Permanent residence

[desert nomad]

Hi everyone,

Now the new forms are out and there is a special form for permanent residence. There is a box stating whether the applicant has lived 4 years with A status or not. Naturally if an applicant applies one month ahead in time (which is the norm in most residence permit extensions) then he can't tick that box. In this case will there be a risk of rejection?

[tuulen]

Hi everyone,

Now the new forms are out and there is a special form for permanent residence. There is a box stating whether the applicant has lived 4 years with A status or not. Naturally if an applicant applies one month ahead in time (which is the norm in most residence permit extensions) then he can't tick that box. In this case will there be a risk of rejection?

Looking at the matter from a strictly technical perspective, yes, there could be a risk of rejection, and, worse, perhaps making a false claim could amount to a violation of the law. After all, four years is 48 months, but one month short of that is only 47 months, and perhaps no governmental officer could have an authority to say that 47 = 48. OK, that is strictly technical. However, is it possible for you to postpone filing until you actually do have 48 months of A status? That way, you could honestly say that you do have four years of A status residency, and you could also honestly say that you filed in a timely fashion, but that you could then simply be waiting for a return of your application.

IOW, you need to have a full 48 months, and you need to file on time, but your application might not be returned to you instantly.

[desert nomad]

Thanks tuulen, I was thinking the same thing but I got confused when the lady at the police station said I can apply even two months ahead but that was with the old forms where we didn't have that box and things were more general.

[tuulen]

There could be a situation where making a good guess could be good enough, like maybe when applying for a fishing license, or something like that, but matters of residency and citizenship really should be taken seriously. So, it makes sense to interpret any questions very literally, and to then give literally correct answers, and that way the government gets exactly what it asked for.

[daryl]

Hi everyone,

Now the new forms are out and there is a special form for permanent residence. There is a box stating whether the applicant has lived 4 years with A status or not. Naturally if an applicant applies one month ahead in time (which is the norm in most residence permit extensions) then he can't tick that box. In this case will there be a risk of rejection?

If I have understood this post correctly, the problem is not that the current permit will expire at the end of 47 months, but that the applicant simply wants to file the paperwork one month before the current permit expires at the end of 48 months.

This is not really a problem at all. It is quite normal for applications to be lodged before the previous permit expires. Unless otherwise specified, or unless the matter is evident from the context (i.e. the applicant is seeking extra qualitative rights, such as a broader right to work), it is normal to understand that the requested permit will be an extension of the previous permit. If you want to make this explicit, then tick the 48-month box and write in large block letters LUPAA HAETAAN DD.MM.YYYY LUKIEN, in which DD.MM.YYYY is the expiry date of the previous permit.

This would not be the first time that an application form designed by Migri or its predecessor authorities has been misleading. In fact customer service problems of this kind are commonplace, and will probably remain so until Migri starts to appreciate the need to consult its clients about point-of-service operating policies.

A quick look at the Migri homepage reveals something that could well be a much bigger problem. There are now various forms for diverse purposes, but there seems to be no appreciation for the fact that applicants may have multiple application grounds. Which form do you complete if you are the unmarried spouse of an immigrant who has been offered a job in Finland and a place at a Finnish university and you also have one Finnish grandparent, grew up on the Michigan Peninsula and attended Finlandia University? What happens if you are advised to use the wrong form by some overworked, underpaid and inadequately trained junior official?

[desert nomad]

Thanks Daryl, but no my current permit expires 6 months after the date I'm eligible for PR, so does what you said still apply here?!

[daryl]

Thanks Daryl, but no my current permit expires 6 months after the date I'm eligible for PR, so does what you said still apply here?!

Obviously you should apply as of the date on which you become eligible. There's no need to wait until the current permit expires.

