Apply for a family ties visa or get a work visa and switch later on?

[jpfi1192]

Hi!

I have a bit of a dilemma at the moment as I was originally going to apply for an RP based on my intimate relationship with a Finnish citizen. However, I was able to get a job offer in Finland recently, and the company informed me that certain work visas can be significantly expedited (1 or 2 months processing time), if it is for a specialised position.

As for my relationship, we met while studying in University in Asia and have lived together for around 5 years now. I am from a non-EU country and we lived together in the country where we met (we have been working here since August 2018). My partner is Finnish/Swedish and has both passports, although she spent most of her life in Sweden.

The Finnish company gave me the option of picking which type of visa I want to apply for, but I got the feeling that they would appreciate me being there sooner rather than later.

I am considering applying for a work visa sponsored by the company and moving first before later switching to a permit based on my relationship. The reason being that I want to seek PR and eventually citizenship, since we want to build a life in Finland. From what I gathered, the family ties permit is more conducive to our goals.

Has anyone here done this before? Even if not, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

[fintel]

My partner is Finnish/Swedish and has both passports, although she spent most of her life in Sweden.

If your partner is Swedish/Finnish passport holder, best way to do this is to register your relationship at maistraatti office or get married. Then you should apply as a family member of an EU citizen (Sweden NOT Finland) because then you will be dealt under EU law (not Finnish law), Family DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC, cards issued under this law will give you instant rights to live in Finland. On the Enter Finland website, you will notice a special category for this type of permit "Card for a family member of an EU Citizen".

P.s. It's always easier to gain residency based on EU laws than Finnish national laws.

[betelgeuse]

My partner is Finnish/Swedish and has both passports, although she spent most of her life in Sweden.

If your partner is Swedish/Finnish passport holder, best way to do this is to register your relationship at maistraatti office or get married. Then you should apply as a family member of an EU citizen (Sweden NOT Finland) because then you will be dealt under EU law (not Finnish law), Family DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC, cards issued under this law will give you instant rights to live in Finland. On the Enter Finland website, you will notice a special category for this type of permit "Card for a family member of an EU Citizen".

For EU law to apply the family member needs to have exercised free movement rights. It's not clear to me whether that has happened.

P.s. It's always easier to gain residency based on EU laws than Finnish national laws.

There are corner cases where Finnish laws are easier (for example, EU family members to Finnish citizens when the couple does not have sufficient means).

I have a bit of a dilemma at the moment as I was originally going to apply for an RP based on my intimate relationship with a Finnish citizen. However, I was able to get a job offer in Finland recently, and the company informed me that certain work visas can be significantly expedited (1 or 2 months processing time), if it is for a specialised position.

As for my relationship, we met while studying in University in Asia and have lived together for around 5 years now. I am from a non-EU country and we lived together in the country where we met (we have been working here since August 2018). My partner is Finnish/Swedish and has both passports, although she spent most of her life in Sweden.

As you have lived together for more than two years, you are already considered family members under Finnish law due to cohabitation.

The Finnish company gave me the option of picking which type of visa I want to apply for, but I got the feeling that they would appreciate me being there sooner rather than later.

In general visas are for short term visits and residence permits for longer stays.

I am considering applying for a work visa sponsored by the company and moving first before later switching to a permit based on my relationship. The reason being that I want to seek PR and eventually citizenship, since we want to build a life in Finland. From what I gathered, the family ties permit is more conducive to our goals.

There is no difference, as long as you get an A type permit.

[fintel]

For EU law to apply the family member needs to have exercised free movement rights. It's not clear to me whether that has happened.

The OP said that their partner has spent most of their life in Sweden so yes the free movement part is covered in this case.

[betelgeuse]

For EU law to apply the family member needs to have exercised free movement rights. It's not clear to me whether that has happened.

The OP said that their partner has spent most of their life in Sweden so yes the free movement part is covered in this case.

Since the partner is a Swedish citizen, what is your source that free movement is covered?

[fintel]

Since the partner is a Swedish citizen, what is your source that free movement is covered?

If a Swedish citizen is working in Finland, has paid taxes for 3 months or so, free movement is covered.

[FinlandGirl]

Since the partner is a Swedish citizen, what is your source that free movement is covered?

If a Swedish citizen is working in Finland, has paid taxes for 3 months or so, free movement is covered.

EU free movement rules do not usually apply to family of Finnish citizens.
The exception is not applicable here.
Additional citizenships are irrelevant.

[fintel]

EU free movement rules do not usually apply to family of Finnish citizens.

A Finnish citizen can take their spouse to another country (let's call it Denmark) and live there for 3 months and come back to Finland and then exercise EU free movement treaty rights in their own country Finland.

[FinlandGirl]

EU free movement rules do not usually apply to family of Finnish citizens.

A Finnish citizen can take their spouse to another country (let's call it Denmark) and live there for 3 months and come back to Finland and then exercise EU free movement treaty rights in their own country Finland.

This is the exception that is not applicable here.
Residence permit based on work is faster.

[fintel]

This is the exception that is not applicable here.
Residence permit based on work is faster.

The original author says that their partner holds Finnish citizenship and lived most of their life in Sweden. I would think that they have exercised their free movement rights by just doing that.

