Stupid UVI decision - be carefull

[Jools]

They won't give you the passport because they want to ensure that you leave the country. I was also in your situation in 2003. First, they took SIX months to tell me I should have applied in my home country (why take my application in the first place?). Then, they had a border police guard accompany me from the airport check-in counter to the waiting lounge. There, just before I boarded the place, another guard came to hand me my passport. He stood there and waited until I was inside the aircraft. They were courteous but I felt the whole process treated me like I was a criminal. Everyone was staring. I was a journalist and a news editor before I came here after marrying my Finnish husband in Hong Kong. I felt so humiliated because it wasn't like as if I was dying or desperate to live here. Anyway, now I have a permanent residence permit. But after more than 3 years here, I am happy that I'll be leaving this God-forsaken place soon. I was (still am) shocked and disappointed that despite being a developed country and holding the Presidency of the EU, signages for foreign affairs at the police station here in Turku still read 'alien matters'. Is it any wonder, then?

[daryl]

I have from my experience seen the same story as adincluj

the only difference being i was a student first and then called to work, after waiting 3 months they told me to go and file in my country!!

This was quite clearly a different case. Unlike adincluj, you already had a residence permit. The case also probably arose under the old Aliens Act. Special rules have applied to "working students" since May 2004.

I appealed and they said it was unjustified, !"#¤%....the laws are one thing and each case is based on the person reading the law, including at the appeal stage, i have also had run in's with the UVI and police, i will say not even the person who made the law can effectively read it.

The general point here is correct, but not very informative. All communication must be interpreted, but we tend to notice this more when individual rights are at stake. All that we can do is try to minimise ambiguity and vagueness in legal texts, while at the same time writing them in a way that ordinary people can understand. The 1991 Aliens Act was notoriously ambiguous and vague. The immigration system behind the Act also involved a peculiar and byzantine metaphysics that is best forgotten.

I had after i won the case, had a formal apology by the then head of the uvi send to me , my lawyer said the ball is in your court, because i also filled that this caused me to cut short my holiday and also extra expenses,and mental headaches at the time of filling i was thinking of taking it up...more higher but i lost steam after the wait of 8 months.

i say, each case is worth fighting upto the last point........

Written apologies are a rarity indeed. What counts as "the last point" varies from one applicant to the next. Some people simply swallow unjust and unlawful decisions and say nothing. Others do so, but then sound off about it in a variety of forums such as this one. Others again pursue claims through procedures of varying effectiveness for various purposes "until they lose steam". In other words, until their emotional commitment can no longer be sustained.

This issue of emotional commitment interests me greatly. In my case it has usually meant a commitment to exposing flaws in the system with a view to getting the system improved. Others are sometimes mainly interested in wiping the smile off the face of some smug official. Others again cannot see beyond their own individual interests (which is fine, but is unlikely to motivate me to assist unless the specific remedy available is a unique opportunity. Lawyers assist such people for money.)

They won't give you the passport because they want to ensure that you leave the country. I was also in your situation in 2003. First, they took SIX months to tell me I should have applied in my home country (why take my application in the first place?). Then, they had a border police guard accompany me from the airport check-in counter to the waiting lounge. There, just before I boarded the place, another guard came to hand me my passport. He stood there and waited until I was inside the aircraft. They were courteous but I felt the whole process treated me like I was a criminal. Everyone was staring. I was a journalist and a news editor before I came here after marrying my Finnish husband in Hong Kong. I felt so humiliated because it wasn't like as if I was dying or desperate to live here. Anyway, now I have a permanent residence permit. But after more than 3 years here, I am happy that I'll be leaving this God-forsaken place soon. I was (still am) shocked and disappointed that despite being a developed country and holding the Presidency of the EU, signages for foreign affairs at the police station here in Turku still read 'alien matters'. Is it any wonder, then?

1. As noted above, there is no difference between "not taking" an application and "rejecting" the application. An application cannot be rejected without full and expert consideration of the facts of the individual case. Summary rejection is not possible - which is a good thing. The six-month processing period was obviously too long.

