Public discussion about the case of a man returned to Afghanistan

There is concerned public discussion about the return of an Afghan man to his home country on 4 July. The Administrative Court ordered a suspension of the enforcement of his removal from Finland on 4 July after the applicant had already been returned to his home country.

The information presented in public discussion, such as in social media, does not always provide a full picture of a case. The Finnish Immigration Service is not at liberty to comment on the details of an individual case, but here we will shed light on the circumstances in which an asylum seeker can in general be returned according to the law.

The Finnish Immigration Service has assessed that the person in question is not in danger in his home country, and he has not been returned in contravention of the suspension of enforcement. At this stage, the Finnish Immigration Service does not have any such information that would indicate that the person returned to Afghanistan should be brought back to Finland.

According to the law, an asylum seeker can be returned if

• the first asylum decision has been negative and the Administrative Court and, if applicable, the Supreme Administrative Court have confirmed this decision
• the enforcement of removal has not been suspended.

In such cases, it has been noted that the asylum seeker is not in danger of death or persecution on their return to their home country. The asylum seeker must thus return to their home country, as there are no grounds for the granting of a residence permit.

Asylum seekers often submit a new application after receiving a negative decision on their first application. If new grounds for international protection are not presented in the new application, it is treated as a reapplication. In such cases, a negative decision on the first asylum application, confirmed in the appeal, remains in force, and the applicant can be returned to their home country immediately once the Finnish Immigration Service has made its decision.

The police may start to rapidly prepare the removal of the failed applicant, and suspension of enforcement should be sought from the Administrative Court without delay.

The applicant is not in danger of death in their home country if the suspension of enforcement is not related to grounds for asylum

In addition to asylum, an asylum seeker may also apply for a residence permit on the basis of work, for instance. In such cases, the application is processed like that of any other work permit applicant, and the asylum seeker status of the applicant is not significant.

When the suspension of enforcement of removal is based on, for instance, the fact that the processing of a work permit application is still in progress, but the applicant has already been returned to their home country, the applicant has not been returned to their home country in contravention of the suspension of enforcement.

Those intending to work in Finland as a rule apply for a residence permit abroad. Such persons only come to Finland if their application is approved.

The police are responsible for enforcing refusal of entry

In Finland, the police are responsible for enforcing refusal of entry and for ensuring that it is legal.

If an applicant applies for a permit in Finland, the law states that they can wait for the decision in Finland. However, if an enforceable expulsion decision is already in effect, submitting a new residence permit application will not automatically prevent its enforcement.

In such cases, when the police prepare to deport such an applicant, they take into consideration the grounds of the residence permit application and the expected chances of its success, which they did in the case in question.

Further information for the media

Hanna Helinko, Director of Legal Service and Country Information Unit, tel. +358 295 430 431, e-mail: firstname.surname@migri.fi