Date when decision was rendered: 18.11.2016

Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 08635/16/3105; 16/1267/71

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, refusal of entry, internal flight,
utlänningar, asyl, avvisning, internflykt,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, käännyttäminen, sisäinen pako,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87-1, 88e, 146, 147 and 148 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 88e §, 146 §, 147 § och 148 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 88e §, 146 §, 147 § ja 148 §.

ECHR-3

Abstract

X, who was an arab and a Sunni Muslim from the city of Mosul in Iraq, had applied for asylum in Finland.The Finnish Immigration Service found that the requirements for providing international protection under the Aliens Act were met in X's case.However, X wad denied asylum on the grounds that he had the possibility of internal relocation to Baghdad.X appealed against the decision to the administrative court.

The administrative court noted that according to recent country reports, the general circumstances prevailing in Baghdad did not as such prevent internal relocation.However, X was an arab and a Sunni Muslim from the city of Mosul which was controlled by the Islamic State (IS) militants.According to country reports, persons with backgrounds similar to X's were often suspected of being IS-supporters and were therefore at risk of being targeted by Shia militias in Baghdad.X belonged to a religious minority in Baghdad.He had no relations or other support networks in Baghdad and could in practice not rely on protection from the authorities.Taking into account X's personal circumstances as a whole the administrative court concluded that the possibility of internal relocation to Baghdad was not an option in X's case.Therefore, the Immigration Service could not have refused him asylum on those grounds.The matter was returned to the Immigration Service for a new consideration.

In its decision, the administrative court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands, judgment of 11 January 2007, and J.K. et al. v Sweden, judgment of 23 August 2016).

13.1.2017 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 30.11.2016

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 2891/4/16; 5099

Reference to source

KHO 2016:193.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, refusal of entry, internal flight,
utlänningar, asyl, avvisning, internflykt,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, käännyttäminen, sisäinen pako,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87-1, 88-1, 88a-1, 88d, 88e and 147 of the Aliens Act; section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; Articles 2-d, 2-f, 8 and 15-c of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § och 147 §; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer for när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar eller personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande, och för innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 2-d, artikel 2-f, artikel 8 och artikel 15-c

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § ja 147 §; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojelun sisällölle artikla 2 alakohdat d ja f, artikla 8 ja artikla 15 alakohta c.

ECHR-3; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X was from Baghdad, Iraq, and had applied for asylum in Finland.The Finnish Immigration Service denied asylum but found that because of the general security situation in Baghdad X was in need of humanitarian protection.However, the Immigration Service held that X had a possibility to relocate in Southern Iraq and therefore, he was not granted a residence permit in Finland.The administrative court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.Also the Supreme Administrative Court found that the requirements for providing asylum under the Aliens Act were not met.The Court then assessed whether X should be granted a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection on grounds that, if returned to Baghdad, he would face a real risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in a situation of an armed conflict.When considering the case the Court reviewed several recent country reports on Iraq (e.g., by the UNHCR, human rights NGOs and foreign offices or immigration authorities in the UK, the US and Sweden).Regarding non-refoulement and the definition of "a serious and individual threat" the Court relied, e.g., on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (J.K. et al v Sweden, judgment of 23 August 2016; A.A.M. v Sweden, judgment of 3 April 2014; S.A. v Sweden, judgment of 27 June 2013; Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 2011) and the case law of the CJEU (C-465/07 Elgafaji; C-285/12 Diakité) interpreting the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU).

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that although the security situation in Baghdad according to the most recent country reports had deteriorated, the intensity of violence had not reached a level which would constitute, as such, a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.Indiscriminate violence as such cannot be considered to make a person entitled to subsidiary protection solely on the grounds that the person comes from Baghdad.However, the more the applicant is able to show that he is specifically affected by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, the lower the level of indiscriminate violence required for him to be eligible for subsidiary protection.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that as a Shia Muslim X belonged to a majority group in Baghdad.According to country reports Shia Muslims residing in Baghdad were not in risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence solely due to their religious identity.X had been a member of the Iraqi armed forces and while working at an army checkpoint he had been engaged in a confrontation with an unidentified Shia military group.X claimed that if returned to Iraq he would be persecuted by the Shia militia.The Supreme Administrative Court found that based on his account of the events, X could not be regarded as an opponent to an unidentified Shia military group and was not likely to be targeted by the Shia militia because of a single incident.X was a healthy and able-bodied man, who had lived in Baghdad where his parents, his sisters and his daughter still lived.The Court concluded that X could not be regarded as being in danger of being subjected to a serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence if returned to Baghdad.

The Supreme Administrative Court also considered the possibility of internal flight and found that relocation to Southern Iraq, where the majority of the population are Shia Muslims, was a feasible option.According to country reports the general situation in Southern Iraq was fairly safe.Although the humanitarian situation was problematic, there were humanitarian organisations, including the UNHCR, present and active in Southern Iraq.Despite the fact that X apparently had no relatives or other support network in the area, his living conditions would be reasonable if relocated to Southern Iraq.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that X could be returned to Iraq.

