Hi guys,
It was quite a shock to know that the first two years of working with a B status do not count for the PR requirement i.e. You have to work and keep in work for 6 years to get the PR at least thats what I understood.
My question is that true? and for the A status, in the beginning you get 1 year but after that if you remain working are you guaranteed to get 3 years not less?
appreciate all your replies
nomad
Residence type A
AFAIK:
You have different options to reach the PR status:
With B-permit (temporary resident permit - different from study) your route is longer to PR i.e. you will have to keep the B-permit continously to reach PR timing.
Other route is the A-permit (continous resident permit), which is slightly shorter, i.e. you will have to have A-permit for 4 years.
Yes, you get a 3 year permit after you have gotten an A-permit for one year (as long as the criteria for A-permit is still met).
I dont know the evolution-criteria between the B and A permit, but mathematically its 1.5 years of B = 1 year of A. So, if you are very desparate it might be worthwhile trying using this argument in the court against the Poliisi.
HTH!!
You have different options to reach the PR status:
With B-permit (temporary resident permit - different from study) your route is longer to PR i.e. you will have to keep the B-permit continously to reach PR timing.
Other route is the A-permit (continous resident permit), which is slightly shorter, i.e. you will have to have A-permit for 4 years.
Yes, you get a 3 year permit after you have gotten an A-permit for one year (as long as the criteria for A-permit is still met).
I dont know the evolution-criteria between the B and A permit, but mathematically its 1.5 years of B = 1 year of A. So, if you are very desparate it might be worthwhile trying using this argument in the court against the Poliisi.
HTH!!
-
desert nomad
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:52 am
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
People outside the EU. EU people need to declare residence at the police and then be "resident of the municipality", which is the 2nd layer down from the immigration "residence in the country". Now then there is EU and Nordics - the Nordics don't even need to 'declare'... so theres three rings ob official abuse: Finnish & Nordic / EU/ non-EU (hence USA being a "third world country").COBHC wrote:ummm just a quick question, do these residence A and B permits count to everyone moving to Finland or just people outside of the EU?
Finns moving back home from abroad sometimes also get the run-around regarding the "residence in the municipality" as they don't want to take in "welfare cases" as residents so one needs to have an address and so forth to be registered, and to get pension you need to be registered, and before you gt an address you need to get the pension...
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
-
Hank W.
- The Motorhead
- Posts: 29973
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:00 pm
- Location: Mushroom Mountain
- Contact:
Ah, after the declaration four years. And thats just another declaration. I don't think it has any other effect than being able to vote for a Finnish candidate in the EU elections or something like that. Permanent residence IIRC is also required for voting in the municipal elections etc. Of course then if you want to become a Finnish citizen and so forth...
Cheers, Hank W.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.
-
network_engineer
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:21 am
Hi all,
OK, somehow, IMVHO, none of the answers answered the question by the original poster.
And to some of the replies (foreigner, ), you have clearly even lesser understanding of the sytem. Mathematical equation? That's a new one...!
BTW, you don't have any option to reach the PR requirement under an explicitly temporary intent of residence.
desert nomad: To answer your question, you would need to furnish more information.
I'll give you my understanding [that I gathered from Daryl] on the issue, but please contact Daryl directly. He can guide you better.
The *current* permit type B (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 §34) is issued where the intent of the applicant is explicitly temporary. Under the current Alien's Act, permit types indicate the nature and intent of the applicant residence in Finland. Furthermore, they are administrative decisions that are open to judicial review. Now, why do I say that?
Because you mentioned B status. B status is totally different from B permit type.
The earlier status codes (administered while the earlier Alien's Act was in effect) do not reflect the correct nature and intent of an applicant. They are not administrative decisions and an applicant could not even request for a particular status. Furthermore, in a number of cases, the regional work permit authorities incorrectly assigned a B1 status where the correct status should have been A2. All this mess to a conclusion that status codes do not correctly reflect the nature and intent of the applicant residence for that period and thus cannot be used as a legal pre-requisite to a right conferred by the state.