[FinlandGirl]

This is the exception that is not applicable here.
Residence permit based on work is faster.

The original author says that their partner holds Finnish citizenship and lived most of their life in Sweden. I would think that they have exercised their free movement rights by just doing that.

It is irrelevant that the Finnish partner lived in Sweden earlier.

[fintel]

It is irrelevant that the Finnish partner lived in Sweden earlier.

It is not irrelevant.

As a family member of an EU/EEA citizen exercising their right of free movement in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC you (the non eu person) have the right to travel to Finland together with your family member or join them in Finland to settle there. Finnish citizens living in Finland are NOT exercising EU treaty rights and they do therefore not hold a right of residence based on Directive 2004/38/EC in their home country

**** UNLESS THEY HAVE RECENTLY MOVED BACK TO FINLAND FROM ANOTHER EU/EEA COUNTRY ****

So if your FInnish partner lives in another EEA country for more than three months, they have exercised treaty rights and therefore can do the same in FInland. This picture below will explain it to you if you still don't get it. The EU host country in this example is UK.

[betelgeuse]

This is the exception that is not applicable here.
Residence permit based on work is faster.

The original author says that their partner holds Finnish citizenship and lived most of their life in Sweden. I would think that they have exercised their free movement rights by just doing that.

You can be born in Sweden and become a dual citizen at birth. The OP does not specify whether the partner has ever lived in Finland. Event if the partner has moved between Sweden and Finland before, it's not clear to me whether to apply Singh or McCarthy. What is your analysis between these cases or are you referring to same later case law?

[fintel]

You can be born in Sweden and become a dual citizen at birth. The OP does not specify whether the partner has ever lived in Finland. Event if the partner has moved between Sweden and Finland before, it's not clear to me whether to apply Singh or McCarthy. What is your analysis between these cases or are you referring to same later case law?

My understanding of McCarthy is that...

Shirley McCarthy, a British national who was born and had always resided in the United Kingdom and also held Irish nationality (her mother was born in Ireland). The case stemmed from a refusal by UK to issue a residence permit to her on the basis of EU law i.e. as an Irish national residing in the UK.

That refusal was grounded on the basis that she was not a "qualified person" (i.e. a migrant worker, self-employed person, or self-sufficient person – on the latter point, nationality and/or residence issues aside, Mrs McCarthy was in receipt of State benefits from the UK); nor was she exercising Treaty rights within the meaning of EU law.

The problem with McCarthy was that she never left the UK (home state) to live somewhere else and her British nationality took precedence over her newly acquired Irish nationality because she never really exercised treaty rights because she was in the UK as a British national.

So the problem is similar in the situation of this thread that the Finnish partner (who is also Swedish) may not be considered to be exercising treaty rights in Finland because she is a Finnish national but the difference here is that she lived most of their life in Sweden and worked there so I think she can be considered to have been exercising treaty rights in Finland either as a Finnish citizen or a Swedish citizen.

The difference here is that McCarthy never left the UK and this person left Finland and lived in Sweden. If McCarthy had lived in Ireland for a period of time and exercised treaty rights as a UK citizen and THEN came back to the UK again as a UK citizen, she would have been treated as an EU citizen for the purposes of the treaty. But she never really lived in Ireland and did that and her UK residence was unconditional because she was born a UK citizen and lived there all her life.

[betelgeuse]

You can be born in Sweden and become a dual citizen at birth. The OP does not specify whether the partner has ever lived in Finland. Event if the partner has moved between Sweden and Finland before, it's not clear to me whether to apply Singh or McCarthy. What is your analysis between these cases or are you referring to same later case law?

My understanding of McCarthy is that...

Shirley McCarthy, a British national who was born and had always resided in the United Kingdom and also held Irish nationality (her mother was born in Ireland). The case stemmed from a refusal by UK to issue a residence permit to her on the basis of EU law i.e. as an Irish national residing in the UK.

That refusal was grounded on the basis that she was not a "qualified person" (i.e. a migrant worker, self-employed person, or self-sufficient person – on the latter point, nationality and/or residence issues aside, Mrs McCarthy was in receipt of State benefits from the UK); nor was she exercising Treaty rights within the meaning of EU law.

The problem with McCarthy was that she never left the UK (home state) to live somewhere else and her British nationality took precedence over her newly acquired Irish nationality because she never really exercised treaty rights because she was in the UK as a British national.

So the problem is similar in the situation of this thread that the Finnish partner (who is also Swedish) may not be considered to be exercising treaty rights in Finland because she is a Finnish national but the difference here is that she lived most of their life in Sweden and worked there so I think she can be considered to have been exercising treaty rights in Finland either as a Finnish citizen or a Swedish citizen.

The difference here is that McCarthy never left the UK and this person left Finland and lived in Sweden. If McCarthy had lived in Ireland for a period of time and exercised treaty rights as a UK citizen and THEN came back to the UK again as a UK citizen, she would have been treated as an EU citizen for the purposes of the treaty. But she never really lived in Ireland and did that and her UK residence was unconditional because she was born a UK citizen and lived there all her life.

At least in 2018 according to this analysis the situation in ECJ was unclear. See section II.4

http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/system/ ... 0Groot.pdf