Need advice on residence permit renewal

[johnvirgin]

Hi,

To all the experts in this forum:

I was given a residence permit type B when I was on a project in Finland. The length of this permit was from 01.09.2004 to 01.09.2006. After quitting from my former employer on 01.03.2005, I have left Finland but now was offered a permanent position in a Finnish IT company. I faxed them a copy of my residence permit and after checking, they said that it is still valid and I can work using that until 31.08.2006 and of course, I'll have to get that renewed before it expires.

My question: How do I make sure that I get a type A residence permit upon renewal? Also, out of curiosity, who initiates the renewal process; is it me or my employer?

Thanks in advance,
JV

[Hank W.]

Your employer needs to co-sign the application after getting a statement from MOL (the local employment office) so I guess its hand-in-hand.

[daryl]

Hi,

To all the experts in this forum:

I was given a residence permit type B when I was on a project in Finland. The length of this permit was from 01.09.2004 to 01.09.2006. After quitting from my former employer on 01.03.2005, I have left Finland but now was offered a permanent position in a Finnish IT company. I faxed them a copy of my residence permit and after checking, they said that it is still valid and I can work using that until 31.08.2006 and of course, I'll have to get that renewed before it expires.

My question: How do I make sure that I get a type A residence permit upon renewal? Also, out of curiosity, who initiates the renewal process; is it me or my employer?

Thanks in advance,
JV

You are the applicant and this is best done by you at the earliest opportunity. You do not need to wait for the previous permit to expire - in fact it is in your interests to sort this out earlier rather than later.

Get the forms from the Directorate of Immigration website:

http://www.uvi.fi/netcomm/content.asp?article=1942

Get your employer to complete and sign certificate TM 054. You should attach this to your application. You do not sign this certificate, but you should make sure that the job details are correct and complete.

Fill in the application form proper, UVI 101. Specify on the first page of the form that you are requesting a continuous worker's residence permit (type A). Sign and date the application.

Make a clear photocopy of the entire signed application (including the TM 054 form) for your own future reference. Then staple the application papers together firmly.

Go to the nearest branch of your local employment office - any branch. Assuming that this hotlink works, it will have the following green triangular symbol outside:



Hand over the application papers and ask for a certificate of processing (vireilläolotodistus). If the official does not understand this request, then ask the official to make a copy of the first page of the application papers and then put the office stamp on this copy, together with the word "saapunut" followed by the date and the official's initials.

If the employment office tries to send you elsewhere or otherwise tries to turn you away for any reason whatsoever, then take the name of the official and make a note of the time and place. If the official refuses to give a name, then note down a general description of the official instead and contact me with those details.

Do not argue with the official. The employment office has an unambiguous legal obligation to serve you, but instead of allowing the officials to create retrospective justifications for their bad service, it is best to respond to any unlawful behaviour through formal channels.

daryl

[daryl]

Your employer needs to co-sign the application after getting a statement from MOL (the local employment office) so I guess its hand-in-hand.

No offence intended, Hank, but you clearly have little or no idea what you are talking about.

daryl

[Hank W.]

Oh, guru Daryl, the beacon of intelligence, please tell me what I said was wrong. The employer must sign the form to get the labour opinion, the person must fill in the rest of the application documents; it requires a joint effort. If one is not happening the other will not happen either. So its no use "applying for a residence permit" if you don't have "work" as in an "employer" to sign the MOL form. QED easy as that if one uses 5 minutes to read the bloody paperwork and filling-in instructions through.

I do admit not having seen the process done according to the new 1.5.2004 law; though what I understand the employer still can query the "labour policy" before submitting the paperwork even there isn't a separate "work permit" procedure round any more. Not that it has much enhanced the effectiveness of bureacracy - or has it?

[daryl]

Oh, guru Daryl, the beacon of intelligence, please tell me what I said was wrong. The employer must sign the form to get the labour opinion, the person must fill in the rest of the application documents; it requires a joint effort. If one is not happening the other will not happen either. So its no use "applying for a residence permit" if you don't have "work" as in an "employer" to sign the MOL form. QED easy as that if one uses 5 minutes to read the bloody paperwork and filling-in instructions through.