2. The expression "foreign affairs" refers to relations between countries. Relations between Finland and other countries are the business of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (ulkoasiainministeriö). "Alien" is a legal expression that means "not a citizen of the jurisdiction". An alien may be a citizen of some other jurisdiction or may be stateless. "Alien affairs" is one way to translate ulkomaalaisasiat, whereas "foreign affairs" translates ulkoasiat. These are clearly different things. IMO the best general alternative translation for ulkomaalaisasiat in this context is probably "immigration affairs", which is serviceable even though not all aliens are immigrants. If you can come up with a better and more accurate expression, then please do.

3. Jools is describing the procedure for supervised departure. This case also rather obviously occurred under the old Aliens Act. However, it is difficult to see how supervised departure could reasonably be arranged in any other way (if you have any suggestions, then I would be pleased to hear them). The obvious contrast is with a full deportation procedure, in which the deportee is escorted from detention all the way to the destination country and then released into the custody of that country's authorities.

Supervised departure is not always applied, and may depend on the good judgement of the supervising authority (usually the police). One case that I pleaded for nearly two years in the early 1990s involved two people from the Far East. When the legal situation finally clarified they simply purchased their tickets and then collected their passports from the police station. I understand that no exit stamp of any kind was placed in the passport, but I assume that the frontier guard kept some kind of record that these two people had left Finland. On the other hand, the police were quite familiar with the character of these two people (and of their adviser, of course).

Incidentally, the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found that the Directorate of Immigration (by another name) had interfered in the family life of the two people concerned (though the Court did not enter an overall finding against Finland). This finding was enough to bring the two people back to Finland, where they have been living ever since. The case as a whole led to some very important improvements in the law on immigration for employment that prevent certain forms of abuse of the system by employers. It was these improvements, of course, that principally interested me and motivated me to spend a total of nearly five years resolving this case.

daryl

[Jools]

1. As noted above, there is no difference between "not taking" an application and "rejecting" the application. An application cannot be rejected without full and expert consideration of the facts of the individual case. Summary rejection is not possible - which is a good thing. The six-month processing period was obviously too long.

Thanks Daryl for your explanations. I wasn't suggesting that they reject the application right away. Obviously, the police clerk has no authority to do so. But she could have better advised me, ie. that such applications should be filed in one's home country, instead of 'accepting' the application. But I think the problem lies in the fact that they are either not familiar with the law or prefer to just pass the buck. Same goes for the Finnish embassy staff in Hong Kong.

The expression "foreign affairs" refers to relations between countries. Relations between Finland and other countries are the business of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (ulkoasiainministeriö). "Alien" is a legal expression that means "not a citizen of the jurisdiction". An alien may be a citizen of some other jurisdiction or may be stateless. "Alien affairs" is one way to translate ulkomaalaisasiat, whereas "foreign affairs" translates ulkoasiat. These are clearly different things. IMO the best general alternative translation for ulkomaalaisasiat in this context is probably "immigration affairs", which is serviceable even though not all aliens are immigrants. If you can come up with a better and more accurate expression, then please do.

Why restrict Foreign Affairs to just matters between different countries? The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines foreign as "of, in or from a country or an area other than one's own". This could very well apply to human or human relations. The term 'alien', while not a derogatory term, is archaic. Foreign affairs would then cover immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

Jools is describing the procedure for supervised departure. This case also rather obviously occurred under the old Aliens Act. However, it is difficult to see how supervised departure could reasonably be arranged in any other way (if you have any suggestions, then I would be pleased to hear them). The obvious contrast is with a full deportation procedure, in which the deportee is escorted from detention all the way to the destination country and then released into the custody of that country's authorities.

Here, I think a distinction should be made on the procedure for departure. Obviously, for an applicant who is an asylum seeker or a refugee, a full deportation procedure should be applied. But in cases where the applicants are applying for permits based on family relations, then perhaps the passports can be handed over at the airport check-in counters. Again, I should qualify by saying that it shouldn't be a blanket rule for foreigners married to Finn. We are well aware of the fact that some marry to ' reap' Finland's undisputed social benefits. But my point is that they should study each case on its own and not just give it a blanket treatment.

[Hank W.]

Legally speaking, this application probably failed because one of the "other conditions" [examined by UVI] was not met. In other words, there was a "general impediment to arrival". I can't be sure of this without seeing the case documents, but this is my best guess.

