Visa Policy As a Migration Channel

VISA POLICY AS A MIGRATION CHANNEL

Finland

VISA POLICY AS A MIGRATION CHANNEL

FINLAND 4 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED �� 6 1.1 Methodology �� 7 2. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE GRANTING OF VISAS IN FINLAND �� 7 2.1 National policy and legislation �� 7 2.2 Agreements with third countries �� 10 2.3 Recent changes to visa policy and legislation within context of a common EU dimension ��11 2.4 Recent changes to visa policy and legislation relating to national visas �� 12 3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANISATION OF VISA POLICY �� 12 3.1 General procedure followed at the stages of the visa procedure �� 12 3.2 Visa issuance for the purpose of legal migration – specific procedure followed in the stages of the visa procedure �� 16 3.2.1 National visa practices for admission of third-country nationals �� 16 3.2.2 Challenges and success factors for facilitating legal migration �� 21 3.3 Visa procedures for the purpose of preventing irregular migration �� 22 3.3.1 Prevention of irregular migration during the visa issuing and monitoring process �� 22 3.3.2 Prevention of irregular migration through other measures during visa issuing 23 3.3.3 Challenges and success factors for preventing irregular migration �� 24

4. CO-OPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES: CASE STUDIES �� 28 4.1 Case Study I – Russia �� 28 4.1.1 Rationale for case study selection �� 30 4.1.2 Historical overview of relations between Finland and Russia in visa matters � 38 4.1.3 Existence of agreements with Russia �� 39 4.1.4 Other measures �� 40 4.1.5 Statistics �� 40 4.1.6 Findings of Case Study I �� 42 4.2 Case Study II – Nigeria �� 45 4.2.1 Rationale for case study selection �� 45 4.2.2 Historical overview of relations between Finland and Nigeria in visa matters � 47 4.2.3 Existence of agreements with Nigeria �� 48 4.2.4 Other measures �� 48 4.2.5 Statistics �� 50 4.2.6 Findings of Case Study II �� 52

5. EFFECTS OF EU POLICY AND LEGISLATION �� 53 5

6. STATISTICS: VISAS ISSUED AND IMMIGRATION TO FINLAND �� 53 7. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY �� 56 8. REFERENCES �� 57 Appendix 1 �� 61 Appendix 2 �� 65 6 1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED

The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between visa policy and immigration policy. It aims at studying how visa policy can be used on one hand to promote legal migration and on the other hand to prevent irregular migration. The national reports and the resulting synthesis report can also be used to inform policymakers, legislators and implementers of practical measures both at the national and EU level about the potential effects of different visa policies on desirable and undesirable forms of migration and the multiplicative effects and consequences that the visa policy of an EU Member State might have on immigration in other Member States. Researchers can also utilise the material of this study and contribute to the development of best visa policy practices based on concrete practical information.

Public media can also use the yield of this study to bring forth national interests, in particular with regard to the Case Studies on Russia and Nigeria. It is particularly interesting to contemplate the positive and negative effects that the planned visa exemption agreement between the EU and Russia might have for Finnish border traffic, i.e. for its volume and reasons for entering the country, potentially for issues related to public order and safety in Finland or for irregular migration with its related negative peripheral phenomena.

“Finland no longer has a visa policy of its own” was a common view expressed by many parties when enquired about visa policy related information for this study. Finland abandoned the practice of issuing national visas in 2001 as Finland started to implement the Schengen acquis fully. In this sense, Finland no longer has a national visa policy. However, the final results from interviews with authorities as well as various written materials related to visa issuance guidelines and their implementation practices imply that Finland indeed has a certain visa policy where three main characteristics can be perceived:

1. Firstly, the core of the Finnish visa policy is that Finland determinedly seeks EU-level harmonisation in visa matters by complying with the Schengen Agreement as strictly as possible.

2. Another key factor in the Finnish visa policy is that smooth, prompt, customer- oriented and positive visa policy is practised with specific focus on such third countries where it yields significant economic benefits and shows clear interconnectedness with other, longer-term forms of migration that are considered desirable.