I do admit not having seen the process done according to the new 1.5.2004 law; though what I understand the employer still can query the "labour policy" before submitting the paperwork even there isn't a separate "work permit" procedure round any more. Not that it has much enhanced the effectiveness of bureacracy - or has it?

Here is what you said:

Your employer needs to co-sign the application after getting a statement from MOL (the local employment office) so I guess its hand-in-hand.

This is incredibly misleading.

The employer does not sign the application at all. The employer merely provides a certificate using the TM 054 form (or equivalent). This certificate is attached to the application.

The certificate is not an application. It requests nothing as such, but merely states facts about an existing or proposed employment relationship. Nor does the applicant sign the certificate, so this cannot be viewed as an expression of the applicant's intentions ("tahdonilmaisu")

To say that the employer co-signs the application by providing a certificate is like saying that your previous employers and the director of the public examinations board co-sign your job application simply because you attach certificates of previous employment and education to the application.

The employer does not receive a statement from the employment authority. Nor was this even the case under the old Aliens Act. Form TM 054 provides part of the information that is used by the employment authority to issue either a decision on a worker's residence permit or an opinion that the applicant is exempt from the requirement to hold such a permit. This decision or opinion then forms part of the process whereby the local police or the Directorate of Immigration issue the residence permit.

Although the employer is not the applicant, the employer is a "concerned party" with certain recognised independent rights of appeal against negative decisions issued by the employment authority.

It is also worth noting that the permit does not oblige the holder to work for the particular employer that has provided the TM 054 certificate details. The permit holder may work for any employer in the professional capacity that has been licensed by the permit.

daryl

[johnvirgin]

Hi,

I didn't check this forum before today . I'm a bit confused on the part where I have to get a certificate from the Labour Office before proceeding with the application at the Immigration Police.

Just to let you know my experience.

In the middle of June 2006, I called up the Immigration Police and asked for the details and paperwork required to get my residence permit renewed. I was told that I need to submit a completed UVI 101 form, a completed TM 054 form, pay 100 euros and a colour photo. There was no mentioned of 'vireilläolotodistus' at all. I asked my employer to check with the Labour Office on the TM 054 and she was told that the HR manager of the company I work for can sign that form.

On the day I submitted the paperwork, I was not informed or asked for the 'vireilläolotodistus' either. I specifically asked if I can be given the Type A permit and was told to write it in the UVI 101 form. The form does not have an area where you can specifically request for type A other than the choices in section IV (apparently, marking the 'Permanently' box to the question 'Does the applicant intend to come to Finland' does not translate to 'I want Type A permit'!!). The lady processed everything and gave me a receipt.

Last week I called to find out how things are going, and the person told me they need my passport which I handed over on Friday ( 18.08 ). I'm then told to wait for a letter from them so that I can go collect my passport. I'll post on this forum how that turns out and if I get Type A or B.

[Hank W.]

I guess its all in the wheels then. What you get probably though, is permanent with an "end date", that you need to renew at some point and time. They changed the classifications with the new law so it has a bit of a different lettering system, the 'old A& B' had a bit different basis so it is slightly confusing.

I'm a bit confused on the part where I have to get a certificate from the Labour Office before proceeding with the application at the Immigration Police.

No, you don't *physically* need to get it. It comes automagically within the process - you paperwork needs to get it in the process - the immigration police & labour office send the paperwork back & forth and these days one can leave the renewal papers at the labour office directly as well.

The labour opinion bit bickering with Daryl we had up there was partly as I'm wanting to make it clear that its a two-tiered process. There comes every now and then a few bright-eyed individuals asking about "work permit" which these days is "workers residence permit" and you basically besdes filling out the UVI101 "have to have a job first" and an employer to fill up their part of the paperwork the TM054 - HFR departments are used to this but smaller companies might be slightly miffed... (unless you are self-employed and that requires some other hoops). Of course one can submit the application, but it is basically throwing money away.

