Migri turns stricter in decision-making on refugees

The decision-making policy and interpretations of the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri) have become stricter, said a recent research report published by the University of Turku.

Researchers from the University of Turku’s Faculty of Law, the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University, and the Office of the Non-discrimination Ombudsman conducted the empirical study on the changes that have taken place in the decisions regarding international protection, said a press release.

In the internationally unique study, the researchers compared the decisions of Migri on asylum seekers in 2015 and 2017.

The data from 2015 represent the period before there was a momentary, considerable increase in the number of applications for and decisions on international protection and before amendments were made to the Aliens Act.

The second time period represents the new, normalised situation, where the numbers of applications and decisions have decreased significantly.

“The decision-making policy and interpretations of the Finnish Immigration Service have become stricter between the two periods. The legal position of the people applying for international protection seems to have become significantly weaker, which cannot be explained with the amendments to the preconditions for granting international protection in the Aliens Act. No significant changes have taken place in the applicant profile between the periods,” said Professor of International Law Elina Pirjatanniemi from Åbo Akademi University.

It is visible in the data in many ways that the principles of interpretation have become stricter. In 2017, the Finnish Immigration Service granted significantly less international protection than in the earlier period.

From the point of view of an individual, the change was clearest in the way Migri assessed the fear of violence expressed by the applicant. In 2015, Migri considered the expressed fear of violence to be justified in most of the decisions, but in 2017, only in exceptional cases.

There was no change between the two periods in how often the applicants reported infringements, but in the 2017 period, Migri considered them believable considerably less frequently. A similar change has happened in Migri’s estimates on whether the previous infringements, such as violence or kidnappings, experienced by the asylum seeker should be considered as an indication that the person is in danger of being a target again in the future.

“In 2015, previous infringements were regularly considered to predict a risk of renewed infringements. Instead, the previous infringements experienced by the applicant were only exceptionally considered to be a predictable risk for future infringements in the 2017 period,” said Professor in Sociology of Law Anne Alvesalo-Kuusi from the University of Turku.

The changes that were detected in the study can be considered worrying both for the fulfilment of basic and human rights as well as for the Finnish constitutional state. Decisions on international protection must always be based on individual consideration.

“Decision-making that concerns the rights of the asylum seekers involves especially significant individual basic and human rights: in the end, the right to life and freedom from inhuman treatment. Therefore, the fulfilment of fundamental rights in a state governed by law should not depend on the general interpretation policies of the authorities and on the possible political and administrative steering influencing these policies,” the researchers summed up.

In addition to Elina Pirjatanniemi and Anne Alvesalo-Kuusi, the research group included Doctor of Social Sciences Elsa Saarikkomäki, Master of Law Nea Oljakka, doctoral candidate Johanna Vanto and Professor of Public Law Juha Lavapuro.