3. The third foundation stone of the Finnish visa policy is a counterforce for the second item mentioned above, that is: greater prudence is exercised in visa issuance practices for certain countries of origin due to their more challenging nature with regard to different aspects of illegal entry, such as forged documents, trafficking in human beings, marriages of convenience, threats to safety within EU Member States or other factors generally related to evading admission regulations in certain regions and during certain periods. 7

1.1 Methodology

Information for this study has mainly been collected by interviewing relevant authorities. In addition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we interviewed and consulted the following authorities: the Ministry of Interior’s Migration Department, the Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Helsinki Police Department, the National Police Board, Finnish Customs and the Finnish Immigration Service. There was hardly any existing research material on the topic and the scarce material that was available discussed only limited aspects, such as Russia’s visa exemption, outsourcing of visa processes and the differences between visa practices in different EU Member States.

In Finland, visa policy as such has not been a salient topic in the past few years – the only issue that has raised political debate or been researched is Russia’s visa exemption.

In the collection of statistics, there were some challenges with regard to the fact that Finnish authorities had not collected information in the format and to the extent required in the study specifications. Statistical data was available but it had to be compiled into the required format from several sources.

2. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE GRANTING OF VISAS IN FINLAND

2.1 National policy and legislation

Visa Policy A central feature of the Finnish visa and immigration policy is that visas and residence permits have been separated into two parallel systems. Visas are issued for a short-term temporary residence, the maximum duration of which is three months, while those seeking a longer-term residence apply for a residence permit. The application for a residence permit must be submitted abroad; one cannot enter Finland with a visa and then apply for a residence permit. This also means that no visas are issued for the purpose of applying for a residence permit. Another matter is the fact that Section 49 of the Aliens Act makes it possible in exceptional cases to issue a first residence permit to an alien who has already entered Finland. Even in this case such persons often enter the country with a visa, although it has been issued for a different purpose.

The grounds for issuing a visa differ from those of a residence permit. In this sense visa policy and immigration policy are separate entities and consequently their administration has also been separated from each other. Visa policy is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whereas immigration policy is coordinated by the Ministry of the Interior. 8

One of the leading principles in the Aliens Act is managed migration which requires that as a main rule, residence permits are applied for while abroad. In accordance with the principle of managed immigration, Section 60 of the Aliens Act states that a first residence permit shall be applied for in the foreign country where the alien resides legally before entering Finland. Only in exceptional cases is it possible to apply for a first residence permit in Finland. The provisions concerning these exceptional cases are set out in Sections 49–52 of the Aliens Act. For instance, there is some flexibility in procedures with regard to spouses of Finnish citizens: they can enter the country with a visa and apply for a first residence permit in Finland.

Visas and residence permits were separated from each other in the Aliens Act that entered into force in 1991. In the validity period of the previous Aliens Act, all persons intending to enter Finland first applied for a visa and then, once they had entered the country with a visa, for a residence permit. As this procedure caused a great deal of confusion and complaints, it was generally considered a good idea to abandon it. With the Aliens Act of 1991, the aim was to make a distinction between the concept and purpose of a visa and those of a residence permit so that from that point forward, visas were issued mainly for tourism and residence permits for a more permanent residence in the country. In addition to clarity, other advantages of the new system included the fact that now it was possible to obtain a first residence permit directly for up to two years while before the first permit to enter the country was a visa of only three months in duration.1 The separation between visas and residence permits was also preserved in the current Aliens Act that entered into force in 2004.

Currently, the issuance of visas for Finland is based on the Schengen acquis to which Finland has fully conformed since March 2001.2 Finland issues only visas that comply with the EU Visa Code. Unlike other EU Member States, Finland does not use national, so-called Type D visas. Occasionally the implementation of a Type D visa system has been discussed, but the idea has always been set aside. Circumstances in which a Type D visa could serve the intended purpose better than a residence permit include, for instance, longer-term visits to relatives or some work-related situations, such as seasonal work. As Finnish social security is based on residence, persons residing in the country with a visa and persons residing with a residence permit do not hold equal positions.3 In addition, it should be noted that Type D visas do not contain biometric identifiers, as opposed to the residence permit cards entering into force at the beginning of 2012 and to Schengen visas once the VIS system is adopted. However, at the moment Finland is not planning to start using Type D visas.4

