Announcement by Lex Gaudius: Immigration Service, police and government petition

by , under Lex Gaudius



Dossier Faulty decisions made by the Immigration Service to the asylum seekers and actions of the authorities related on them.

Underwrites Representatives of the asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Iraq; In cooperation with International law firm Lex Gaudius



– (GENERAL) There have been many faulty decisions depending on different reasons some as:

  1. Unprofessional translators;
  2. Unprofessional new employees, who did not receive a proper training in such a delicate matters as issues regarding asylum requests;
  3. The employees who were responsible on valuating and making the decisions regarding singular asylum requests, were put under pressure because of the goal settled by the directors of the Immigration Service;
  4. Sources used by the Immigration Service are not comprehensive. Sources should be updated and enlarged. A crucial matter is that the Immigration service uses a large  amount of sources and facts given by the Human Right organizations’ reports;
  5. The Finnish Immigration Service’s country reports regarding Iraq and Afghanistan are not in line with the Swedish one. Country reports are not in line with the Swedish or international Human Rights organizations;
  6. The Finnish Immigration Service is interpreting the law more strictly than required, due to political pressure. For example, the Finnish Immigration service is applying the internal flight option against recommendations by international Human Rights organizations or the Swedish guidelines. For example, Sweden does not apply internal flight to Sunni Arabs in Iraq;
  7. Many times cases are not evaluated individually. Standard statements are copied to different kinds of cases, even when it has nothing to do with the person in question.

(SINGULAR) There have been many contradictory and illegal decisions some as:

  1. Huge amount of asylum cases where it is applied the article 88 e of the Finnish Law for the foreigners (Ulkomaalaislaki is applied 2004/301). There are too many cases where the Immigration service believes that the asylum seeker is persecuted in his home country and that he would have all the grounds for being granted a refugee status, nut still the Immigration service decides that the asylum seeker can return safely in another part of his/her home country. Asylum seekers coming from South and North Iraq are sent in Bagdad and asylum seekers coming from Bagdad are sent to Southern Iraq;
  2. Three brothers from Bagdad with same personal stories and backgrounds, one living in Helsinki and the other two living in Seinäjoki. The one living in Helsinki got refugee status while the 2 brothers living in Seinäjoki got negative decisions by the Immigration service and are now appealing to the administrative court.
  3. Two brothers, one gets asylum and the other one not, although they have the same case. The only difference is that the one with a positive decision is 13 years old; [1]
  4. The Finnish Immigration service claims that they apply the benefit of doubt in unclear cases. However, reality is quite the opposite – in many cases the Immigration service claims without further proof that there is no persecution or danger of persecution in the future; [2]
  5. Breaking the UN convention of the Rights of the Child, article 10 (families whose members live in different countries should be allowed to move between those countries so that parents and children can stay in contact, or get back together as a family). The Finnish Immigration stated in this decision that is in the best interests of the child to grew up without the presence of the father. [3]

The administrative court has serious difficulties in finding a remedy to all deficiencies made by the Immigration Service. All of those negative decisions given by the Immigration service on wrong grounds, put in danger the legal rights of some asylum seekers.

The Finnish Chancellor of Justice, Jaakko Jonkka, has criticized the methods of the Immigration service when its employees examined the cases of the asylum seekers. This is extremely serious criticism, that has to be taken in consideration properly. The Immigration Service has admitted its mistakes but still many of those faulty decisions have now power of law, meaning that all this new information, which is coming out, can’t rectify the faulty decisions.


-This argument is connected with the principle that Immigration Service needs to find a remedy for all those negative faulty decisions given by the Immigration service to the asylum seekers.

– Regarding Iraq in specific, it is crucial to remember that Finland and Iraq do not have any state agreement. This means that the Iraqi authorities can’t protect their citizens, so they accept only asylum seekers who want to return voluntarily to Iraq or those asylum seekers who have been plead guilty for a crime. What is the official statement of the Finnish authorities regarding forced return to Iraq of Iraqi asylum seekers who have not been plead guilty nor want to return in Iraq voluntarily?

– We ask in general to be more delicate and to seek in the best way possible to fulfil the principle of good governance when executing an expulsion of an asylum seeker. Police should also valuate every singular case of expulsion of an asylum seeker and not automatically execute it. Forced expulsion of asylum seekers should be avoided (or put on hold) if the asylum seeker has another pending proceeding regarding his/her residence permit.

– The media has been reporting about several cases where the police has executed forced expulsions and used methods which are against the principle of good governance.

– There are many asylum seekers whose asylum process is ended and now the negative faulty decision has achieved power of law. Executing by force the expulsion of those asylum seekers would be in contrast with international law, especially with the right for a fair trial.

– It is a great concern from the Human Rights point of view that Finland deports asylum seekers by force to Iraq before their case has been assessed by the Supreme Administrative Court.


– There is no common guideline with the municipalities regarding the social care and assistance for those asylum seekers who are waiting the final decision of their asylum process but are already evicted from their camp. We ask that urgent action is taken by the

Finnish authorities where precise instructions are given to the directors of camps in Finland. Directors of the camps should not evict any asylum seeker from his/her camp until the supreme administrative court has made its final decision. (Vastaanottolaki 2015/673; 14a §:n kolmas momentti).

– Now there are hundreds of homeless asylum seekers who can’t return voluntarily to their home countries. Soon there will be thousands of those people. The municipalities do not have the capacity to deal with such a massive problem. If measures are not taken now, soon it will be too late. There will be some kind of negative consequences from the international community; Finland has much to loose because its reputation has always been internationally brilliant.

– This argument is also connected with the principle that Immigration service needs to find a remedy for all those negative faulty decisions given by the Immigration service to the asylum seekers.

– The method suggested by us is much more convenient to the Finnish tax payers. There are already existing infrastructures (camps) all over Finland. It is unproductive to close those existing camps and transfer the responsibility of the health -and social care to the municipalities. Secondary we suggest an urgent instruction from the Internal Ministry to all the municipalities where the minimum standards required by law in giving social assistance to the asylum seekers are explained. One method could be giving instruction tomunicipalities on how to make agreements with the existing camps.


– An foreigner who have in his/her possession a temporary resident permit (ulkomaalaislaki 2004/301; 51 § ) can work and is obliged to contribute to the tax paying system of Finland.

– Sweden and Germany have invested in foreigners. For many asylum seekers the governments of these two states have created the basis for the foreigners to find a job or in some other way to be granted a resident permit. Both countries’ GPD is now increasing. We hope that Finnish politicians would see the same possibilities as Germany and Sweden.

– This argument is also connected directly with the principle that Immigration service needs to find a remedy for all those negative faulty decisions given by the Immigration service to the asylum seekers.

– Granting a temporary resident permit would significantly cut down the amount of undocumented persons in Finland. Based on all above we demand that the Immigration service will pronounce a plan with concrete measures on how they will find a remedy to all the mistakes made by the Immigration service. We demand at least to re-examine all those negative decisions regarding international protection which faulty given so that the legal rights of asylum seekers in Finland are protected as those rights have been protected in Finland for the last 60 years!

Helsinki, 27.2.2017

Document to the Finnish Immigration Service, Police an the Goverment.pdf



[3] kasvaa-erossa-isastaan/