17.1.2017 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 30.11.2016

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 2895/4/16; 5098

Reference to source

KHO 2016:194.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, refusal of entry, internal flight,
utlänningar, asyl, avvisning, internflykt,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, käännyttäminen, sisäinen pako,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87-1, 88-1, 88a-1, 88d, 88e and 147 of the Aliens Act; section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; Articles 2-d, 2-f, 8 and 15-c of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status of refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § och 147 §; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar eller personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande, och för innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 2-d, artikel 2-f, artikel 8 och artikel 15-c

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § ja 147 §; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojelun sisällölle artikla 2 alakohdat d ja f, artikla 8 ja artikla 15 alakohta c.

ECHR-3; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

Y, who was a Sunni Muslim and originally from Baghdad, had applied for asylum in Finland.The Finnish Immigration Service denied asylum and subsidiary protection but granted X a residence permit for one year on humanitarian grounds.The Immigration Service held that because of the general security situation in Baghdad, Y could not be returned to Baghdad.Internal relocation to Southern Iraq or other parts of Iraq was not an option.Being a Sunni Muslim Y could not relocate to an area where the majority population were Shia Muslims.The administrative court upheld the decision.

Also the Supreme Administrative Court found that the requirements for providing asylum under the Aliens Act were not met.The Court then assessed whether X should be granted a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protetion on grounds that, if returned to Baghdad, he would face a real risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in a situation of an armed conflict.When considering the case the Court reviewed several recent country reports on Iraq (e.g., by the UNHCR, human rights NGOs and the foreign offices or immigration authorities in the UK, the US, Sweden and Norway).Regarding non-refoulement and the definition of "a serious and individual threat" the Court relied, e.g., on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (J.K. et al. v Sweden, judgment of 23 August 2016) and the case law of the CJEU (C-465/07 Elgafaji; C-285/12 Diakité) interpreting the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU).

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that although the security situation in Baghdad according to the most recent country reports had deteriorated, the intensity of violence had not reached a level which would constitute, as such, a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.Indiscriminate violence as such cannot be considered to make a person entitled to subsidiary protection solely on the grounds that the person comes from Bagdhad.According to country reports Sunni Muslims residing in Baghdad were not in risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence solely due to their religious identity.However, in addition to the general security situation, the applicant's personal circumstances must be taken into account.The more the applicant is able to show that he is specifically affected by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, the lower the level of indiscriminate violence required for him to be eligible for subsidiary protection.

Y's father had collaborated with US armed forces in Iraq in 2005, and for that reason Y's father and his family had been subjected to threats and violence.Consequently, the family had fled Iraq to Syria.These events alone did not prove that Y specifically would be affected by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances.However, the events were of importance when assessing whether Y was entitled to subsidiary protection due to a serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence.

Y had resided outside of Iraq for over 10 years and he had no family in Baghdad.Relying on country reports the Supreme Administrative Court found that being an unmarried young man who had spent several years in Syria, Y, if returned to Iraq, could be suspected of being a supporter of the Islamic State (IS) and could be targeted both by the Iraqi security forces and the Shia militia.The Court then noted that if at real risk of persecution, it is usually not possible for a Sunni Muslim to receive effective protection from the authorities in Baghdad.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that there were substantial grounds for believing that Y, if returned to Baghdad, would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm as a result of indiscriminate violence.Considering that Y was a Sunni Muslim, his internal relocation was not an option.The case was returned to the Immigration Service for issuing a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection.

17.1.2017 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 5.5.2017

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3580/4/16; 2034

Reference to source

KHO 2017:74.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, residence permit, refusal of entry, internal flight,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, avvisning, internflykt,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, käännyttäminen, sisäinen pako,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87(1), 88(1), 88a(1), 88d, 88e and 146(1) of the Aliens Act; section 9(4) of the Constitution Act; Article 8 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § och 146 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets or rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar eller personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande, och för innebörden i det beviljade skyddet artikel 8

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § ja 146 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällölle artikla 8.

ECHR-3; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X, his wife and their child, who were all from Afghanistan, had applied for asylum in Finland.X claimed he was persecuted by the Taliban who had accused him of being a spy because he had worked for a French telecommunications company in Afghanistan in 2008-2015.The Immigration Service found that the requirements for granting asylum under the Aliens Act were met.Working for an international company can be deemed as a real or assumed political opinion.X's fear of persecution by the Taliban in his home province Laghman was objectively well-founded.However, the Immigration Service refused asylum because it held that it was possible for the applicants to relocate in Kabul.Both the administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision.When considering the case the Supreme Administrative Court relied on several current country reports on Afghanistan and statements by the UNHCR concerning the internal flight alternative and Afghan asylum seekers.It also studied the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., A.M. v the Netherlands, judgment of 5 July 2016; H and B v the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 April 2013; Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 2011; S.H.H. v the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 January 2013).

