When Prevention Matters More Than an Appeal

Our client made the decision to involve us before submitting their extended residence permit application. Under the current immigration system, that decision can matter far more than people realise.

A residence permit renewal was once commonly treated as a relatively straightforward process. Today, even an otherwise strong employment-based application can develop into a serious problem because of something as simple as a missing document, an unanswered request or an employer failing to provide the required employment information within the deadline.

The difficulty is what can happen after that mistake. Under section 36b of the Finnish Aliens Act, a residence permit applied for from Finland can be refused where the applicant was not lawfully residing in Finland when the new application was submitted. The Finnish Immigration Service also states that after a negative residence permit decision accompanied by a removal decision, a person cannot simply prolong their stay by submitting another application from Finland.

This changes the importance of getting the first renewal right. A negative decision is no longer something that should be viewed casually on the assumption that the situation can simply be repaired with another application during an appeal. The Administrative Court may prohibit enforcement, but interim protection is a separate question and cannot be assumed in advance.

Section 36e of the Aliens Act provides an exception where refusing the residence permit would be unreasonable when all circumstances are considered. However, reaching the point where your entire right to remain in Finland depends on an exception is a position we would rather prevent than attempt to repair afterwards.

That was exactly our approach in this case. We handled the extended residence permit application as a whole, making sure that the application and the necessary supporting information were properly in place while our client still had a valid right of residence. The objective was not to wait for a problem and then react to it. The objective was to prevent the problem from arising in the first place.

The result came at an important moment. On 19 October 2026, the Finnish Immigration Service granted our client a continuous A residence permit based on employment. The permit is valid until 30 November 2030 and allows work in the approved professional field as well as in labour shortage sectors defined by government decree.

The positive decision arrived only shortly before the previous residence situation was due to change, removing the uncertainty before it had an opportunity to become something much more serious.

This is increasingly how we approach extended residence permits. We do not look only at whether the client appears to meet the requirements today. We also consider what could go wrong during processing, what information the employer must provide, whether the documentation is consistent and what the consequences would be if the application were refused.

Under the current law, prevention is considerably safer than trying to restore legality after a negative decision.

Our client understood that early enough. The result is another four years of continuous residence in Finland without having to find out how unforgiving the alternative could have been.