Two Positive Decisions

This was one of those cases where everything was already in place, and yet the risk of a negative decision was very real. Both the sponsor and the dependent had applied for residence permits, and both had strong grounds. Still, our client contacted us at a critical moment, when the Finnish Immigration Service was actively considering issuing a negative decision at least for the dependent.

The Finnish Immigration Service sent an additional information request that made the situation clear. The authority demanded detailed proof of means of support and required full bank statements, account transactions, and written explanations regarding how the family’s living expenses would be covered in Finland. The minimum requirement was explicitly stated as 1,820 euros net per month. At the same time, the Finnish Immigration Service requested a written statement regarding the possibility of deportation and an entry ban for the dependent if the decision were to be negative. That is the point where many applicants realise that this is not a routine procedure anymore. It becomes a case about removal from Finland.

We responded thoroughly and without leaving open questions. The focus was to ensure that the Finnish Immigration Service had no room to speculate about the family’s financial situation and no basis to conclude that the requirements were not met. The case was built around clear documentation, clear explanations, and a coherent picture of the family’s stability in Finland. When the authority is already considering deportation as an option, you cannot afford vague answers or missing documents.

The result speaks for itself. The dependent received a continuous residence permit on the basis of family ties, valid until May 2029, with unrestricted right to work as a family member.

The sponsor’s case reached an even stronger conclusion, as the Finnish Immigration Service granted a permanent residence permit with unrestricted right to work.

This outcome matters because it shows how quickly a situation can shift from “routine processing” to a real threat of refusal and removal, even when the underlying circumstances are lawful and stable. It also shows how decisive timing is. When the authority first raises concerns, that is the moment to act. If the response is strong enough, the case can still be resolved before the negative decision is issued, and before the client is forced into a long and exhausting court process.

In this case, both applications ended positively. The family’s right to remain in Finland was secured, and the pressure created by the threat of deportation was removed entirely.