REMARKABLE WIN AND RESULT FOR THE CLIENT!

Our client was taken into custody outside the client’s hometown for the purposes of preparing the deportation of our client. Our client co-operated fully with police and the officials. Once the client turned to Appeals & Cases and Licensed Legal Counsel Joonas Metsämäki the client had received many negative decisions from Finnish Immigration Services. What emphasized the graveness and pressure of the situation is the fact that the client has a spouse and a small child waiting for him.

Moving on to the actual substance matter, Lawyer Joonas Metsämäki represented the client with one day warning through remote video connection to the Court of another city far away from Capital area. In its custody demand the police expressed that our client had failed to present himself in front of the officials. However our client explained in the court hearing that the client had called the police and explained that client would not be able to be present in front of the police that day since the client had fallen sick. On the basis of this the police regarded that the client would be endangering the result of the enforcement and deportation. The court did not find our client’s explanation plausible. Also when resorted to the fact that the client had family and a small child waiting at home, it was still regarded that grounds for holding in custody exist. The Court sustained the holding to custody.

 By the time we thought there would be nothing to be done with regards to the custody, the case took a surprising turn when our client was granted deportation ban on the basis of our application. The Administrative Court ordered the deportation to be stopped until the case is finally resolve. As such the Court accepted the application done by Lawyer Metsämäki.

The next step was that due to the deportation ban admitted our client asked Metsämäki that should the client now get free because of the deportation ban. Metsämäki wrote to the Court and asked for an urgent hearing and release on the basis of the deportation ban. The court did not grant the urgent hearing because at first hand the court regarded that the general requirements for a safety measure (Turvaamistoimi) are still met according to the provision 117 a § in Immigration Act (Ulkomaalaislaki) and general Immigration Court precedents. However, Lawyer Joonas Metsämäki cordially expressed his opinion to the court that he viewed the case as such that in the provision 121 § of Immigration Act and its subsections 1 and 3 use the wording “enforcement” as such that the person has to be regarded to endanger the “enforcement”. So Metsämäki expressed his argument that since the Administrative Court has banned the enforcement and deportation, no enforcement as such exists anymore that could be endangered. Holding a person into custody would be against the logic of these provisions. It is however unclear how Metsämäki’s argumentation affected the decision-making in this case since no additional court hearing was appointed yet and no new decision was issued.

On the rainy Monday morning the client then messaged Joonas Metsämäki that the client had been released from custody as informed by the guards. The client told that he thanks Metsämäki and Appeals & Cases very much. It was of utmost joy that we received this news from the client and we are very happy that our work provided the client the result the client expected, and even beyond.