As Finland has not utilised national visas after 2001, it does not have a national visa policy either. Finland pursues the common guidelines that have been agreed at the Schengen level. As for EU visa policy, Finland advocates harmonisation.5 On the other hand, it also strives to be flexible and interpret regulations in a manner that is favourable for the applicant, within the limits set by the EU visa regulations. A visa is always issued to the applicant when the visa issuance prerequisites are fulfilled.6

1 Ulkomaalaislakityöryhmän mietintö 1989 (A memorandum of the Aliens Act working group 1989), p. 5; The Ministry of the Interior, Migration Department, 13 April 2011 2 Ulkoasiainministeriön ilmoitus Schengenin säännöstön soveltamisesta (A notification on the application of the Schengen acquis, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), 22 March 2001 3 The Ministry of the Interior’s Migration Department, interview on 1 April 2011 4 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview: Unit for Passports and Visas, 31 March 2011, the Ministry of the Interior’s Migration Department: written comment, 13 April 2011 5 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview: Unit for Passports and Visas, 31 March 2011 6 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview: Unit for Passports and Visas 31 March 2011, Häkkinen, Vesa (9.1.2010) HS Vieraskynä: Viisumeista ei voida luopua kertarysäyksellä. 9

The EU visa regulations lend the Member States decision-making authority with regard to signing bilateral agreements with third countries on visa-free travel of holders of diplomatic and service passports, air and sea crew and groups of school pupils, for instance. When it comes to signing such agreements, Finland pursues the harmonised Schengen guidelines unless it has a particular national reason for acting otherwise.7

In Finland, visas are not perceived as a part of immigration policy in the sense that visas would be used to promote immigration. Instead, they are considered an important instrument in prevention of illegal entry. In this area, authorities in the administrative sector of the Ministry of the Interior (the Finnish Border Guard, the Police) co-operate closely with diplomatic missions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

For the alignment of visa matters and immigration policy, a national Visa Working Party has been established. The representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Unit for Passports and Visas acts as the chairperson of the Working Party and other members come from the Ministry of the Interior’s Migration Department, the National Police Board, the Finnish Border Guard, the Finnish Immigration Service, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service, Finnish Customs and the Helsinki Police Department.

Legislative framework Visas for Finland are issued on the basis of the Schengen acquis which is a part of the European Union Law. The Schengen acquis also includes the Visa Code (810/2009 EC)8, the implementation of which was initiated in Finland for the most part on 5 April 2010. However, provisions on the appeal procedure related to refusal of visas and the notification of a refusal, for instance, have been implemented in Finland only from 5 April 2011 onwards. National legislation also regulates the issuance of visas and prerequisites for entering the country. Nevertheless, national legislation only complements the Schengen acquis.

In order to harmonise the application of the Visa Code, the Commission has prepared a handbook in co-operation with Member States. Handbook I includes the guidelines for the practical application of the Visa Code and contains 28 appendices. Handbook II includes guidelines for local Schengen co-operation and the arrangement procedure for visa operations The Visa Handbook does not bind Member States legally.

As Finland does not utilise national visas, national visa-related legislation no longer has more than a complementary role. The key regulations can be found in the Aliens Act (30 April 2004/301)9. On 5 April 2011, the Aliens Act was amended (266/2011) with regard to visa matters. The amendment implements an appeal procedure for refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa, as required by the Visa Code. In addition, with the amendment the Act now also provides regulations on the recourse to an external service provider and an honorary consul in the receipt of visa applications.

7 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Unit for Passports and Visas, Interview 9 May 2011 8 The visa acquis is available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF 9 The Aliens Act is available at http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040301 10

Visas as such are not a means to develop legal migration in Finland, in as much as the purpose of entry is understood to be migration into Finland either for a long-term residence or permanently. Instead, applying a smooth visa policy for visa applications from Russians, for instance, does constitute a means for Finnish authorities to develop short-term, legal migration that is considered necessary.

With the amendment 266/2011, Section 17 of the Aliens Act states the provisions applied to processing visa matters. This Section contains a provision that refers to the EU Visa Code (Regulation 810/2009/EC) and presents those visa-related actions to which the Visa Code is applied. These include the following actions: the filing of a visa application, verification of the competence of the diplomatic mission, the admissibility of an application, the processing of an application, the discontinuation of the examination process for an application, the transfer of an application to the authorities of a represented Schengen State, the issuance, the refusal, the extension, the annulment and the revocation of a visa, decision-making process, grounds for a decision, the content of a decision and the notification of a decision.