So if he is aleready in the country, shouldn't the border guards have done their job and refused him entry then

[Hank W.]

We are well aware of the fact that some marry to ' reap' Finland's undisputed social benefits.

You misspelled "nonexistant" - though the only "social benefit" I can think of is nationality and and EU passport - theugh there are heck easier countries to get it from as well... who would want to learn Finnish just to get the passport

[daryl]

1. As noted above, there is no difference between "not taking" an application and "rejecting" the application. An application cannot be rejected without full and expert consideration of the facts of the individual case. Summary rejection is not possible - which is a good thing. The six-month processing period was obviously too long.

Thanks Daryl for your explanations. I wasn't suggesting that they reject the application right away. Obviously, the police clerk has no authority to do so. But she could have better advised me, ie. that such applications should be filed in one's home country, instead of 'accepting' the application. But I think the problem lies in the fact that they are either not familiar with the law or prefer to just pass the buck. Same goes for the Finnish embassy staff in Hong Kong.

I tried to explain earlier that this is a minefield, especially when the discussion is held in a language that is foreign to both the junior official and the applicant.

It must be made completely clear that the applicant is entitled to lodge the application. I have lost count of the number of cases in which applicants have failed to submit applications or (more commonly) changed their applications to claim less than they originally intended, because a junior official was understood to have said "you can't apply for that". In some of these cases I designed the application after carefully analysing the applicant's situation and entitlement. I was then forced to file specific complaints alleging that the applicant was "bullied into withdrawing a claim". In most cases these carefully designed applications were eventually approved in full, despite the initial misgivings of the junior official at the service point.

Even when the junior official understands that an application has little or no prospect of success, it can never be lawful to refuse to forward an application for processing based on some assessment of the merits of the application. (It is possible to refer a matter to another authority for processing, but that is a different issue). Indeed any such refusal is itself a decision of the authority that should be provided in writing complete with reasons and appeal instructions.

The expression "foreign affairs" refers to relations between countries. Relations between Finland and other countries are the business of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (ulkoasiainministeriö). "Alien" is a legal expression that means "not a citizen of the jurisdiction". An alien may be a citizen of some other jurisdiction or may be stateless. "Alien affairs" is one way to translate ulkomaalaisasiat, whereas "foreign affairs" translates ulkoasiat. These are clearly different things. IMO the best general alternative translation for ulkomaalaisasiat in this context is probably "immigration affairs", which is serviceable even though not all aliens are immigrants. If you can come up with a better and more accurate expression, then please do.

Why restrict Foreign Affairs to just matters between different countries? The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines foreign as "of, in or from a country or an area other than one's own". This could very well apply to human or human relations. The term 'alien', while not a derogatory term, is archaic. Foreign affairs would then cover immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

Was there a concrete suggestion here? And would this mean renaming the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to avoid the inevitable assumption that this ministry was responsible for immigration?

"Alien", as I tried to explain, is a legal term - and as such it is most definitely not archaic (look up "archaic" in your dictionary). It is also a term with a very precise denotation. "Foreigner" does not have this precision. I think the trend nowadays is to broaden the notion of "immigration" to cover the administration of any procedures whereby aliens enter and remain in Finland for any period of time, either temporary or indefinite. That's why Ulkomaalaisvirasto calls itself the "Directorate of Immigration" in English. When I first came to Finland the corresponding authority was called the "Aliens Office". On the other hand, the English name of the main law that this authority applies is still the "Aliens Act". However, the main issue here concerns shortcomings in the English language, not the Finnish language or Finnish administration.

Jools is describing the procedure for supervised departure. This case also rather obviously occurred under the old Aliens Act. However, it is difficult to see how supervised departure could reasonably be arranged in any other way (if you have any suggestions, then I would be pleased to hear them). The obvious contrast is with a full deportation procedure, in which the deportee is escorted from detention all the way to the destination country and then released into the custody of that country's authorities.

Here, I think a distinction should be made on the procedure for departure. Obviously, for an applicant who is an asylum seeker or a refugee, a full deportation procedure should be applied.

This is spoken in jest or in ignorance, surely.