E.g. a migrant moves to Finland in 2001 with a permanent job offer, and moves in with a continuous intent. He is incorrectly issued a B1 status, which in fact should have been an A2. Later on after two years, he is assigned a A2 status. But notice, A2 is issued for continuous purposes, whereas there as been no change in the nature of the applicant's stay in Finland. So, what then forced the authorities to change their mind that the applicant is here on a continuous basis and not on a temporary basis?
To get to the point: If you had moved in here to Finland with a continuous intent that can be reasonably proven, then ask them for an appealable decision. You can then appeal in the Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court has already ruled that the status codes issued while the earlier Alien's Act was in effect do not correctly show a relation to the applicant's nature of stay. Unfortunately, the process takes time.
Coming back to the point: Daryl, with all due apologies, you did mention that others should be able to benefit from a correct interpretation of the law. As I see it, this status codes is finally going to go out of the system in a few years, but not before it c.o.n.t.i.n.u.e.s to infringe specifically on the migrant workers' rights and nobody would be benefiting from the rulings in a timely manner, unless this messed up institution is reported against.
COBHC: To answer your question, unless have been already here in Finland, it is four years of residence under a continuous permit type, i.e. A Type permit to apply for a PR.
Cheers.
OK, somehow, IMVHO, none of the answers answered the question by the original poster.
And to some of the replies (foreigner, ), you have clearly even lesser understanding of the sytem. Mathematical equation? That's a new one...!
BTW, you don't have any option to reach the PR requirement under an explicitly temporary intent of residence.
desert nomad: To answer your question, you would need to furnish more information.
I'll give you my understanding [that I gathered from Daryl] on the issue, but please contact Daryl directly. He can guide you better.
The *current* permit type B (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 §34) is issued where the intent of the applicant is explicitly temporary. Under the current Alien's Act, permit types indicate the nature and intent of the applicant residence in Finland. Furthermore, they are administrative decisions that are open to judicial review. Now, why do I say that?
Because you mentioned B status. B status is totally different from B permit type.
The earlier status codes (administered while the earlier Alien's Act was in effect) do not reflect the correct nature and intent of an applicant. They are not administrative decisions and an applicant could not even request for a particular status. Furthermore, in a number of cases, the regional work permit authorities incorrectly assigned a B1 status where the correct status should have been A2. All this mess to a conclusion that status codes do not correctly reflect the nature and intent of the applicant residence for that period and thus cannot be used as a legal pre-requisite to a right conferred by the state.
E.g. a migrant moves to Finland in 2001 with a permanent job offer, and moves in with a continuous intent. He is incorrectly issued a B1 status, which in fact should have been an A2. Later on after two years, he is assigned a A2 status. But notice, A2 is issued for continuous purposes, whereas there as been no change in the nature of the applicant's stay in Finland. So, what then forced the authorities to change their mind that the applicant is here on a continuous basis and not on a temporary basis?
To get to the point: If you had moved in here to Finland with a continuous intent that can be reasonably proven, then ask them for an appealable decision. You can then appeal in the Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court has already ruled that the status codes issued while the earlier Alien's Act was in effect do not correctly show a relation to the applicant's nature of stay. Unfortunately, the process takes time.
Coming back to the point: Daryl, with all due apologies, you did mention that others should be able to benefit from a correct interpretation of the law. As I see it, this status codes is finally going to go out of the system in a few years, but not before it c.o.n.t.i.n.u.e.s to infringe specifically on the migrant workers' rights and nobody would be benefiting from the rulings in a timely manner, unless this messed up institution is reported against.
COBHC: To answer your question, unless have been already here in Finland, it is four years of residence under a continuous permit type, i.e. A Type permit to apply for a PR.
Cheers.
-
desert nomad
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:52 am
Hi N.E.