2.2 Agreements with third countries

As a Schengen State, Finland is one of the parties in visa exemption and facilitation agreements that are common to the entire Schengen area. Finland has signed bilateral visa agreements only with special groups mentioned in the EU Regulation 539/2001. According to the Regulation, Schengen States can sign bilateral agreements with third countries on visa-free travel of holders of diplomatic and service passports, air and sea crew and groups of school pupils. Finland has signed such agreements with some third countries, mainly with regard to holders of diplomatic and service passports.10

In addition, Finland has signed bilateral agreements with Australia and New Zealand on working holidays as of 2002 and 2004, respectively. According to the working holiday agreement, a citizen of Australia or New Zealand who has been issued a residence permit for the purpose of a working holiday is entitled to work for up to three different employers, each for a maximum period of three months. The employer should be changed every three months at the minimum. In addition, a working holiday should include a three-month holiday period without gainful employment. The applicant should be 18–30 years of age, with no dependent spouse or dependent children, in good health and of sound background. A working holiday permit can be issued to the applicant only once.11

The aim of the working holiday agreements with Australia and New Zealand is to facilitate young people’s residence in the signatory states for a period exceeding the validity of a visa and to enable them to provide means for this residence through work. The specific main purpose of a working holiday permit is to learn more about the destination country’s life, culture and nature, that is: the main purpose of the residence is not work. In the near future, Finland is planning to launch negotiations on a similar agreement with Canada, too.12

10 The list of countries with which Finland has signed such agreements: Information pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement: http://www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/ Normativa_Consolare/Visti/notification_visa_539_2001_en.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2011) 11 The Embassy of Finland, Canberra: Working holiday in Finland http://www.finland.org.au/public/default.aspx?nodeid=3562 2&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 12 The Ministry of the Interior, Migration Department, 19 May 2011 11

2.3 Recent changes to visa policy and legislation within context of a common EU dimension

The most substantial change in the principles of the Finnish visa policy took place in 2001 when Finland adopted the Schengen Agreement. After this, the next major change was the adoption of the EU Visa Code and Visa Handbook on 5 April 2010. For Finland, the most significant change has been that the Visa Code has made it possible to outsource the receipt of visa applications to a service provider as well as authorising honorary consuls to receive visa applications. Furthermore, the Visa Code contains the obligation to grant a right to appeal in visa matters. These three items have been included in the Finnish national legislation.

Preparations for the outsourcing of the receipt of visa applications began in Finland as early as in 2009 as the partial revision with regard to outsourcing was added to the Common Consular Instructions. Partial outsourcing of visa-related operations was an important resource question for Finland in Russia, where the volumes of applications are constantly increasing. In June 2010, outsourcing of the receipt of visa applications was initiated as the first Finnish visa centre opened its doors in Moscow. At present, the receipt ofvisa applications has been outsourced in St. Petersburg and Kiev as well.13

Authorisation of honorary consuls to receive visa applications has already been included in the Aliens Act but the implementation of this arrangement is only in preparation. A right to appeal against visa decisions entered into force on 5 April 2011 with an amendment to the law.

The visa facilitation agreements that the EU has signed with third countries have been very significant for Finland. The agreements signed with Russia and the Ukraine are of particular importance due to the high number of visa applications received from these countries. The political significance of visa facilitation agreements is great as they can be considered a symbolic gesture towards the countries in question. Agreements are also important for economy: a visa facilitation agreement establishes lower visa fees and a partial exemption of any fees, which has naturally influenced the visa fee income of diplomatic missions in a crucial way. With a visa facilitation agreement, the parties also agree on an accelerated processing of visa applications. For Finland, an essential aspect is the pressure created by the ever-increasing volume of visa applications from Russia. A solution to this challenge has been sought by outsourcing the receipt of visa applications and the retrieval of issued visas to an external service provider in Moscow and St. Petersburg.14