[raamv]

A quick look at the Migri homepage reveals something that could well be a much bigger problem. There are now various forms for diverse purposes, but there seems to be no appreciation for the fact that applicants may have multiple application grounds. Which form do you complete if you are the unmarried spouse of an immigrant who has been offered a job in Finland and a place at a Finnish university and you also have one Finnish grandparent, grew up on the Michigan Peninsula and attended Finlandia University? What happens if you are advised to use the wrong form by some overworked, underpaid and inadequately trained junior official?

It very well could apply to Non-EU also..and yes its getting quite difficult when they are starting to simplify....
As usual its the norm not to ask anyone to see if what the applicants will understand.. Its only how the deciding authority understands..

[daryl]

It's frustrating to recall that I made these points on multiple application grounds during committee proceedings in the late 90s and early noughties when we were discussing the old status code system. Our work formed part of the background to abolishing that system.

I would be inclined to recommend using the "other purpose" form whenever there are multiple application grounds, as the specific purpose forms imply that the applicant has preferred one purpose over another. This is specifically to deny the duty of the authority to advise applicants and not to curtail their rights unduly. I foresee a great deal of conflict arising at local police stations if the form seeks to discourage applicants from specifying a range of requested benefits supported by a variety of optional justifications. The point is that it is perfectly lawful to submit an application in this form, and any attempt by an official to frustrate such an application is already an infringement of the Administration Act.

I really do wonder what could possibly motivate dividing an application for one and the same permit into a whole series of different application forms, as opposed to using a single form of the kind previously used, with various sections in which the applicant can specify the entire range of justifications for issuing the permit.

[vlad_]

One more question about the Section B, part 4 "Convictions and suspicions of an offence" residence permit form.

What does it mean "...convicted of an offence..." term?
Should I mark in my form the item "Yes, a fine, community service or juvenile punishment"
if
- I had a car accident (collision and damage to another car) and paid just a fine of around 200-300 euros without any court decision but by the police conclusion.
- Got and paid a fine ticket for a wrong parking place for my car?

Or it is only conviction by a court is relevant here ?

The permit department at the police station refused to give me any recommendations here via email...

[Upphew]

What does it mean "...convicted of an offence..." term?
Should I mark in my form the item "Yes, a fine, community service or juvenile punishment"
if
- I had a car accident (collision and damage to another car) and paid just a fine of around 200-300 euros without any court decision but by the police conclusion.
- Got and paid a fine ticket for a wrong parking place for my car?

Or it is only conviction by a court is relevant here ?

At least the latter is not a fine. First one is.. and there is no need for conviction from court as you didn't dispute the fine. If you had done that then there would be (or not) conviction from the court. Probably liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen?

[vlad_]

"liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen?"

Will try to find and check that paper and wording there.

That all looks like administrative penalties for me too but not "...conviction of offence..." .
But I would better to have something on paper to support my intention to avoid marking that item in the form.

...especially when they started to pay more attention to "quality" of permit applicants.
That is not bad, but I would have more information on the new-old requirements and interpretations here.

[dr_aous]

Hi everybody,

I would like to ask about the benefits of getting a permanent residence in Finland? I am a new full-time PhD student in Finland and have type-B residency, I went to maistraatti for some purpose and they informed me that as long you will stay in Finland for more than 2-years, you would be eligible to apply for a permanent residency!

Thanks guys.

[mdn]

I would like to ask about the benefits of getting a permanent residence in Finland? I am a new full-time PhD student in Finland and have type-B residency, I went to maistraatti for some purpose and they informed me that as long you will stay in Finland for more than 2-years, you would be eligible to apply for a permanent residency!

This 'permanent residency' is not a 'permanent residence permit', it means your domicile. Kotikunta.
It is important for a lot of different situations, it will be much better to receive it if it is possible.

[vlad_]

What does it mean "...convicted of an offence..." term?
Or it is only conviction by a court is relevant here ?

At least the latter is not a fine. First one is.. and there is no need for conviction from court as you didn't dispute the fine. If you had done that then there would be (or not) conviction from the court. Probably liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen?

Yes it is.

So is this stuff considered as "convicted of an offence", does anybody know ?

Thank you.