Yet Another Positive Decision!

This individual’s story is, on paper, “just” another successful case. In reality, it is a quiet disturbing of how Finland has chosen to treat people who have built their lives here for years.

This individual came to Finland in October 2015. He did things exactly the way he was supposed to. First, he received a residence permit on employment grounds and worked for almost two years under that status. Then he continued his life here as an entrepreneur and switched to a residence permit based on entrepreneurial grounds.

When the time came to renew that entrepreneurial permit, he was suddenly met with a negative decision due to the partial negative decision of the Ely-Keskus, which at the time was engaging in systematic discrimination against foreign entrepreneurs, with an indicative negative decision percentage surpassing 70% during 2021 on first residence permit application based on entrepreneurial grounds. No crime. No scandal. Simply a change in how his file was looked at by decision-makers who were weaponising their freedom of interpreting the law to issue a negative decision and deport immigrants embodying that way a sick ideology, paid by the same foreign tax-paying individuals who were being issued groundless negative decisions. Ironic and Funny.

It took voting on the parliament in 2022 to introduce guidelines on how Ely-Keskus’ decision-makers should be performing their evaluation and limitations (which was desperately needed) to which they still do not adhere to this day. 

We appealed that negative decision to the Administrative Court and at the same time he applied for a new residence permit as a family member of an EU citizen. While this tug-of-war about his right to stay was going on, he kept doing the most “radical” thing you can do as an immigrant in Finland: he stayed, he lived, he worked, he paid taxes, he tried to build a life.

After more than a decade in Finland, he finally applied for a permanent residence permit. The decision came in 23 days from the moment he identified himself to Migri. Twenty-three days. Fast, almost shockingly fast. And that speed is exactly why this case says so much. It was not because the system is humane and flexible. It was because every single possible box had been ticked in a system that has become brutally unforgiving.

Under the current rules, you are supposed to have four years of uninterrupted continuous residence with an A-permit before you can even be considered for a permanent residence permit. In practice, this means that normal life events – illness, a business failure, a study change, a period on welfare, a temporary break in work – do not count as “normal”. They become risk factors. A pandemic, a global crisis, or a personal crisis is treated as your personal problem, not as something the law is flexible enough to recognise. Even a small traffic fine, such as overspeeding by 7 km/h, can cause a delay to your permanent residence permit for years, despite the fact that you may have otherwise done everything “right”. The cherry on the top, if you are a suspect in a baseless accusation case, but the Police are taking 3 years to process the case because they are understaffed, you will still get a negative decision on your permanent residence permit because somehow, this falls on you as an immigrant.

This is the background against which this individual got his positive decision. It was not a gift. It was not generosity. It was the result of ten years of continuous residence, careful legal strategy after a negative entrepreneurial decision, the courage to appeal, the decision to apply on new grounds, and an application for permanent residence that left no room for interpretation. In such a strict system, this is what a clean case looks like. And that alone tells you how harsh the playing field has become.

If you think this sounds strict already, the real shock comes from what is waiting just around the corner. The Finnish Government has already prepared a tightening of the permanent residence rules that is scheduled to enter into force on 8 January 2026. The so-called “four-year rule” will, in practice, become a six-year rule. In normal cases, you will need six years of continuous residence with a continuous (A) permit before you can even be considered for a permanent residence permit, and on top of that, you will need to show sufficient Finnish or Swedish language skills and at least two years of work history in Finland.

There will be an “accelerated” route on paper, but even that is clearly designed for a very specific category of people. The law proposal keeps a theoretical four-year path, but only if you either earn at least 40,000 euros per year, or have a master’s or postgraduate degree recognised in Finland combined with work experience here, or demonstrate particularly high Finnish or Swedish skills along with several years of work. Even then, your work history must be built almost without unemployment benefits or social assistance – more than three months of such support in the qualifying period may be enough to shut that door. Language requirements will also extend to the EU long-term residence permit, and any unconditional prison sentence will affect how your residence period is calculated, pushing the finish line even further away. 

So what does this all mean in practice? It means that Finland is moving from a strict system to an almost unbearable one. It means that starting from next year, a person who has never really entered the labour market and has lived on social benefits for most of their life, and a person who has paid hundreds of thousands of euros in taxes in a single year, are placed under the same legislative blanket when it comes to permanent residence. The law does not reward responsibility, long-term contribution or the fact that many immigrants are the ones keeping essential sectors running while also supporting their families and relatives abroad. It simply tightens the screws on everyone at once.

From where we stand, this looks like a country that is slowly creating two categories of people. On the one hand, Finns, whose belonging is never questioned by residence permit rules. On the other hand, “secondary citizens”, immigrants who can live here ten or fifteen years, build businesses, pay high taxes, raise their children here, and still be treated as conditional guests. The new rules make this division even clearer. The message is: no matter how much you give, you are always the one who must prove yourself again and again, under conditions that keep getting heavier.

It is simply unfair.

This individual’s case is therefore more than a happy ending. It is a reminder that even inside this increasingly hostile framework, it is still possible to secure justice – but only with precise legal work, a deep understanding of the system, and the courage to challenge decisions instead of passively accepting them. It shows that appealing, choosing the correct new grounds, and preparing a technically flawless permanent residence application can still cut through the noise and result in a positive decision, even in just 23 days.

At the same time, it is a warning. For many people, especially those who will reach four years of continuous residence close to 8 January 2026, the window is closing. The bar is being raised higher, not because immigrants suddenly became less worthy, but because the political climate has decided that suspicion and restriction are more important than fairness and recognition.

If you recognise yourself in this story – if you have lived here for years, if you have worked, studied, paid taxes, but feel that the law is treating you like you are always one misstep away from losing everything – you are not imagining it. This is the reality we live in. Our work at ACLaw is to stand between you and that reality, to argue, to appeal, to document, and to insist that your years in Finland count for something.

Because if a person who has built their life here for a decade, and who has carried their share and more of the burden, can still be treated as disposable, then the system is not neutral. It is discriminatory. And that is exactly why we will keep fighting these cases, one by one, until permanent really means permanent – not only on paper, but in the way people are treated.