Appreciate your lengthy explaination. There could be some logic in what foreigner said with regards to the mathematical expression. If you work with consecutive B permits (for the purpose of work) for 2 years they should be equivalent to a continous status but if there were any interruptions then this is no longer valid.
regards
Appreciate your lengthy explaination. There could be some logic in what foreigner said with regards to the mathematical expression. If you work with consecutive B permits (for the purpose of work) for 2 years they should be equivalent to a continous status but if there were any interruptions then this is no longer valid.
regards
If I were you, I will apply for PR after the continously holding A-type permit for 3 years (and try to use the 2 years of B type permit to be accounted as one A-type year. Although this is not in any "Aliens Act" but its worth a try).desert nomad wrote:Thanks foreigner, well ive been working continously with a B status for 2 years and this year I've upgraded to the 1 year A status. So when do you think I should apply for PR?
IMO, the process will be so that
i) after 3 years of continously having the A-permit
ii) apply for PR to Poliisi
iii) You will be rejected (most probably)
iv) Appeal the decision in the Administrative court on the basis (reference:mathematical equation)
v) See what you get out of it!
I missed one step; get in contact with Daryl.
I hope you didnt take the mathematical equation as something coming from the law (i.e. aliens act), but its more of an idea sort of thing!
Yes, you are right; a new one. When there is no system that explains, you have to be creative. To save 2 years, you have to be.network_engineer wrote:And to some of the replies (foreigner, ), you have clearly even lesser understanding of the sytem. Mathematical equation? That's a new one...!
Lets not confuse the temporary residence permit (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 §34) and temporary intent of residence. Although good information this.. but it can clearly be seen from the original post, the question is about the kind of permits and PR, not how to obtain a permit that will lead the applicant to PR.network_engineer wrote:BTW, you don't have any option to reach the PR requirement under an explicitly temporary intent of residence.
network_engineer wrote:desert nomad: To answer your question, you would need to furnish more information.
FYKI, in practice B-type permits are issued if the applicant does not satisfy the criteria of continous residence as understood by the "permit authorities" although the applicant might want to prove his/her intent to be continous --> (plz ref: Aliens Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 § 34)network_engineer wrote:The *current* permit type B (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 §34) is issued where the intent of the applicant is explicitly temporary.
Please refer again to Aliens Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 § 34. Although the applicant has the right to appeal, the right of decision is with the authorities, so not too much to be milked in the appeal?network_engineer wrote:To get to the point: If you had moved in here to Finland with a continuous intent that can be reasonably proven, then ask them for an appealable decision. You can then appeal in the Administrative Court.
If I am not mistaken, I had the same thing in my postnetwork_engineer wrote:COBHC: To answer your question, unless have been already here in Finland, it is four years of residence under a continuous permit type, i.e. A Type permit to apply for a PR.
-
desert nomad
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:52 am
Let's try to explain this again.
Permit types issued since May 2004 are administrative decisions (= official determinations of individual rights). These decisions specify whether the foreigner intends to/is due to remain in Finland indefinitely or temporarily.
This specification must be based on information and statements of intention that the foreigner submitted to the immigration authority.
A foreigner who disagrees with the specification may appeal to the regional administrative court within 30 days of receiving the decision with appeal instructions. The court then checks that the procedure followed was correct and that the facts of the case were accurately determined and properly interpreted. The decision of the regional administrative court may also be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court. The permit type becomes legally final after the 30-day time limit has expired or after the appeal has been settled.
This is completely normal public administrative procedure in Finland. It results in a legally reliable administrative decision.
Before May 2004 the system was quite different.
Particularly in the case of migrant workers, it was not possible, under the previous Aliens Act, to specify whether the foreigner intended to/was due to remain in Finland indefinitely or temporarily. No such administrative decision could be made, nor could it even be requested.
Only after two years in Finland was it normally even possible to secure an administrative decision that included an assessment of whether the foreigner had been living in Finland indefinitely or temporarily over the preceding two years.
For internal administrative purposes, the immigration authority developed a system of codes that were used to indicate the grounds for issuing residence permits. This so-called "status code" was also entered on the permit stamp in the foreigner's travel document.
There was a general right of appeal, but the courts can only review administrative decisions (= official determinations of individual rights). The status code was not an administrative decision. The courts therefore confined their work to reviewing the material aspects of residence permit decisions (=whether or not the permit was issued and for how long).
