Citizenship by application

[permanent]

Hi All,

I am a permanent resident in Finland. I used the site in uvi to evaluate my requirements for Finnish citizenship, and it states that I need 1000 days more to complete my period of residence in Finland.

In the evaluation form, it asks for the date when your permanent residency began in Finland (2003) and converts that date as MOVED to Finland date (in the results calculated by the service). On the other hand, I MOVED to Finland in 1998 in temporary work permit and has since been working and paying taxes. Why is this contradiction? I also called up UVI and the reply was that I need 1000 more days to complete my period of residence in Finland.

Can anyone clarify on the above contradictions?

Thanks in advance.

[Hank W.]

I'd guess in bureaucratese: "moved permanently", or rather "registered as a permanent resident". BTW The maistraatti sometimes do a nasty trick they keep "temporary resident" in the books if one does not go specifically go tell them that you are now on a permanent permit, so you might need to check with them. The police & UVI can get information from them, but the privacy laws then again forbid the police & UVI sharing information backwards, so if you don't tell the Maistraatti you are permanent you are "temporary" in their books. Effects kids, schools, KELA, etc. Just if you're not sure check with them as well.

[odon]

hi!

it does not count your "temporary" time even if you payed tax and had a work permit, it matters when it was stamped your permanent resident visa...if it was in 2003 then it is 6 yrs after that,so roughly 2009, but i hear that from 2007 the law was going to change and calcultate only 4 yrs on your permanent resident, but that is hear say....!! This is not australia or canada.....you have a long wait....!! unless you are married to a finn!! then it is 4 yrs....!!

hope things are a little clear

[permanent]

Thanks to both of you for clarifications and suggestion.

[daryl]

This is a complex question, but let's try to explain things a little here.

1. Citizenship applications are based on the Finnish Nationality Act (kansalaisuuslaki) and immigration pörocedures are based on the Aliens Act (ulkomaalaislaki). Though mainly administered by the same public authority, these laws and the criteria that they establish are technically separate.

2. The Directorate of Immigration provides the following translation of section 7 of the Finnish Nationality Act:

Permanent residence and domicile

When assessing an alien’s residence in Finland,
permanent residence and domicile mean in this Act
a person’s actual and principal residence where his
or her residence is of a permanent nature.

The original Finnish text is as follows:

Varsinainen asunto ja koti

Arvioitaessa ulkomaalaisen Suomessa asumista
varsinaisella asunnolla ja kodilla tarkoitetaan tässä
laissa henkilön tosiasiallista ja pääasiallista
oleskelupaikkaa, jossa hän oleskelee
pysyväisluonteisesti.

I would be strongly inclined to translate this differently into English:

Primary dwelling and home

When assessing an alien’s residence in Finland
the expression "primary dwelling and home" shall
denote, for the purposes of this Act, the actual and
principal place where the person resides, where the
person's residence is of permanent character.

2a. Although this definition is far from clear, it is at least obvious that the Finnish Nationality Act seeks to establish its own criteria for deciding when a foreigner has lived in Finland permanently. The primary concern is also for where the foreigner has been physically living.

3. The government bill for the Finnish Nationality Act (HE 235/2002) discusses this definition in detail. The main point of this discussion is to stress that what matters in nationality applications is the place at which the applicant has been actually and physically resident. However, the bill also states the following (on page 35):

Henkilöllä ei voisi olla varsinaista asuntoa ja kotia
Suomessa, jos hän oleskelisi täällä muulla kuin
pysyväisluontoisella oleskeluluvalla ...

I would translate this as follows:

A person's primary dwelling and home could not
be in Finland if the person resided in Finland with
a residence permit of other than permanent
character ...

Now this is a reference to one of the most difficult areas of the former Aliens Act, as that Act recognised no direct administrative decision regarding the permanent character of a temporary residence permit at the time of issue. Obviously a permanent residence permit was of permanent character, but the character of a temporary residence permit could not be established finally until the permit holder requested a permanent residence permit. At this point the authority was forced to issue a decision retrospectively affirming the character of temporary residence permits issued for the preceding two years as permanent or otherwise. This appealable decision of the authority only concerned permits issued for the preceding two years. The character of permits issued before this remained undecided.

The new Aliens Act has corrected this shortcoming. Temporary residence permits are now either "continuous" (i.e. for residence of permanent character) or "temporary" (i.e. for residence of non-permanent character) and the decision in this respect is open to immediate appeal.