Since Finland utilises Schengen visas only, changes in EU directives related to immigration have not had an effect on Finland’s visa practices. Only the Seasonal Work Directive that is being prepared may influence visa practices. The current situation is that the right to enter Finland for work with only a visa is restricted: they can work for a maximum of three months in tasks defined separately in the Aliens Act, including picking berries and fruit. In addition,

13 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011 14 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011 12 a person can enter the country to pick wild berries and mushrooms that can be picked freely on the basis of the principle of everyman’s rights. The picking of garden berries and fruit is paid work so it would fall under the Seasonal Work Directive, but the picking of wild berries and mushrooms is generally arranged so that pickers are independent parties and their income is accrued from the berries and mushrooms they sell. Thus, the Seasonal Work Directive would not apply to pickers of natural berries and mushrooms and they could enter Finland with only a visa in the future, too.15

2.4 Recent changes to visa policy and legislation relating to national visas

Finland does not utilise national visas.

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANISATION OF VISA POLICY

3.1 General procedure followed at the stages of the visa procedure

Applying for a visa Finland utilises only Schengen visas that comply with the Visa Code. A Type A visa is an airport transit visa, and a Type C visa entitles a person to a stay of no more than three months in duration. In addition, a VLTV visa (a visa with limited territorial validity) is used, mainly when another Schengen State either does not consider a travel document approved by Finland to be valid or refuses the issuance of the visa in the VISION round (the prior consultation of other States before issuing a visa), but Finland still wishes to issue a national VLTV visa that is valid only in Finland.16

A Schengen visa for Finland is applied for primarily at the diplomatic mission of Finland that is closest to the applicant or at the diplomatic mission of another Schengen State representing Finland. The application is submitted, along with a valid passport and the required supporting documents, to the diplomatic mission where the person is applying for a visa. As the number of supporting documents required by different diplomatic missions may vary, exact information regarding the requirements should be ascertained from the diplomatic mission in question. The visa processing fee is collected upon the submittal of the application in cash except for those diplomatic missions were the fee is payable to a bank account.17

Finland has approximately 90 diplomatic missions that handle visa matters. In Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev, the receipt of visa applications has been outsourced to a private enterprise called VFS Global. This external service provider collects applications and their supporting documents (in the future biometric identifiers as well), collects fees, makes an appointment with the diplomatic mission for a visa interview and delivers the issued visa,

15 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011, Sorainen 2007, pp. 88–90 16 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen, 14 March 2011 17 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Applying for a Schengen Visa and application form, http://www.formin.fi/ public/default.aspx?nodeid=35334&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI and Information for a foreign national requiring a visa, http://www.formin.fi/public/default.aspx?nodeid=15717&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 13 along with the passport, to the applicant in a closed envelope. The service provider advises and guides visa applicants only in the manner defined in the guidelines provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The service provider has no influence on the processing time of an application or on the final visa decision.18

According to the Visa Code, a visa can be issued in exceptional cases at the border crossing point, too. In this case, the visa is issued by the Finnish Border Guard or Finnish Customs. In 2009, the Finnish Border Guard issued 1,633 visas (2008: 1,936 visas)19, most of these to seamen in transit. The construction of the Baltic gas pipeline from Vyborg to Greifswald in Germany has also generated a great deal of visa applicant traffic at the border stations as construction workers have moved from one construction site to another.20

In 2009, Finnish Customs issued 1,652 visas to seamen returning home, and in 2010 the corresponding figure was 2,030. With regard to the number of visas issued by Customs, one should also bear in mind the recession experienced in 2009, resulting in notably lower visa figures than in 2010.

The application and supporting documents A completed and signed visa application form is required for the visa application. The number of required supporting documents varies for different diplomatic missions. The following documents should be appended to an application: a passport photograph complying with the Police’s photograph guidelines, an approved and valid passport, travel insurance as well as various documents indicating the purpose, prerequisites and duration of the planned stay. Such documents could include tickets, hotel reservation confirmations, private letters of invitation or official invitations, for instance. The applicant may also be requested to provide other documents, such as documents related to the itinerary, the means of transport and the return journey, means of subsistence, capital and employment. To cover the expenses related to the journey, the person has to have sufficient means in relation to the duration and the purpose of the stay and the cost of living in the destination. For Finland, this amount is EUR 30 per day. Parental consent is required for minors travelling unaccompanied by their parents.21

