When the Law Has Deadlines Only for Immigrants

Our client received a positive decision after approximately one month and three weeks of waiting. The result was a continuous four-year residence permit based on employment, valid until 4 November 2030. The permit allows work in home cleaning, office and institutional cleaning, childcare and the labour-shortage fields defined by government decree.

The decision was achieved under circumstances that say a great deal about both our client and the system surrounding them. At a time when Finland recorded the highest unemployment rate in the European Union, reaching 10.5 per cent in September 2026, our client managed to secure work from six separate private employers. Each week, they travelled between different homes, completed the agreed cleaning work and accumulated enough hours to exceed the €1,600 gross monthly income requirement.

This was not a person waiting for an opportunity to arrive. They created their own opportunity across six different employment relationships in one of the weakest labour markets in Europe. The work was real, the income was sufficient and the legal requirements were met. What remained was for the Finnish Immigration Service to make the decision.

That part took roughly one month and three weeks. However, other cases are taking six, eight, ten months, sometimes up to a year!

Section 84 of the Finnish Aliens Act provides that a properly completed employment-based application should generally be decided within two months. The current wording allows three months where the case is exceptionally complex, and the calculation may pause while necessary additional information is being obtained. Even with those safeguards for the authority, a process lasting around one year demands a serious explanation.

This brings us to a question Finland continues to avoid. What happens when an immigrant fails to comply with the law or misses a deadline? The answer can be immediate and severe. Their application may be refused, their right to work may end, and they may receive a deportation decision that threatens everything they have built in Finland.

What happens when an authority fails to comply with a statutory processing deadline? The Government’s own proposal explains that the remedy is an administrative complaint. A supervisory authority may later draw attention to proper procedure or express its view on what lawful conduct should have been. The lost year, however, is not returned to the applicant.

This is not equal accountability. One side risks losing their employment, home, legal status and future. The other side can point to workload and continue as before. The immigrant must comply precisely and immediately, while the authority’s delay is treated as an administrative inconvenience.

Our client did everything Finland claims to expect from immigrants. They worked, adjusted to a difficult economy, found several employers and earned enough to support themselves without relying on the welfare system. After one year of uncertainty, the Finnish Immigration Service finally confirmed what the facts had already shown: the requirements for the residence permit were fulfilled.

The positive decision was worth the fight, but the delay should not be normalised. A legal deadline must mean something for both the immigrant and the authority applying the law. Otherwise, it is not a real deadline. It is merely another rule whose consequences apply only to one side.