And Another Positive Decision — and another reminder of why our work matters.

This time, our client came to our office after receiving a negative decision from the Finnish Immigration Service. Migri had refused her application for a worker’s extended residence permit and, as if that wasn’t enough, had decided to deport her to Kenya, giving her 30 days to leave Finland voluntarily. The decision was based on one accusation: that her salary did not meet the statutory minimum level required by law.

When we examined the case, it was immediately clear that the decision did not reflect the reality of her employment. Migri had based its conclusion on outdated and incomplete salary information. The client had in fact been earning above the income threshold during several months of her employment. 

But instead of engaging with this evidence, the Finnish Immigration Service chose the easier route: reject the application and push the client out of the country.

We appealed the decision to the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court, presenting all updated documents and argued on the merits of our client’s case. The Administrative Court did what Migri should have done in the first place: it looked at the real evidence.

The court confirmed that the new documents provided information that Migri did not have when making its decision and that these documents were relevant enough to change the entire outcome. For that reason, the court overturned Migri’s decision in full and sent the case back for a new examination. In other words, the deportation order is gone, the negative decision is gone, and the client’s right to a fair assessment is restored.

This case is a textbook example of what has become an increasingly common pattern: decisions made too quickly, based on assumptions, missing documents, or partial information. And it is always the immigrant who pays the price — with stress, uncertainty, and the threat of removal from the country they are trying to work in, contribute to, and build a stable life in.

And yet Finland continues to insist that its system is fair, neutral, and objective.

But when a person who has done everything correctly — worked, paid taxes, obtained lawful employment contracts, and complied with every requirement — still receives a deportation decision because the authority failed to review updated salary information, what does that say about the system?

It says that the burden of perfection is placed entirely on the immigrant, while the margin for error is generously granted to the decision-maker.

This is why we fight these cases.

Because behind every negative decision is a person who is simply trying to live and work. And behind every appeal is often the truth that should have been recognised from the beginning.

As long as these failures continue, we will continue to challenge them. Every case. Every time.