The Supreme Administrative Court first considered whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution also in Kabul.The court found that although the intensity of the conflict varies over time and in different areas in Afghanistan, Kabul province has remained under government control and is fairly stable as compared to the rest of the country.Although the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups conduct attacks in Kabul, statistically Kabul province is among the safest provinces in the country.Low profile collaborators in Kabul have a low risk of being targeted by armed anti-government groups.The court concluded that X had no well-founded fear of being persecuted in Kabul because of the work he had conducted for an internatoinal company in Laghman province.It had also not been shown that there would be substantial grounds for believing that the family, if relocated in Kabul, would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm, which under the Aliens Act is defined as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflicts.If returned, the family can travel directly to Kabul, which is safely and legally accessible to them.Although the possibility of humanitarian organizations to provide assistance is limited by a scarcity of resources, international aid agencies, among them the UNHCR, are operating in Kabul.In the court's view, the general humanitarian situation in Kabul had not reached a level where the circumstances would be contraty to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR.

Finally, the court considered whether it would be reasonable to expect the applicants to reside in Kabul, considering their personal circumstances and their special needs as a couple with a small child.The court noted that X and Y had lived all their lives in Afghanistan.They were Afghan nationals and belonged to an ethnic majority and a dominant linguistic minority.X was highly qualified and had professional experience.The applicants had relatives in Afghanistan and had at least had family links in Kabul.In spite of the fact that the couple had a three-year-old child, based on an overall assessment it could be expected that the applicants re-settle in Kabul.

1.6.2017 / 16.4.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 5.5.2017

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3037/4/16; 2033

Reference to source

KHO 2017:73.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, residence permit, refusal of entry, internal flight,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, avvisning, internflykt,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, käännyttäminen, sisäinen pako,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 88(1), 88d, 88e and 146(1) of the Aliens Act; section 9(4) of the Constitution Act; Article 8 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 88 § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § och 146 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar eller personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddshehövande, och för innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 8

= ulkomaalaislaki 88 § 1 mom., 88d §, 88e § ja 146 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällölle arikla 8.

ECHR-3; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X, his wife Y and their three children had applied for asylum in Finland.X and Y were both Afghan nationals and of Hazara origin.As a child X had lived in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan, but had left the country at the age of 12.He had then lived illegally in Iran for over 20 years before coming to Finland.Y's parents also came originally from Uruzgan province, but Y herself had been born in Iran and had lived there all her life.Having married X she had lost her residence permit in Iran.Y and the children had never been to Afghanistan.The Immigration Service found that the applicants met the requirements for subsidiary protection, on account of their personal circumstances and the poor security situation in Uruzgan province.However, the Immigration Service did not issue the applicants with residence permits because it held that it was possible for the applicants to relocate elsewhere in Afghanistan, e.g. in Kabul.The administrative court rejected the applicants' appeal whereas the Supreme Administrative Court took a different view as far as the internal flight alternative was concerned.When considering the case the Supreme Administrative Court relied on several current country reports on Afghanistan and statements by the UNHCR concerning the internal flight alternative and Afghan asylum seekers.It also studied the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., A.M. v the Netherlands, judgment of 5 July 2016; H and B v the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 April 2013; Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 2011; S.H.H. v the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 January 2013).

The Supreme Administrative Court first assessed whether the applicants would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm also in Kabul.The court found that although the intensity of the conflict varies over time and in different areas of Afghanistan, Kabul province has remained under government control and is fairly stable as compared to the rest of the country.Although the Taliban and other armed anti-government groups conduct attacks in Kabul, statistically Kabul province is among the safest provinces in the country.Although persons of Hazara origin may be subjected to social discrimination, it cannot be said that the applicants would be exposed to serious harm emanating from state authorities in Afghanistan.The Hazara people in Kabul have not been specifically targeted by terrorist groups, and the applicants can, in general, avail themselves of the protection of state authorities in Kabul in case of possible violations of their rights.If returned, the family can travel directly to Kabul which is safely and legally accessible to them.Although the possibility of humanitarian organizations to provide assistance is limited by a scarcity of resources, international aid agencies, among them the UNHCR, are operating in Kabul.In the court's view, the general humanitarian situation in Kabul had not reached a level where the circumstances would be contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court then considered whether it would be reasonable to expect the applicants to reside in Kabul and whether they could lead a relatively normal life in Kabul without facing undue hardship, considering also their personal circumstances.The court noted that X had lived in Iran ever since he was 12 years old.Both X and Y were Afghan nationals, they belonged to a linguistic majority and a dominant ethnic minority in Afghanistan.They had no assets but they were both of working age and X had working experience.The applicants had no relatives in Afghanistan, and in the opinion of the court, the Hazara community in Kabul or the aid agencies operating in Kabul cannot as such provide sufficient protection in the applicants' case.On the other hand, Y:s mother and her six siblings resided legally in Finland as quota refugees.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that considering the applicants' personal circumstances it was not reasonable to expect that they would relocate in Afghanistan.Also, in an overall assessment under the Aliens Act the arguments against deportation weighed more than those for deportation, considering the applicants' ties to Finland, their limited ties to Afghanistan and other facts and circumstances as a whole.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the Immigration Service and the administrative court.The case was referred back to the Immigration Service for the purpose of granting the applicants residence permits on grounds of subsidiary protection.

5.6.2017 / 5.6.2017 / RHANSKI