A 77 Euro Mistake That Almost Cost Everything

Our client received a negative decision from the Finnish Immigration Service refusing their employee’s residence permit extension and ordering their removal from Finland. The reason was simple on paper. The employer had reported a monthly salary of 1,810 euros, which was 77 euros below the minimum required under the applicable collective agreement. Based on this, the Finnish Immigration Service concluded that the employment conditions were not compliant and rejected the application.

That same decision also included deportation.

When our client came to us, the situation was already difficult. A residence permit had been refused and removal from Finland had been ordered. All of this because of a shortfall of 77 euros per month.

The reality behind the case was different. The employer was a new entrepreneur with a foreign background. They had misunderstood the applicable minimum salary level. As soon as the mistake was identified, it was corrected. The salary was adjusted, and the missing amount was paid retroactively. We submitted the corrected employment contract, updated payslips, and proof that the salary had been increased to the proper level.

In our appeal to the Administrative Court, we argued that this was not a case of exploitation or deliberate underpayment. It was an administrative error that had already been fixed. We also pointed out that the consequences of the decision were disproportionate. Refusing a permit and ordering removal over a 77 euro discrepancy, when the issue had been corrected, did not meet the requirements of fairness and proportionality under the Aliens Act.

On 3 February 2026, the Eastern Finland Administrative Court issued its decision.

The court annulled the Finnish Immigration Service’s decision and returned the matter to the Finnish Immigration Service for new consideration.

The court confirmed that new evidence submitted on appeal, which directly related to the same source of income already presented to the authority, had to be taken into account. The decision could not simply ignore the fact that the salary had been corrected and that the employment relationship was genuine.

This case is a clear reminder of how strict the system can be. A minor salary difference, even when unintentional and immediately corrected, can lead to a refusal and deportation. At the same time, it shows that careful legal work and a well-structured appeal can change the outcome.

Our client was not removed. The negative decision did not stand. And a 77 euro mistake did not end their life in Finland.