Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:52 AI generated

Foreign resident's permanent residence permit application dismissed due to lack of permanent stay in home country.

Case Number KHO:1997:52
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the foreign resident's application for a permanent residence permit based on the requirement of a permanent stay in the home country. The applicant argued that their residence in Finland had become permanent since December 1993, but the Foreigners' Office rejected this claim. The court ruled that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessary continuity of residence in their country of origin, leading to the rejection of the permanent status request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ulkomaalaislaki 16 § 5 mom; A foreigner is denied a permanent residence permit if they cannot prove that their residence in their country of origin has been of a permanent nature.

Keywords

AI generated
permanent residence permit foreigner's law residence continuity home country stay administrative decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ulkomaalaislaki 16 § 5 mom
AI generated
kho-precedent_2007_31
Citizenship denied to athlete spouse as continuous residence requirement not met despite marriage.
admin_1999_helsinki__5048
Foreign national with Finnish residence lost citizenship due to temporary stay abroad not breaking continuity.
insurance_2001_2990-2000
Court dismissed claim that intermittent foreign work breaks continuous residence for social security purposes.
kho-precedent_2011_64
Supreme Administrative Court allows EU citizen's claim to permanent residence without registration and refunds fee.
kho-precedent_1997_130
Foreign national's continuous residence interrupted by study abroad breaks eligibility for permanent residence permit.

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

Ulkomaalainen oli saapunut Suomeen 17.9.1990. Hänelle oli myönnetty määräaikaiset oleskeluluvat Suomeen opiskelua varten 17.12.1993 saakka ja siitä eteenpäin yritystoiminnan harjoittamista varten. Hän haki 27.12.1995 päivätyllä hakemuksella pysyvää oleskelulupaa yritystoiminnan harjoittamista varten. Tuota pysyvää oleskelulupaa koskevaa hakemusta ei voitu hylätä sillä ulkomaalaisviraston päätöksessä mainitulla perusteella, että hakijan maassaoleskelu ei ole ollut pysyväisluonteista, koska hakija oli osoittanut, että hänen oleskelunsa tarkoitus Suomessa oli muuttunut pysyväisluonteiseksi ainakin joulukuusta 1993 lukien. Ulkomaalaisviraston päätös loukkasi siten A:n oikeutta. KHO kumosi ulkomaalaisviraston päätöksen ja palautti asian ulkomaalaisvirastolle uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

UlkomaalaisL 16 § 5 mom