A visa applicant may append an invitation to the application, if they so desire. An invitation is a free-form document that should state the contact information of the company or private person presenting the invitation and information about the invitee, such as name, date of birth, address, passport number and the purpose and duration of the stay.22 Finland no longer obliges the visa applicant to append an invitation to the application. An invitation used to be obligatory but this led to various inappropriate by-products. It was difficult to verify authenticity of invitations, and some stores close to the Finland’s eastern border offered copied invitations for their clients, for instance.23

18 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14 March 2011 19 Rajavartiolaitos (The Finnish Border Guard), Tilastotietoja 2009, p. 9 20 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 21 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Applying for a Schengen Visa and application form, http://www.formin.fi/ public/default.aspx?nodeid=35334&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 22 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Applying for a Schengen Visa and application form, http://www.formin.fi/ public/default.aspx?nodeid=35334&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 23 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 5 May 2011 14

With regard to the supporting documents of an application, the Finnish policy aims at customer-friendliness. The number of supporting documents requested is lower than in other countries, and in the processing of an application, information that already exists in various registers is utilised to the fullest extent possible. The utilisation of registers reduces applicants’ need to provide supporting documents and prove their case. If a person has already applied for a visa and appended supporting documents to the application, these supporting documents are stored in the archives of the diplomatic mission for three years, eliminating the need to present the same documents to the diplomatic mission again.24

Processing of an application A crucial aspect to consider when making a decision about visa issuance is whether the applicant intends to leave the Schengen area before the expiry of the visa. When the application is processed, information related to the applicant is verified using approximately ten different registers, some of which are national registers and some of which are those of the Schengen area. The visa application may also be sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Finnish Security Intelligence Service for a statement, if necessary. The authenticity of the supporting documents is verified. The diplomatic mission can invite the applicant to a personal interview in order to determine the purpose of the journey. However, not all applicants are interviewed: the interviewees are determined by profiling them on the basis of their applications. For instance, persons applying for a visa for the first time or applicants from a region with a high risk of illegal entry are most likely to be interviewed.25

A visa system called Suvi is used to process visa matters. All the information gathered with the application form is stored in Suvi, including information about the applicant and, in case of a minor, about the applicant’s guardian, travel document information, the applicant’s contact and employment information and information about the journey, the inviter, accommodation, expenses and insurance. In addition, the applicant’s photograph is scanned into the system. Information is stored in Suvi for five years.26

If the conditions for issuing a visa are not fulfilled, the visa is refused. The applicant is provided with a written notification about the refusal. For the refusal of a visa, a standard form such as in Annex VI of the Visa Code is used.

According to Article 22 of the Visa Code, the issuance process of Schengen visas includes a so-called VISION round. This refers to the prior consultation of other Schengen States regarding whether the applicant in question can be issued a visa. In addition, according to Article 31 of the Visa Code, other States may request that the State that issued the visa send retrospective information about the persons for whom it has issued Schengen visas. So far, Finland has not taken this opportunity itself but will send any information requested by other States on demand.27

24 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 31 March 2011 25 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 inteview March 2011, Head of Unit, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen, the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs, Visa affairs training session for the staff of the Finnish Immigration Service (MIGRI) , 14 March 2011 26 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas, 26 May 2011 27 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen, 14 March 2011 15

Upon entry into the country A visa facilitates a person’s entry into a country across the external border of the Schengen area. From the perspective of the border check this means that the situation of a person intending to enter the country has already been inspected in the examination of the visa application and deemed to be in order since the visa has been issued. At the border check, the prerequisites for entering the country are re-inspected. The border control personnel examine whether the person’s motive for entry is acceptable and whether the person intends to leave the Schengen area before the expiry of the visa.28

Visa extension in Finland The Police can extend the period of validity and/or the duration of stay of an issued visa if the visa holder can provide proof of force majeure or humanitarian reasons preventing them from leaving the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the period of the validity and/or the duration of stay authorised by the visa. Humanitarian reasons include the visa holder’s acute severe illness preventing them from travelling or an acute severe illness or death of their close relative living in the Member State, among other things. A force majeure could be the cancellation of a flight due to a strike or weather conditions, for instance. In these cases, the visa extension is granted free of charge. According to the Visa Code, the period of validity and/or the duration of stay of an issued visa may be extended if the visa holder provides proof of serious personal reasons justifying the extension of the period of validity or the duration of stay. Serious personal reasons could be an unforeseeable extension of important business negotiations or the deterioration of the condition of an ill relative, for instance. If a visa is extended due to serious personal reasons, a processing fee of EUR 30 shall be charged.29 Furthermore, the validity of the traveller’s insurance should cover the extension period.

