Woooooooah!
Thanks Daryl and network_engineer for all the comments and details. No doubt, I have to fine-tune some of my info. I hope this discussion helps desert nomad (and others later on).
Residence type A
type B permit to type A
My husband and myself had type B permit when we came to helsinki in Jan 2006.Last month we got it changed to type A by presenting an open-ended work contract which didn't mention any end date to the completion of the IT project that my husband is currently working on.Though we went to the immigration services only to extend our type B visas,the official herself suggested we could change it as we were still working for the same firm and on the same project.We were too happy and said yes.It was done in 15 minutes.So I think the change is based on the nature of work contract than onthe duration of stay in type B permit.
Re: type B permit to type A
I'm not sure that you have understood what this thread is about, but the interesting thing about this case was the speed of processing. It suggests that the employment authority has issued a general statement to cover cases of this kind. This would be entirely consistent with the new Aliens Act, and we may assume that the aim is to avoid processing applications in two authorities when the outcome in one of them is a foregone conclusion. Something similar was done under the old Aliens Act.kit wrote:My husband and myself had type B permit when we came to helsinki in Jan 2006.Last month we got it changed to type A by presenting an open-ended work contract which didn't mention any end date to the completion of the IT project that my husband is currently working on.Though we went to the immigration services only to extend our type B visas,the official herself suggested we could change it as we were still working for the same firm and on the same project.We were too happy and said yes.It was done in 15 minutes.So I think the change is based on the nature of work contract than onthe duration of stay in type B permit.
I know of only one case in which an employment office has tried to argue that a migrant worker in a permanent job was nevertheless somehow only temporarily living in Finland. That case is pending in an appeal before the Administrative Court of Helsinki and the "justification" that the authority submitted to the court in that case was the weakest argument that I have ever seen in a serious deposition to a court of law in an immigration-related matter. Indeed the justification begins with a long preface about how the decision was taken before the officials had received guidance in how to apply the new Aliens Act. It occurs to me that sometimes officials are simply too plain dumb to realise that it's OK to admit your mistakes to the court and that this saves everybody's time and effort.
Anyway, it would appear that despite opposing that appeal, the employment authority agrees with the appellant's argument. At least in certain industries the residence permit should be continuous if the job is open-ended (assuming that the applicant does not deny the intention to remain in Finland permanently).
One slight question remains, however. If the permit issued is indeed a worker's residence permit, then it should in principle be processed and decided by TWO authorities. The general statement procedure, on the other hand, essentially involves an opinion of the employment authority that the work is exempt from the requirement for a worker's residence permit (point 1 of paragraph 4 of section 79 of the Aliens Act). In such cases the permit issued is NOT a worker's residence permit at all, and it actually authorises the foreigner to do any kind of work whatsoever. In other words, the residence permit should not specify IT-ala or any other restriction by industry, type of work or employer.
My guess is that this is, or should have been, the kind of permit issued in this case. If the permit that was issued specifies the industry, type of work or employer, then it would appear to be a worker's residence permit. Such a permit MUST be processed by two authorities.
This is not to say that there is any appeal interest in the new decision, but if a worker's residence permit has been issued without two-authority processing, then I sense a species of corner-cutting that has no statutory basis. Such habits should be discouraged in official contexts, even when they seem to benefit the applicant. The correct procedure is to amend the law.
daryl
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
-
desert nomad
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:52 am
Easy question. The employer is not relevant and should not be specified on the permit stamp. What matters is the type of work or industry. This will be stated on the permit (e.g. IT-ala). You are free to change your employer within this line of work and you will only need a new permit if you seek to change the line of work (e.g. by taking a job in chemical engineering).desert nomad wrote:thanks daryl, just one more question, I received the one year A permit after working two years for one employer but if i later change to another employer, will that have any effect on the following 3 year A permit or must I stay with the same employer to get the permit?
A more interesting question arises if your current employer reassigns you to other duties that are outside of the specialism for which the permit was issued. Although this scenario can and does sometimes arise from a legal duty of the employer, it creates a situation that was beyond the wit of the designers of the new Aliens Act. However, there is a sacred unwritten principle that prevents withdrawal of permission to remain in Finland while employment continues, even when the character of that employment changes. Such withdrawal is standardly considered "unreasonable". Thus it is conceivable that you could be reassigned to clean windows, but retain your permission to remain right up to the time when you qualify for a permanent residence permit.
daryl
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
