Refusal-of-entry decisions are based on law, the will of the legislature and the legal practice confirmed by the courts

The refusal of entry of Nigerian human trafficking victims, and their return to Italy and their home country Nigeria, have been the subject of heated public discussion. It is understandable that the fate of these people evokes emotions and that they are seen to need help. In this as in other matters, the decision-making practices of the Finnish Immigration Service are based on the Aliens Act currently in force, and the legal practice confirmed by the administrative courts.

Human trafficking is a serious crime, but being a victim of it is not automatically grounds for granting asylum or other forms of international protection in Finland. A victim may be granted international protection if the threat is ongoing and the victim is unable to receive protection from the authorities of his or her home country.

The Supreme Administrative Court has confirmed as legal practice that Nigerians cannot obtain international protection solely on the basis of being victims of human trafficking because, according to country information sources on Nigeria, they can rely on the authorities of their home country to protect them from the threat of being re-victimised.

The legislator has set the bar high when defining vulnerability

A victim of human trafficking with no grounds for receiving international protection may nonetheless be granted some other residence permit. In such cases, the person must be in a vulnerable position or residence must be necessary due to an ongoing criminal investigation in Finland.

The Finnish Immigration Service has received public criticism for setting the bar too high when evaluating whether a person is in a vulnerable or highly vulnerable position. Our narrow interpretation is directly based on a government proposal, in other words the will of the legislator, and legal practice confirmed by courts as being according to law.

For example, poor health or sole custody of small children is not alone sufficient for a victim of human trafficking to be granted a residence permit on the grounds of being in a highly vulnerable position. The authorities of the victim's home country would also have to be unwilling or unable to protect the victim from, for example, a threat posed by criminal organisations.

The Dublin Regulation is binding on EU Member States

The assessment of refusing entry and returning a human trafficking victim to Nigeria or Italy is based on different principles because Italy is an EU Member State and committed to complying with the Dublin Regulation, according to which an application for asylum is examined by only one EU member state. The starting point is that Finland must be able to trust an EU Member State committed to following agreements governing human rights and human trafficking.

The Dublin Regulation is the cornerstone of EU legislation on international protection. Finland is committed to observing the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. According to the government proposal, the Convention may not prevent the operation of the Dublin Regulation.

The Finnish Immigration Service does not have the authority to change the interpretation of the Dublin Regulation regarding an individual country. Changes to the application of the Regulation to individual Member States occur after court decisions.

Each application for asylum is, however, handled individually, and the Finnish Immigration Service decides in exceptional cases to examine individual applications in Finland. Health problems do not usually prevent refusing entry and returning an applicant to another EU Member State. However, if for some reason the applicant is, for example, unable to take care of his or her child the application for asylum can be processed in Finland if this is in the best interest of the child.

Finland has no right to track what happens to people who are refused entry

The Finnish Immigration Service has also been criticised for not knowing what happens to victims of human trafficking who are refused entry. It should be remembered that no Finnish authority has a statutory obligation, not to mention the right, to track the citizens of other states abroad. If it had, this would violate the legal protection of an individual.

Finland is bound by non-refoulement. We do not return people if they may be subject to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhumane or degrading treatment. We are not aware of a single case in which an asylum seeker, who has been refused entry to Finland, has fallen victim to such acts or conditions of non-refoulement.

Further information for the media
Esko Repo, Director of the Asylum Unit, Finnish Immigration Service, Tel. +358 295 430 431
email: firstname.lastname@migri.fi

Anni Valovirta, Senior Adviser at the Asylum Unit, Specialist for Human Trafficking Issues, Finnish Immigration Service, tel. +358 295 430 431
email: firstname.lastname@migri.fi