Stopped at the Border, Protected by the Court

When the Border Guard refuses a person entry into Finland, the practical consequence is usually immediate. The person may be returned before the court has had any real opportunity to examine whether the decision was correct.

Our client arrived at Helsinki Airport with a valid passport and a student residence permit that had already been granted. They were travelling to Finland to begin their studies, but the Border Guard refused entry after raising concerns about whether the available funds were sufficient and reliably at the client’s disposal.

The decision placed the entire future of the case at risk. Returning the client immediately could have prevented them from starting their studies and could also have led to further action concerning the residence permit that had already been granted.

We intervened without delay.

An appeal was prepared together with an urgent request asking the Administrative Court to prohibit enforcement of the Border Guard’s decision on the same day the case was received. In a situation like this, submitting an appeal alone may not protect the person. The court must be shown why the decision should not be executed before the appeal itself has been examined.

Our argument focused on the damage that immediate enforcement would cause and on the new evidence available in the case. The client had already been granted the right to come to Finland for studies, and the studies were due to begin shortly. We also provided a complete explanation of the client’s financial position, supported by employment records, salary documents, bank statements, evidence of transferred funds, and written confirmations showing that the money had been provided for the client’s use without an obligation to repay it.

The question was not simply whether a document had been missing at the border. The question was whether it would be lawful and proportionate to return a student before the court could examine evidence that directly challenged the basis of the refusal.

The Administrative Court issued its interim decision on the following day. It prohibited the enforcement of the refusal of entry until the appeal has been decided or the court orders otherwise.

This is a temporary solution, and the final appeal is still pending. It is nevertheless an extremely important result. The Border Guard cannot proceed with the enforcement of the decision while the court examines whether the refusal of entry was lawful. Our client is now in Finland and preparing to start his studies!

For anyone facing a refusal at the border, time is critical. These cases do not leave room for waiting several days to decide what to do. The appeal, the evidence, and the request to stop enforcement must be prepared immediately, because once the person has been returned, even a later positive court decision may no longer repair the damage in practice.

Our client’s case is now protected while the Administrative Court considers the full matter. What appeared at first to be an immediate return became a case that the authorities must now allow the court to examine before taking further action.