4. Because the qualifying periods for citizenship by application are longer than those for permanent residence, it is possible that a citizenship decision may involve a determination on the question of whether the character of a temporary residence permit issued under the old Aliens Act was permanent or otherwise. This determination will form part of the factual grounds for the citizenship decision, and will be examined by the administrative court as such.


To sum up, if refusal of citizenship depends on the authority's opinion that a temporary residence permit issued under the old Aliens Act was not of permanent character, then the applicant is well advised to seek expert help in filing an appeal. That appeal will necessarily involve an objective review of the authority's opinion, which in many cases has not been properly researched on the basis of concrete facts concerning the applicant's residence in Finland.

One especially interesting point concerns whether the administrative court will then apply the principles of the old Aliens Act or the new Aliens Act to the question of how long the applicant's residence in Finland has been "of permanent character". Under the new Aliens Act, there is a much stronger presumption that a migrant worker is permanently resident in Finland if the job is open-ended. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour has effectively conceded that the character of many permits issued to migrant workers under the old Aliens Act was misclassified.

Obviously the present situation is only a temporary problem, which will be burned out of the system within a few years.

daryl

[vampe]

Thats something I'm really confused on too.
I want to eventually have permanent residence , but I can't find much on exactly HOW long I have to be in Finland , what I need to do to register correctly so they accept the amount of time & then what I would be able to do in regards to studying (student loans & housing etc)

[sy]

Obviously the present situation is only a temporary problem, which will be burned out of the system within a few years.

Obviously this is what UVI is doing now and all the time! They just lock your application to their drawers for many years, until you have the required number of years since you have A-status or A-type.

[daryl]

Obviously the present situation is only a temporary problem, which will be burned out of the system within a few years.

Obviously this is what UVI is doing now and all the time! They just lock your application to their drawers for many years, until you have the required number of years since you have A-status or A-type.

It's not quite that simple, as there are laws that forbid this so-called valohoito.

I have just been asked to review a case in which a refusal of citizenship was issued after about one year of processing. Although I have yet to see the documents, it appears that the refusal may have been due to the misclassification of a residence permit issued under the old Aliens Act.

If you know of a comparable application that was filed before this and is still pending, then please let me know.

daryl

[Hank W.]

It's not quite that simple, as there are laws that forbid this so-called valohoito.

OB. ling. I wouldn't call that "valohoito" rather than "ö-mappi".

[daryl]

It's not quite that simple, as there are laws that forbid this so-called valohoito.

OB. ling. I wouldn't call that "valohoito" rather than "ö-mappi".

Valohoito is the procedure of leaving a problematic document on the office window sill until the problem goes away for some reason (the difficult client dies, the official retires, the Belgian Army occupies Helsinki etc.). Obviously the problem will also eventually go away because the document will become unreadable after prolonged exposure to sunlight. Hence the expression.

daryl

[sy]

If you know of a comparable application that was filed before this and is still pending, then please let me know.

daryl

I filed my applicaton at the end of May 2003, just before the new Nationality Act came into effect. Still no news about the result; so it'll soon be 3 years!

I sent a request at the early stage that my application should go through the "selvät myönteiset" process. However my request was treated as a speed-up request and turned down.

I was in no hurry to get the citizenship before. But now, I feel that lacking the Finnish citizenship is hurting my career. Since many customer projects are handed to other employees, because they can travel much easily to other countries without the visa trouble.

One of my friend filed his application at about the same time, and got no answer, either.

Another friend filed his aplication about a year later than I did. But he said to UVI that because he is one of the co-founders of a small start-up company, his application was apprived within one year.

The record process time I heard of is about 6 years! OK, that was long time before.

I heard the rumor from different sources that UVI was trying to clear the backlog of all applications filed under the old Nationality Act at the end of year 2005. However I haven't heard of anything regarding to my application.

[permanent]

Daryl Wrote:

Obviously a permanent residence permit was of permanent character, but the character of a temporary residence permit could not be established finally until the permit holder requested a permanent residence permit. At this point the authority was forced to issue a decision retrospectively affirming the character of temporary residence permits issued for the preceding two years as permanent or otherwise.

What happens when a person's A visa is rejected in the first year stating that his/her job is temporary (due to closed ended contract), and in the next year he/she gets A visa even though he/she continues in the same job? Will that year be considered in citizenship time requirement?

