Administrative Court practices. The courts have approved the agency’s practice concerning key policies, and appeals are currently being handled to clarify certain issues relating to legal practice.

Every employee has the opportunity to ask for legal assistance

Long Play’s article states that legal support for employees is non-existent. It is very unfortunate that some employees have been left with this feeling. Every employee has a line manager and team with whom they can go through any details of their work. None of the senior officials working at the agency is alone when making decisions.

The forms of support cited by Long Play’s article, such as example decisions, are part of this legal support.

In addition to asking other members of their own team, all those who make asylum decisions have both the opportunity and obligation to request legal support from outside their team. Every day, people request assistance from the Asylum Unit’s legal and support services, and also from the Legal Service and Country Information Unit’s legal support services.

Decision-makers in the Asylum Unit also receive training at least twice a month on topical issues in asylum law.

Has the financial burden of positive decisions been emphasised?

Long Play’s article highlights a certain training session that mentioned the financial impact that granting residence permits will have on Finland. This statement has stuck in many people’s minds after the training, which also emphasised that asylum decisions are not to be made on financial grounds.

The intention was to inform our new employees that our work is funded by taxpayers’ money and has significance for the Finnish State. Our task is to identify whether or not an applicant has grounds for international protection, and our resolutions also have a broader-ranging impact on society, as it is desired that those who remain in Finland will be integrated properly.

However, the most important thing for our agency is to provide international protection to those who have grounds for it.

Has the Finnish Immigration Service banned employees from using the country info provided by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)?

We have never given any such instructions. On the contrary: A number of our decisions and legal guidelines refer to the UNHCR’s guidelines.

Long Play’s article highlights the use of UNHCR guidelines in asylum decisions for applicants from Mosul, where internal flight to Baghdad was considered as a viable alternative. The policy announced by the Administrative Court in November 2016 was that Sunni Arabs from Mosul could not flee internally to Baghdad and returned the case to the Finnish Immigration Service. In this case, the UNHCR’s country information could not be used, as we only received the UNHCR’s guidelines on 23 November 2016. The UNHCR’s guidelines were also introduced at our agency a week after they were received.

Errors have been reported in decision-making – why have they occurred?

The Asylum Unit has recruited almost 500 officials since summer 2015. More new officials also started work in February and May 2016.

An asylum assessor’s work is extremely challenging, and there is no educational establishment that offers the special training required for performing assessments, resolving cases, and the many other tasks involved. The only way to learn is by doing this work.

The induction period for new employees is two weeks, after which training and learning continue on the job. This includes the training, self-study materials and contact instruction provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), plus other training to support professional development that is held every two weeks.

The Finnish Immigration Service was facing a challenging task, as a number of things coincided with the induction period: new legislative amendments came into force, the efficiency of the asylum process was enhanced, and country information was updated. In addition, there was no Finnish legal practice in place for all of the situations we encountered, which meant that we had to find out how other Nordic countries had interpreted the regulations governing Finland.

Our goal is to always make the correct decisions. Our agency’s decisions are made by people, and wherever people work, in an agency as in any other workplace, there is always the potential for human error. This is why it is possible to appeal against a decision, and the Administrative Courts and Supreme Administrative Court monitor the legality of decisions.

In both Finland and other countries, appeals against the majority of asylum decisions are typical. The Administrative Courts are currently handling appeals against decisions made in 2016. So far this year, the Administrative Court has issued verdicts on a total of approx. 1,700 appeals. The majority were rejected (71 per cent).

When decisions were overturned, it was mainly because the applicant presented a new statement about their situation during the appeal phase or had new grounds for their application, or the security situation in the applicant’s home country has changed in the period between the decisions made by the Finnish Immigration Service and the Administrative Court.

It is usual for the applicant to present new information during the appeal phase. Quite a lot of applicants claim that they have converted to Christianity since receiving a negative decision. This new ground, which was first presented during the appeal phase, was not known when the Finnish Immigration Service made its decision. It is normal for people’s situations to change, and there will then be justification to re-examine the case.

In 2016, there were errors in the asylum process or legal interpretations in about 3.6 per cent of decisions that were appealed against. This is 183 decisions out of a total of about 28,200.

What has the agency done to prevent mistakes?

The ultimate purpose of the asylum process is to assess, on the basis of what the applicant has told the agency, whether that person is in danger of their life or serious violation of their human rights in their home country. This is the Finnish Immigration Service’s goal in asylum cases.

We ensure the legal security of our decisions by analysing legal cases, advising units, and providing continual training. Quality assurance and internal control is also being developed with the aid of EU-funded projects. As in all other government agencies, the Finnish Immigration Service implements continual legality control on decisions and assessments, and immediately intervenes in any deficiencies that are detected.

The Asylum Unit and agency personnel in general are being placed under unprecedented pressure from both pro- and anti-immigration groups. This does not, however, have any impact on our decision-making, which always complies with current legislation.

We have supported our personnel’s ability to cope with work guidance and additional supervisor and team support. Both our experienced and new personnel have performed their duties to a very high standard despite being under immense pressure. This exceptional situation has challenged us to further develop our professional skills, and we have risen to this challenge.

Although we do not publicly share all of our work-related material, our experts are – as they always have been – available to the media to check facts and provide more information before articles are published.

Additional information for the media:

Asylum Unit Director Esko Repo, tel. +358 (0)295 430 431

Press release