Now this thing usually involves people in foreign parts, who are submitting their first paperwork to the embassy. Finland doesn't give out residence permits "to come and find work", so it is unfortunately a bit of a catch-22 in some cases. It isn't exactly easy to find the correct niche job, and the bright-eyd individuals sure of their own qualifications and skills haven't faced the Finnish job market realities.. Once you are "in" then the process, should I say gets easier but still requires the proper papers in the proper order.

[daryl]

Hi,

I didn't check this forum before today . I'm a bit confused on the part where I have to get a certificate from the Labour Office before proceeding with the application at the Immigration Police.

I explained the procedure in considerable detail in my posting of 17 February 2006. I also pointed out that you could get your permit type changed immediately and that it was in your interests to do so. Obviously you are in no hurry to maximise your immigration benefits.

Just to let you know my experience.

In the middle of June 2006, I called up the Immigration Police and asked for the details and paperwork required to get my residence permit renewed. I was told that I need to submit a completed UVI 101 form, a completed TM 054 form, pay 100 euros and a colour photo. There was no mentioned of 'vireilläolotodistus' at all. I asked my employer to check with the Labour Office on the TM 054 and she was told that the HR manager of the company I work for can sign that form.

On the day I submitted the paperwork, I was not informed or asked for the 'vireilläolotodistus' either.

It is wise to ask the official for a certificate of processing, as it protects you in the event of official accidents and incompetence. Do not expect officials to give you the ammunition that you need to shoot them down when they lose your application papers and then claim that they have never seen you. This applies in particular to local joint service points providing employment office services. A certificate of processing is an official acknowledgement of receipt. You are entitled to such an acknowledgement by law whenever submitting documents to a public authority. Many civil servants need to be "reminded" of this fact, however.

The trick is to expect good service but be prepared to respond to bad service through official channels.

I specifically asked if I can be given the Type A permit and was told to write it in the UVI 101 form. The form does not have an area where you can specifically request for type A other than the choices in section IV (apparently, marking the 'Permanently' box to the question 'Does the applicant intend to come to Finland' does not translate to 'I want Type A permit'!!). The lady processed everything and gave me a receipt.

You have noticed one of the outstanding problems of the new system. According to the government bill for the new Aliens Act:

... lupaviranomainen ratkaisee hakijan maassa oleskelun tarkoituksen hakijan oleskelulupahakemuksessaan esittämän tahdonilmaisun pohjalta.

That is, "... the permit authority will decide the purpose of the applicant's residence in Finland on the basis of the expression of intent that the applicant submits in his residence permit application."

As you have realised, there is no specific place in the application form that requests any such "expression of intent". This is why I advised you to "specify on the first page of the form that you are requesting a continuous worker's residence permit (type A)." I assume that you did in fact write this intention somewhere prominently on the form(?) I also advised you to "make a clear photocopy of the entire signed application ... for your own future reference". You followed this advice, of course, so you can now check to see exactly how you expressed your intention.

I have a case pending at the Administrative Court of Helsinki that may help to resolve this problem. I have argued before the court that the authority cannot merely assume the applicant's intention to remain in Finland temporarily when the applicant has not been explicitly asked about this intention and has not otherwise expressed this intention. There are good grounds for this argument, based both on the Aliens Act and on Finnish administrative law. We shall see how this case turns out, but in any event it is clear that the published application form (which is technically neither required nor official) falls short of the requirements of the government bill.

Last week I called to find out how things are going, and the person told me they need my passport which I handed over on Friday ( 18.08 ). I'm then told to wait for a letter from them so that I can go collect my passport. I'll post on this forum how that turns out and if I get Type A or B.

Given the details of the work that you do, I would expect the permit to be of continuous type. If it is not, then you should receive a written decision specifying the reasons for not issuing a continuous type permit. You can then take this to a legal adviser, who will study the decision that you received and the copy of the application documents that you so wisely kept, in order to evaluate your appeal prospects.