Thanks again in advance for ur reponses.....

[daryl]

Daryl Wrote:

Obviously a permanent residence permit was of permanent character, but the character of a temporary residence permit could not be established finally until the permit holder requested a permanent residence permit. At this point the authority was forced to issue a decision retrospectively affirming the character of temporary residence permits issued for the preceding two years as permanent or otherwise.

What happens when a person's A visa is rejected in the first year stating that his/her job is temporary (due to closed ended contract), and in the next year he/she gets A visa even though he/she continues in the same job? Will that year be considered in citizenship time requirement?

Thanks again in advance for ur reponses.....

There is a genuine problem here, which was recognised by the Ministry of Labour in the groundwork for the new Aliens Act. Under the new Act, the employment authority must examine the facts of the employment and custom and practice in the industry concerned. It cannot simply assume that a migrant worker has come to Finland temporarily because the job has an apparent end-date. Most importantly, the decision of the employment authority is open to appeal, and so the administrative court can also go over this question. When it does so, the court will inevitably apply the standards of the Employment Contracts Act to determine whether the applicant's job is genuinely temporary.

It is also possible to file a declaratory action in the District Court, seeking to cancel the expiry date in an employment contract. In fact this is the ultimate rude question to put to any union boss who complains about the prevalence of unfounded temporary employment: has the union filed such actions on behalf of its members? The short answer is no. The legal instruments exist but the unions do not use them. It's more fun to grumble about the perceived unfairness of the system.

The problem with declaratory actions for the migrant worker is that they take too long to process. You can't put the permit system on hold while waiting for the District Court to rule on whether the employment contract is permanent or temporary.

If the first permit was issued under the old Aliens Act, then various forms of legal redress may be available, depending on the precise way that the matter was processed. In some cases the actual agreement between the migrant worker and the employer is something like "it's a job for one year with an option on a permanent job". Under the Employment Contracts Act, this can and should be interpreted to mean that the job is a permanent job with employment guaranteed for the first year (i.e. no redundancy is possible during this initial year). Now if the employer advised the employment authority directly that the job was a one-year appointment only and the employee was not heard on this matter, then there are grounds to argue that a procedural error occurred and that the migrant worker should not have been understood as temporary.

daryl

[tempoman]

Hello,
6months B3 +
2 years B3 +
2 yearsB1 +
1 year A = confusion?

The total time I am living in Finland is almost 5.5 years now. Can I
apply in 2007 for Finnish citizenship, when I reach the 6 year limit?

The reason I got first B3 for 6 months was, the fact that I was really living temporarily in Finland, but for the 2 year B3 permit I got next; I had a permanent work contract as a researcher full-time-paying taxes. They still gave me B3 because I was a "doctoral student" (I already graduated with M.Sc. in IT before coming to Finland). After 2 years of B3, I applied for A2 but I got a B1 for 2 years, not an A2 because "my status was B3 before and they cannot give me A2 after B3", even though my employee supported me for A2 because of the importance of my job. After that new alien's act came and I got an A status after the act; and now I have to wait 4 years for permanent permit according to police and labour offfice. So it will be 9 years! for me just to get a permanent permit? Is this normal; while many working people get it in 5 years max?
When I inquired about it last year, they told me it is impossible to change old statuses because it is an "old decision". What are my chances in changing these by going to court? I strongly believe the decisions were faulty because I had permanent contract in all cases.

But in the mean time I am registered in majistraatti as "permanent resident" since 2001 and I voted in local elections 2003. I also have KELA since 2001. Are these important in citizenship?

Can I, or do you advise going to court for status change before applying to citizenship to clear things and avoid "valohoito"?? (By the way I had been subject to "extreme valohoito" by many officials; so tell me about it, but you can't do anything more than just complaining or can you?)

If you think I have a chance, what would enhance my application? Help greatly appreciated!!

Thanks!:)
tempoman

[permanent]

Daryl Wrote:

Under the new Act, the employment authority must examine the facts of the employment and custom and practice in the industry concerned. It cannot simply assume that a migrant worker has come to Finland temporarily because the job has an apparent end-date

Does this mean that all the temporary permits issued (for closed ended contracts) in the old aliens act can be questioned? I was in B1 for two years before I applied for an A permit. By the new act, I see friends of mine (who have closed ended contracts) get A permit directly without any B permits!