From Two Negative Decisions to Four More Years in Finland

Our client came to us after already experiencing how unforgiving the residence permit process can become when something outside the applicant’s direct control goes wrong.

They had previously applied for an extended residence permit based on employment and received a negative decision. The problem was not simply that our client did not qualify. The Finnish Immigration Service had requested additional information from the employer concerning the work, salary documentation and other employment details, but the employer failed to provide the requested information within the deadline. Because the employer did not fulfil their statutory obligation to provide clarification, the Finnish Immigration Service refused the residence permit.

The consequences were serious. Our client had already received an earlier deportation decision, which was under appeal before the Administrative Court. The later residence permit application was then also refused while that appeal was still pending.

This is exactly why we repeatedly warn that an employment-based residence permit application is not controlled by the employee alone. The employer has legal obligations of their own. If the Finnish Immigration Service requests information and the employer fails to provide it, the person whose entire life in Finland depends on the application may ultimately carry the consequences.

After that experience, our client came to us.

The new extended residence permit application was handled with a completely different level of caution because there was very little room left for another failure. Under the current Aliens Act, section 36b(1) can create an extremely difficult position once a person no longer has a valid residence permit. A negative decision cannot simply be treated as a temporary setback followed by another application from Finland.

Then the new application became difficult as well.

The Finnish Immigration Service issued two consecutive requests for additional information. The second request was particularly serious. The authority stated directly that the employer had significantly neglected its obligations and that a negative decision on the employment based residence permit was likely. It also warned that if the application were refused after the previous permit had expired, our client could be deported from Finland.

The request then moved into what we consider the pre-negative decision stage. Our client was asked to explain their position on possible deportation, a possible Schengen entry ban, their personal and employment ties to Finland and the consequences that removal would have on their life.

At that point, the fear surrounding section 36b(1) was no longer academic. Our client had already received a negative residence permit decision once because an employer had failed to cooperate. Now, during another attempt to secure their stay in Finland, employer-related problems had again brought the case dangerously close to another refusal.

Receiving two consecutive additional information requests after already having one failed residence permit application could easily make someone believe that the case was finished. We did not see it that way.

The concerns of the Finnish Immigration Service had to be addressed properly while our client still had an opportunity to influence the outcome. The objective was not simply to submit another response. It was to prevent the case from reaching the point where we would be fighting against a negative decision, an enforceable deportation order and the restrictions created by section 36b.

This time, the result was different.

On 4 November 2026, the Finnish Immigration Service granted our client a continuous A residence permit based on employment for four years, valid from 1 September 2025 until 1 September 2029. The permit allows work in the approved professional fields and in labour shortage sectors defined by government decree.

The contrast between where the case started and where it ended is significant. Our client had already received a negative decision because the employer failed to provide the necessary information. They later faced two further additional information requests, including an explicit warning that another negative decision and deportation were likely.

This case is precisely why we tell clients not to wait until something goes wrong. An extended residence permit may look straightforward until an employer misses a deadline, a document is missing, or the Finnish Immigration Service raises an issue that was never anticipated.

Our client had already tried once and learned how quickly an application can collapse. The second time, they came to us.

The outcome speaks for itself.