The permit will not necessarily be a worker's residence permit as such, but may also be an ordinary continuous type residence permit that includes the right to work. This kind of permit is issued when, in the opinion of the local employment office, your work is of a specialist character that is exempt from the requirement for a worker's residence permit. For practical purposes the outcome is the same.

daryl

[Hank W.]

it is clear that the published application form (which is technically neither required nor official) falls short of the requirements of the government bill.

The thing with these forms is that they are too often designed by people who know their 'bureaucratese' too well and assume everyone in the public using them to understand their vocabulary is as well understood. Like the terminology used if it is an interpretable word the public will surely interprete it in a logical manner that has nothing to do with the bureaucrat logic. Just filled in a legal document wrong as there was a possibility of interpretation and I was expecting it to go with the bureaucratical logic. Some offices are better than others, tax office seems to be quite clear, but some forms really need a booklet of 'how to fill in' to go with (and even then the booklet is incomprehensible as well).

[Hank W.]

As you have realised, there is no specific place in the application form that requests any such "expression of intent".

So how do you say more clearly in the part in V

Does the applicant intend to come to Finland _permanently _temporarily, there isn't a third tickbox (of course technically speaking if the applicant is already in Finland of course this is quite confusing probably )

However a slight help is also later on the row "For how long/until when does the applicant intend to stay in Finland". Wonder what that is for? Ryanair schedule? Maybe the answer for 'how long' is not grammatically correct as 'permanently' , a Finn would probably write down 'toistaiseksi', as that is what reads on a permanent work contract, even in English that conveys a slightly different meaning. On the other hand if you jot down a specific date in that space that clearly signifies an intent to be leaving some day, does it not?

So I don't know how more specific can one get, though I'd say the wording in those tickboxes should be changed to 'Does the applicant intend to reside in Finland _ permanantly _temporarily'

[daryl]

As you have realised, there is no specific place in the application form that requests any such "expression of intent".

So how do you say more clearly in the part in V

Does the applicant intend to come to Finland _permanently _temporarily, there isn't a third tickbox (of course technically speaking if the applicant is already in Finland of course this is quite confusing probably)

However a slight help is also later on the row "For how long/until when does the applicant intend to stay in Finland". Wonder what that is for? Ryanair schedule? Maybe the answer for 'how long' is not grammatically correct as 'permanently' , a Finn would probably write down 'toistaiseksi', as that is what reads on a permanent work contract, even in English that conveys a slightly different meaning. On the other hand if you jot down a specific date in that space that clearly signifies an intent to be leaving some day, does it not?

So I don't know how more specific can one get, though I'd say the wording in those tickboxes should be changed to 'Does the applicant intend to reside in Finland _ permanantly _temporarily'

Hank, you have detected

AN IMPROVEMENT!!!

It would appear that UVI101 has been completely revamped this year in response to various criticisms. I pointed out in my earlier posting that this form is "technically neither required nor official". The upside of this is that the administration can revise the form to correct deficiencies without going through the process of amending statutes or ministerial regulations. This now seems to have happened (but the change is in section IV of the form, not section V).

I have various earlier versions of the same form that justify my previous remarks. The present form appears to date from March of this year.

This remark by johnvirgin was puzzling:

apparently, marking the 'Permanently' box to the question 'Does the applicant intend to come to Finland' does not translate to 'I want Type A permit'!!

At the time of posting my response this morning I thought this was a reference to the checkbox for a permanent residence permit. That would make the quoted observation correct. Instead, however, this is a reference to a new checkbox that asks the applicant to state a general intention to remain in Finland permanently. Checking THIS box definitely DOES translate to "I want a type-A permit".

The introduction of this specific request for the applicant's intentions is a milestone in the history of the Finnish immigration system. It puts an end to decades of arm-wrestling about the applicant's "reason for coming to Finland", which was previously something that the authority took very great care not to ask about, so that it could impose its own interpretation on the applicant's circumstances.

