Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 21.12.2009 09/1283/1 AI generated

Temporary residence permit for excluded foreigner dismissed; continuous permit not applicable under current law.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 21.12.2009 09/1283/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Migration Board's decision granting a temporary residence permit for one year. Although the applicant had previously been excluded from international protection, the court found that a continuous residence permit was not legally applicable in this specific context. Consequently, the temporary nature of the permit remained unchanged, and the request for a longer-term stay was rejected.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ulkomaalaislaki 89 §; The court established that a continuous residence permit cannot be granted to an individual excluded from international protection when the law limits such permits to temporary status of up to one year at a time.

Keywords

AI generated
temporary residence permit continuous residence permit international protection exclusion residence permit duration administrative court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ulkomaalaislaki 89 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös 19.9.2011 taltionumero 2670
KHO:n päätös 19.9.2011 taltionumero 2670: Valituslupahakemus hylätään
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:110
Permanent residence permit denied due to prior permit revocation is invalid under continuous residence requirement.
admin_2014_helsinki__648
Foreign national's business permit application dismissed due to circumvention suspicion despite new business entity.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2020:102
Supreme Administrative Court rejects appeal permission because new evidence submitted only at this stage is not a special weighty reason under the Aliens Act.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2022:10
Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Migration Agency could not deny a residence permit solely based on Article 33(2) without assessing Article 54(1).
admin_2009_helsinki__554
Administrative court allows deportation ground despite crimes not being public order threats due to crime nature.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Valittaja oli hakenut muutosta Maahanmuuttoviraston päätökseen, jolla hänelle oli myönnetty tilapäinen oleskelulupa yhdeksi vuodeksi. Valittaja vaati pysyvää tai pitempiaikaista oleskelulupaa. Valittajan aikaisempaan kansainvälistä suojelua koskevaan hakemukseen oli annettu lainvoimainen ratkaisu, jonka mukaan valittaja on poissulkemislausekkeen piirissä. Valittaja ei ollut tehnyt uutta turvapaikkahakemusta uudella perusteella. Valittaja oli saanut jatko-oleskeluluvan vuodeksi poissulkemislausekkeita sovellettaessa. Tällainen lupa myönnetään tilapäisenä enintään yhdeksi vuodeksi kerrallaan. Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, ettei jatkuva oleskelulupa millään perusteella tällöin tullut kysymykseen ainakaan toistaiseksi. Hallinto-oikeus hylkäsi valituksen.

Ulkomaalaislaki 89 §

KHO:n päätös 19.9.2011 taltionumero 2670: Valituslupahakemus hylätään