As it was not a determination of rights, but merely a classification of the details underlying decisions, the status code was not open to direct challenge in the courts. Instead a state of legal uncertainty continued until the assumptions underlying the status code emerged in the form of an administrative decision. This decision would usually concern an application for a permanent residence permit or, for example, a social security claim.
This legal uncertainty under the old Aliens Act still affects a few foreigners in Finland. The problem will expire from the Finnish immigration system in May 2008 and a bit later for citizenship applications.
The main problem concerns migrant workers who arrived before May 2004 to remain in Finland indefinitely. The grounds for issuing residence permits to some of these foreigners were evidently misclassified.
Misclassified migrant workers became eligible for a permanent residence permit two years after arrival, but they have generally run into a series of difficulties when applying for such permits. These difficulties arise because the immigration authorities continue to be unwilling to review the material grounds for issuing the first residence permit. For this reason such cases are still reaching the courts.
The administrative court can and should cancel any decision that is based on a misinterpretation of the facts underlying an earlier residence permit decision. For an example of this see decision 06892/04/3102 of the Administrative Court of Helsinki issued on 23.9.2005. Several cases of this kind have occurred in the Uusimaa region because of an incorrect policy of the regional labour administration.
The original question of whether the period spent on "status B" counts towards eligibility for a permanent residence permit crucially depends on the material grounds for the decision to issue the "status B" residence permit. If these material grounds do not justify the conclusion that the foreigner's residence in Finland was temporary at the time, then the period spent on "status B" does count towards eligibility.
You can expect a good deal of resistance from ill-trained junior officials when attempting to claim this right, but it is unquestionably a right, as the administrative courts have confirmed.
daryl
BTW - section 34 of the Aliens Act is legally superfluous, as it only comprises definitions. Section 33 of the Act does say that the authority determines the purpose of residence, but this determination is bound by the normal administrative principles of objectivity, impartiality and conformity to purpose. The authority is also answerable to the court for its use of this discretion, and there is plenty of interpretative guidance in the government bill for the 2004 Aliens Act.
Permit types issued since May 2004 are administrative decisions (= official determinations of individual rights). These decisions specify whether the foreigner intends to/is due to remain in Finland indefinitely or temporarily.
This specification must be based on information and statements of intention that the foreigner submitted to the immigration authority.
A foreigner who disagrees with the specification may appeal to the regional administrative court within 30 days of receiving the decision with appeal instructions. The court then checks that the procedure followed was correct and that the facts of the case were accurately determined and properly interpreted. The decision of the regional administrative court may also be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court. The permit type becomes legally final after the 30-day time limit has expired or after the appeal has been settled.
This is completely normal public administrative procedure in Finland. It results in a legally reliable administrative decision.
Before May 2004 the system was quite different.
Particularly in the case of migrant workers, it was not possible, under the previous Aliens Act, to specify whether the foreigner intended to/was due to remain in Finland indefinitely or temporarily. No such administrative decision could be made, nor could it even be requested.
Only after two years in Finland was it normally even possible to secure an administrative decision that included an assessment of whether the foreigner had been living in Finland indefinitely or temporarily over the preceding two years.
For internal administrative purposes, the immigration authority developed a system of codes that were used to indicate the grounds for issuing residence permits. This so-called "status code" was also entered on the permit stamp in the foreigner's travel document.
There was a general right of appeal, but the courts can only review administrative decisions (= official determinations of individual rights). The status code was not an administrative decision. The courts therefore confined their work to reviewing the material aspects of residence permit decisions (=whether or not the permit was issued and for how long).
As it was not a determination of rights, but merely a classification of the details underlying decisions, the status code was not open to direct challenge in the courts. Instead a state of legal uncertainty continued until the assumptions underlying the status code emerged in the form of an administrative decision. This decision would usually concern an application for a permanent residence permit or, for example, a social security claim.
This legal uncertainty under the old Aliens Act still affects a few foreigners in Finland. The problem will expire from the Finnish immigration system in May 2008 and a bit later for citizenship applications.
The main problem concerns migrant workers who arrived before May 2004 to remain in Finland indefinitely. The grounds for issuing residence permits to some of these foreigners were evidently misclassified.
