What to do after a negative Migri decision

What the court actually decides

An appeal is not a second application. The Administrative Court reviews the lawfulness of the decision Migri made, on the material before it, against the legal test that applied. That is a narrower question than 'would a reasonable person grant this permit', and knowing the difference is what separates a usable appeal from a letter of complaint.

• Did Migri apply the correct provision, and the version of it in force on the relevant date?
• Did Migri establish the facts properly, and hear the applicant where it had to?
• Did Migri give reasons that hold, and address the evidence that was in front of it?
• Was the discretion exercised within its limits, including any best-interest-of-the-child assessment?
• Is there evidence that should change the outcome and that the court can take into account?
• Where the court upholds the appeal, it returns the matter to Migri for reprocessing. The court does not grant the permit itself, so a win is a second chance rather than a decision in your favour.

The deadlines and figures that decide it

• Appeal period: the binding period and the competent Administrative Court are stated in the appeal instructions attached to your decision. Under the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters the general period is 30 days, counted from service of the decision — the day the decision is deemed to have reached you, not the day you read it or the day you found someone to help.
• The period cannot be extended once it has passed. There is no discretion to reopen it because the reason was good.
• Administrative Court fee: EUR 310. Supreme Administrative Court fee: EUR 610. Both as set for 2025–2027.
• No court fee is charged where the court changes the decision in the appellant's favour. No fee is charged at all in matters concerning international protection under the Aliens Act, or in social-services, basic-income-support, child-welfare and mental-health matters.
• Supreme Administrative Court: leave to appeal is required, and it is not granted in every case. Where leave is refused, the decision is final.
• Refused Schengen visa: an administrative review request to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs within 30 days, in writing and in Finnish or Swedish, at a fee of EUR 255; the review decision can then be appealed to the Helsinki Administrative Court within 30 days at the EUR 310 court fee.
• Enforcement: for deportation decisions affected by the amendments in force from 12 June 2026, an appeal no longer automatically prevents enforcement. Migri states that such a decision can become enforceable after the appeal period has expired, generally 30 days after service, unless a court orders otherwise or another legal impediment applies.
• New applications after a refusal: since the Aliens Act amendments of 6 May 2025, a person who has received a negative residence-permit decision together with a removal decision cannot generally make their stay in Finland lawful simply by filing another residence-permit application here.

The evidence, and what is most often missing or wrong

An appeal is won or lost on what is in the file, and most of what is missing was available all along. These are the gaps we see.

• No proof of the service date. Everything turns on it, and it is the first thing to establish, from the decision and the Enter Finland record rather than from memory.
• An appeal that argues the outcome is unfair without addressing Migri's refusal grounds one by one. Each ground has to be answered on its own terms.
• Evidence that existed at the time of the application but was never submitted, presented for the first time on appeal without explaining why it was not produced earlier.
• A decision read selectively. The operative part, the reasons, the appeal instructions and any removal decision or entry ban are four separate things, and people often react to one and miss another.
• An entry ban overlooked because the refusal took all the attention, so its length and scope are never addressed.
• No separate request for prohibition of enforcement, in a case where enforcement can proceed while the appeal is pending.
• A new application filed in Finland in the belief it suspends removal, in a situation where since 6 May 2025 it generally does not.

The order of steps, and where each one happens

• 1. Establish the service date and the exact appeal period from the decision's own appeal instructions. Nothing else starts before this is fixed in writing.
• 2. Identify what the decision actually contains: refusal, removal decision, entry ban, or a combination, and whether enforcement can proceed.
• 3. Decide the route: appeal to the named Administrative Court, a request to that court for prohibition of enforcement, a new application, or a combination. For a refused visa, an administrative review request to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs instead.
• 4. Rebuild the file: the original application, what was submitted, what Migri asked for, what was answered, and what is new.
• 5. Where court representation or reserved legal advice is needed, hand over to a qualified lawyer with the file organised. This is the point at which ENB's role ends and the lawyer's begins.
• 6. Lodge the appeal within the period, with the court fee, at the Administrative Court named in the instructions.
• 7. If the Administrative Court refuses, consider leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, and assess enforcement again separately — applying to the Supreme Administrative Court does not always suspend it.