I did put out a rumour about 10 months ago that I would pursue this matter as an official complaint after the administrative court had ruled in the case to which I referred in my last posting in this thread. I also sent a Member of Parliament enough background information to ask a written question on the same subject. It would appear that this softly-softly approach to lobbying can sometimes be quite effective.

daryl

[Hank W.]

It puts an end to decades of arm-wrestling about the applicant's "reason for coming to Finland", which was previously something that the authority took very great care not to ask about, so that it could impose its own interpretation on the applicant's circumstances.

Of course - carte blances like that are very nice 'tools of the trade'. Imagine now the poor UVI sods they actually get to play only lesser gods.

I still think though the wording by the tickbox ought to be revised a bit, but comparing to the old version it definitely is clearer.

[johnvirgin]

The reason I didn't apply sooner was because I was under 4 months probation and at the time, I thought I wanted to 'feel' my employer out first. On hindsight, I should've put in the application regardless. So you were correct in this, Daryl. And yes, I did made photocopies of every document that I submitted - wise of me, I agree.

The reason I said "marking the 'Permanently' box to the question 'Does the applicant intend to come to Finland' does not translate to 'I want Type A permit'!!" is because I asked the lady who accepted my application; if checking 'Permanently' and putting in the sentence 'The applicant intends to stay permanently in Finland' (instead of a date) to the last question in section IV of the form UVI 101, means I will be granted a Type A permit. I was told 'No'. I still have to request for it specifically, which I did. I made my intention clear and precise on the form so that there is no ambiguity there, but I still have to 'ask' for a Type A permit! Go figure.

Should there be any future extension application, I'll follow your advice Daryl and get a certificate of posting from the Labour Office first.

JV

[daryl]

The reason I didn't apply sooner was because I was under 4 months probation and at the time, I thought I wanted to 'feel' my employer out first. On hindsight, I should've put in the application regardless. So you were correct in this, Daryl. And yes, I did made photocopies of every document that I submitted - wise of me, I agree.

The government bill expressly states that the trial period in an employment contract does not constitute grounds for refusing a continuous-type residence permit.

Your copies will come in handy if you are not satisfied with the outcome. One of the most common reasons for failed appeals is that the applicant did not actually request the benefit in question at the application stage. By carefully comparing what you asked for with what you received, an expert can advise you on whether your best strategy is to appeal or to lodge an entirely new application.

It is quite possible to get copies of the application documents from the authority, but given the time limit for appeal, it is always much better to have clear records of what the applicant did.

The reason I said "marking the 'Permanently' box to the question 'Does the applicant intend to come to Finland' does not translate to 'I want Type A permit'!!" is because I asked the lady who accepted my application; if checking 'Permanently' and putting in the sentence 'The applicant intends to stay permanently in Finland' (instead of a date) to the last question in section IV of the form UVI 101, means I will be granted a Type A permit. I was told 'No'. I still have to request for it specifically, which I did. I made my intention clear and precise on the form so that there is no ambiguity there, but I still have to 'ask' for a Type A permit! Go figure.

I don't have to figure, as I know the background. The junior officials that provide customer service generally have only the most rudimentary grasp of the complexities of the system. This was especially true of the old Aliens Act and the bizarre metaphysics of its now defunct "status code" system - which also had A and B, and actually divided foreigners into 50 different classes at one point. Part of the bizarre character of that system was that one could not legally even apply for a status, but that every administrative civil servant below the rank of head of department in central government was under the mistaken impression that this WAS somehow possible.

The main qualification for junior officials in customer service is fluency in several languages, and they get almost no special training in the details of the system as a whole. This explains why the best advice they can give amounts to "tick every box that supports the general idea and write the specific demand somewhere on the form".

I used to bypass the entire application form process by setting out the application demands in a separate letter, often as a series of options. Drove the police stations up the wall, but hey! I didn't elect the politicians that allowed such a mess to develop in the first place.

daryl