...But in cases where the applicants are applying for permits based on family relations, then perhaps the passports can be handed over at the airport check-in counters. Again, I should qualify by saying that it shouldn't be a blanket rule for foreigners married to Finn. We are well aware of the fact that some marry to ' reap' Finland's undisputed social benefits. But my point is that they should study each case on its own and not just give it a blanket treatment.

The last time I checked, airline check-in counters were not staffed by public officials. The traveller's first point of contact with a public official is at passport control. As there is often more than one such control point, the person concerned would have to know which desk to go to (the same applies to check-in desks). Furthermore, departure has not occurred until the person concerned has boarded the vessel (aircraft, ship etc.) or passed through the frontier. Supervised departure implies supervision up to this point.

The regulations on foreign spouses of persons resident in Finland were substantially revised in the new Aliens Act, and supervised departure of such individuals is now extremely rare. However, the point about studying each case individually is certainly orthodox wisdom, and it brings us back to the impossibility of summary processing of applications and the problem of long waiting times even for relatively simple conclusions.

daryl

[daryl]

Legally speaking, this application probably failed because one of the "other conditions" [examined by UVI] was not met. In other words, there was a "general impediment to arrival". I can't be sure of this without seeing the case documents, but this is my best guess.

So if he is already in the country, shouldn't the border guards have done their job and refused him entry then

You've lost the thread, Hank. Our friend adincluj initially entered Finland either with a visitor's visa or under a visa exemption arrangement. Presumably adincluj satisfied the basic arrival conditions (e.g. carrying sufficient funds for the duration of stay) when meeting the frontier guards on the way in. He or she then sought permission to stay for the purpose of employment.

The notion of an impediment to arrival refers in particular to arrival as an immigrant.

daryl

[Hank W.]

I'm not lost

as is the greater need for applicants to have some basic knowledge of the migrant worker system before leaving their countries of origin.

So in other words you agree with my "RTFM you stupid git" - approach.

[daryl]

I'm not lost

as is the greater need for applicants to have some basic knowledge of the migrant worker system before leaving their countries of origin.

So in other words you agree with my "RTFM you stupid git" - approach.

It would be nice if the manual was written clearly in a language that the stupid git could understand. It would likewise be nice if the initial permit (i.e. the visitor's visa) was provided with some explanation of scenarios that it includes and excludes.

At the very least a visa application form should include an opportunity to declare in advance that the applicant intends to seek employment, attend a job interview etc. My understanding is that these questions are not asked (though it's a while since I've seen a visa application form).

daryl

[Hank W.]

I totally agree on the "it would be nice" points.

[Jools]

This is spoken in jest or in ignorance, surely

I mean no disrespect. Perhaps it was out of ignorance. But can't a refugee or an asylum seeker be rejected, thereby needing to be deported?

And I know what archaic means. I guess I was just trying to suggest that perhaps a more 'in' word be used, instead of 'alien', which sounds kind of condescending in this day and age.

[Hank W.]

So what if we changed the word to reflect "this day and age" and then someone decided to change the language again?

[sinikettu]

Somewhere earlier in this thread I stated my opinion that the problems associated with the UVI were IMHO coming right from the top man.
http://www.government.fi/hallitus/jasen ... eri/en.jsp

Did anyone read the article in the drop out magazine "plussa" that come in the Ilta Sanomat on Saturdays.
The general theme was that the Minister of Interior..(and therefore his staff).
"On aini oikeasssa!"..Or so he says....

[Jools]

So what if we changed the word to reflect "this day and age" and then someone decided to change the language again?

I knew I would get some people excited over that phrase! To draw a comparison why I am offended by the word 'alien', a lot of people these days no longer use the word mongoloid to describe a person with Down's Syndrome. See, that's why you got so riled up, Hank. ( I think he meant Mongolian)

[Hank W.]

Define me a 'mongolian' or a 'mongol' first. AFAIK the guys with Genghis were a multiethnic crowd.

Well, language and language in Finnish you're still 'outside lands person'... and I wonder what the 'Immigration department' of HK really reads in Chinese... "The Office of Guarding the Center of the Universe from Foreign Long-Nosed Devils"

oi joo, olen alien, täysin ulkopuolinen, olen Turkulainen Helsingis...