How long it takes

Administrative Court processing times are set by the courts, not by Migri and not by ENB, and they vary by court and by case type. There is no service target of the kind Migri publishes for permits, and ENB will not convert a court's published average into a promise.

What is fixed is the deadline at the start. The appeal period is short, it runs from service, and it is the only part of this process that cannot be fixed later.

• Makes a case slower: an incomplete appeal that the court has to have supplemented, evidence obtained only after lodging, and a parallel new application that changes the picture mid-course.
• Makes a case slower and is often overlooked: a translation of a foreign document ordered after the appeal was lodged rather than before.

What goes wrong

• The appeal period is missed, and the decision becomes final. This is the single most common and least recoverable failure in this service.
• The appeal answers the wrong question: it argues sympathy rather than the refusal grounds and the legal test.
• Enforcement proceeds because no application for prohibition of enforcement was made, in a case where the appeal does not suspend it automatically.
• A new application is filed in the belief it legalises the stay, and it does not.
• The entry ban is left unaddressed, and limits travel and future applications long after the permit question is over.
• The court upholds the appeal, the matter returns to Migri, and the same evidence gap produces the same result on reprocessing.

If the court decision is also negative

If the Administrative Court rejects the appeal, the road narrows rather than closes. Continuing to the Supreme Administrative Court requires leave to appeal, which is not granted in every case; where leave is refused, the decision is final. The Supreme Administrative Court fee is EUR 610 for 2025–2027, with no fee where it changes the decision in the appellant's favour.

Enforcement must be assessed again at that stage, separately from the appeal. Applying to the Supreme Administrative Court does not always suspend enforcement.

A new application on a different and genuine basis is sometimes the more realistic route than a further appeal — but it is a different case, on new facts, and since 6 May 2025 filing one in Finland after a refusal plus removal decision generally does not make the stay lawful in the meantime.

What ENB does, and what ENB does not do

• Does: establishes the service date and the binding appeal period from your own decision, in writing, at the first review.
• Does: reads the whole decision — operative part, reasons, removal decision, entry ban, appeal instructions — and explains it in plain language.
• Does: maps Migri's refusal grounds against the evidence that was filed, and identifies what was missing, misunderstood or newly available.
• Does: builds the document chronology and evidence index a lawyer or a court can work from, and prepares the questions for legal review.
• Does: coordinates with qualified legal counsel where court representation or reserved legal advice is required.
• Does not: promise that an appeal will succeed, and does not describe any outcome as likely. ENB is not an authority and not a court.
• Does not: say that lodging an appeal automatically stops removal. For decisions affected by the 12 June 2026 amendments it does not.
• Does not: act as your representative before a court where qualified legal representation is required, and does not hold itself out as a lawyer.
• Does not: extend a deadline that has passed. Nobody can.

What it costs: separate payments to separate parties

• ENB appeal review after a Migri decision: EUR 1,000 excluding VAT, paid to ENB.
• Administrative Court fee: EUR 310, paid to the court — with no fee where the court changes the decision in the appellant's favour, and no fee at all in international-protection matters.
• Supreme Administrative Court fee: EUR 610, paid to the court, on the same exemptions.
• Ministry for Foreign Affairs administrative review of a refused visa: EUR 255, paid to the Ministry.
• A new residence-permit application, if that is the route: the category's own Migri fee, paid to Migri — for example EUR 230 online for an extended permit or EUR 750 online for a first TTOL permit.
• A lawyer's fee where court representation is required: set by that lawyer and paid to them, separately from ENB's fee.
• All ENB fees exclude Finnish VAT, where the standard rate is 25.5%. Court and authority fees are set by those bodies and should be confirmed from them.