Annulment and revocation of a visa An issued visa is annulled if at a later date it becomes evident that the conditions for issuing it were not met at the time when it was issued. A visa is revoked if the conditions for issuing it are no longer met after the issuing.30 According to Section 31 of the Aliens Act, a visa is annulled or revoked by a Finnish diplomatic mission if the alien resides abroad. If a visa is annulled or revoked in connection with a border check, this is done by border control authorities. If the alien resides in the Finnish territory, the visa is annulled or revoked by the Finnish Immigration Service, the Police or border control authorities.31

Appealing against a visa decision According to the Visa Code, an opportunity shall be provided for appealing against a visa decision. The Aliens Act states that a visa decision is not subject to appeal but a rectification can be requested. The requesting of a rectification was made possible by amendments to the Aliens Act as of 5 April 2011.

28 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, interview, 30 March 2011 29 Poliisi.fi – visa guidelines at http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/262D4C47817F3171C22577D1003076F6?opendo cument 30 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Information for a foreign national requiring a visa, http://www.formin.fi/public/ default.aspx?nodeid=15717&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 31 The Aliens Act, 30 April 2004/301 16

Persons whose visa has been refused, annulled or revoked will be provided with a notification of the decision and separate instructions for requesting rectification. The rectification request must be submitted within 30 days of being notified about the decision and it shall be made in writing either in Finnish or in Swedish.32

A rectification for a visa decision can be requested from the authority that made the decision. This applies to decisions concerning refusal, annulment and revocation of a visa. The authority in question must process the rectification request without undue delay. A decision on the rectification request can be made without hearing the concerned party unless hearing is necessary for a particular reason. No justification for the decision on the rectification request is presented in as much as it concerns information related to the applicant that has been received from authorities of another Schengen State or a third country and used as grounds for refusing, annulling or revoking a visa and according to which the visa applicant may threaten a Schengen State’s public order and safety, national security or relations to a foreign state. The decision on the rectification request cannot be appealed to a higher authority.33

An exception to the above is a family member of a person entitled to free movement within the European Union: they may not request rectification to their visa decisions but should file a complaint with an administrative court.34

For visa extension decisions made by the Police, there is no right to appeal as it is not considered a new visa decision.35

3.2 Visa issuance for the purpose of legal migration – specific procedure followed in the stages of the visa procedure

3.2.1 National visa practices for admission of third-country nationals

As noted earlier in this report, Finland issues only Schengen visas for a maximum of three months. In Finland, a visa is regarded as a permit to enter the country for a short-term stay where the default is that the person intends to leave the Schengen area during the validity of the visa. However, it is not considered an acceptable migration channel – a person intending to move into the country is expected to apply directly for a residence permit. An essential aspect, when considering a visa decision is examining whether the applicant intends to leave the Schengen area before the expiry of the visa.

Diplomatic mission personnel who handle visa applications are provided with training on the inspection of documents by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Finnish Border Guard.

32 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Information for a foreign national requiring a visa, http://www.formin.fi/public/ default.aspx?nodeid=15717&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 33 Ulkoasiainministeriön muistio 30.3.11 (HELM 237-6) Ulkomaalaislain viisumisäännösten muutokset: viisumin epäämisestä, mitätöinnistä ja kumoamisesta saa hakea oikaisua 5.4.2011 alkaen tehdyistä päätöksistä. Ulkoasiainministeriö 34 Ulkoasiainministeriön muistio 30.3.11 (HELM 237-6) Ulkomaalaislain viisumisäännösten muutokset: viisumin epäämisestä, mitätöinnistä ja kumoamisesta saa hakea oikaisua 5.4.2011 alkaen tehdyistä päätöksistä. Ulkoasiainministeriö 35 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen, 5 May 2011 17