Misclassified migrant workers became eligible for a permanent residence permit two years after arrival, but they have generally run into a series of difficulties when applying for such permits. These difficulties arise because the immigration authorities continue to be unwilling to review the material grounds for issuing the first residence permit. For this reason such cases are still reaching the courts.
The administrative court can and should cancel any decision that is based on a misinterpretation of the facts underlying an earlier residence permit decision. For an example of this see decision 06892/04/3102 of the Administrative Court of Helsinki issued on 23.9.2005. Several cases of this kind have occurred in the Uusimaa region because of an incorrect policy of the regional labour administration.
The original question of whether the period spent on "status B" counts towards eligibility for a permanent residence permit crucially depends on the material grounds for the decision to issue the "status B" residence permit. If these material grounds do not justify the conclusion that the foreigner's residence in Finland was temporary at the time, then the period spent on "status B" does count towards eligibility.
You can expect a good deal of resistance from ill-trained junior officials when attempting to claim this right, but it is unquestionably a right, as the administrative courts have confirmed.
daryl
BTW - section 34 of the Aliens Act is legally superfluous, as it only comprises definitions. Section 33 of the Act does say that the authority determines the purpose of residence, but this determination is bound by the normal administrative principles of objectivity, impartiality and conformity to purpose. The authority is also answerable to the court for its use of this discretion, and there is plenty of interpretative guidance in the government bill for the 2004 Aliens Act.
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
-
network_engineer
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:21 am
Thanks Daryl.
Foreigner: Just one minor thing:
network_engineer wrote:
BTW, you don't have any option to reach the PR requirement under an explicitly temporary intent of residence.
Foreigner:
Lets not confuse the temporary residence permit (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 §34) and temporary intent of residence. Although good information this.. but it can clearly be seen from the original post, the question is about the kind of permits and PR, not how to obtain a permit that will lead the applicant to PR.
AFAIUI, there is NO way to PR with an explicit temporary intent prior to 2004 OR a final Administrative decision post 2004 to reach the PR status. Therefore, two years on a permit issued for temporary reasons do not count towards one year of continuous. See also Daryl's post above.
Another thing:
Foreginer wrote: Please refer again to Aliens Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 § 34. Although the applicant has the right to appeal, the right of decision is with the authorities, so not too much to be milked in the appeal?
Eh? FYI: The Administrative Court and the Supreme Adminstrative courts have quashed the decisions of the authorities - a number of times. The decision is not final unless the 30 days (wherein you can appeal) have passed or unless the judgement becomes final. In that sense the "decision" given by a "authority" is nothing more than a bureaucrat's opinion that is open to judicial review. Like Daryl also said, it becomes a [final] administrative decision only when the judgement becomes final.
Cheers.
Foreigner: Just one minor thing:
network_engineer wrote:
BTW, you don't have any option to reach the PR requirement under an explicitly temporary intent of residence.
Foreigner:
Lets not confuse the temporary residence permit (as under the current Alien's Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 §34) and temporary intent of residence. Although good information this.. but it can clearly be seen from the original post, the question is about the kind of permits and PR, not how to obtain a permit that will lead the applicant to PR.
AFAIUI, there is NO way to PR with an explicit temporary intent prior to 2004 OR a final Administrative decision post 2004 to reach the PR status. Therefore, two years on a permit issued for temporary reasons do not count towards one year of continuous. See also Daryl's post above.
Another thing:
Foreginer wrote: Please refer again to Aliens Act 301/2004 with amendments 653/2004 § 34. Although the applicant has the right to appeal, the right of decision is with the authorities, so not too much to be milked in the appeal?
Eh? FYI: The Administrative Court and the Supreme Adminstrative courts have quashed the decisions of the authorities - a number of times. The decision is not final unless the 30 days (wherein you can appeal) have passed or unless the judgement becomes final. In that sense the "decision" given by a "authority" is nothing more than a bureaucrat's opinion that is open to judicial review. Like Daryl also said, it becomes a [final] administrative decision only when the judgement becomes final.
Cheers.