Scenario: A visa and a residence permit are two separate permits – a permit must be applied for while abroad before entering the country Finland follows the principle of managed immigration, according to which a residence permit is applied for in advance, before entering the country. A visa is intended for a short-term stay and the general assumption when issuing a visa is that the person will leave the Schengen area during the validity of the visa. Accordingly, a visa is not issued for a permanent residence in Finland or for starting such a residence. Conditions for issuing a visa differ from those for issuing a residence permit: for instance, in visa matters diplomatic missions of different Schengen States co-operate locally with the aim of harmonising the visa issuance practices of Schengen diplomatic missions operating in the same state. As for residence permits, the objective is that all applicants receive an identical decision regardless of the diplomatic mission they contact or the country from which they apply for the residence permit. There is no link between the issuance of a visa and that of a residence permit. When issuing a residence permit, the application processer at the Finnish Immigration Service examines the applicant’s visa history before making the decision regarding the permit. For instance, a note of a prior visa violation may affect the decision about the residence permit.

Thus, the premise is that a person should apply for a residence permit and wait for the decision abroad, not in Finland. The sole exception to this is family members of a Finnish citizen who are allowed to enter Finland with a visa and to wait for the decision on their residence permit application here. Nevertheless, Section 49, Subdivision 5 of the Aliens Act makes it possible to issue a residence permit to a person already in the country if the requirements for issuing such a permit were in any case met abroad and if it would be unreasonable to refuse a residence permit.

The 2003 Government Bill for the Aliens Act describes the state of affairs with regard to visas under the old legislation in the following manner:

A visa as a permit issued for tourism or another short-term residence In the current Aliens Act, the provisions related to visa matters refer to tourism. Similarly, in the definition of a visa, tourism is cited as an example of a short-term residence. In practice, the purposes of the journey for persons that enter the country with a visa often include a visit to relatives, studying, required medical treatment or engaging in work exempted from the work permit obligation on the basis of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy’s decision. A residence of a maximum three months in duration where the purpose is not immigration or engaging in work under the work permit obligation has been considered a short-term residence. The established interpretation of visa regulations in force has been that an alien who intends to stay in the country after the visit has to apply for a residence permit instead of a visa before entering the country. If such an intention becomes apparent during the processing of a visa application, the applicant is usually not issued a visa.

Issuing a visa to a person whose residence permit case is pending is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking the applicant’s overall situation into account. A visa can be issued for a person whose residence permit case is pending if there are no grounds to suspect that the person would refuse to leave the country when the visa expires. Signs that have been regarded as indicating positive attitude towards returning to one’s home country include existing employment, members of nuclear family living abroad and the fact that, considering the costs incurred to the alien and their means 18

of subsistence, the obligation to leave the country upon the expiry of the visa can be considered reasonable. In general, persons living in Finland’s neighbouring areas have been issued a visa even though they had a pending residence permit application. There is an exception to the main rule that an alien has to apply for a residence permit before entering the country: foreign spouses of citizens of EEA States when a citizen of an EEA State exercises the right to free movement. In order to enter the country, a spouse who is a third-country national is issued a Schengen visa free of charge, after which the spouse should initiate the residence permit application process in Finland, similarly to the main applicant.36

In the Government Bill, the relation between residence permits and visas was defined as follows:

A residence permit is defined partially as the opposite of a visa. It is not the same as a visa which, according to its definition, is a permit issued or a decision made for tourism or a comparable short-term residence.37 -- According to the current administrative practice, when considering the issuance of a residence permit in Finland, attention has been paid not only to fulfilling requirements but also to the purpose of entry into the country for the alien that submitted a residence permit application in Finland. If the alien has entered the country with a visa issued for a visit, for instance, and has applied for a residence permit soon after entering the country, it is regarded as provision of false information with regard to the real purpose of entry. A visa is issued solely for tourism or a comparable short-term residence. If, upon the application for a visa, the alien had declared the purpose of entry as permanent family life in Finland, for instance, they would have been instructed to apply for a residence permit.38

Seasonal work with a visa In Finland, the most common form of seasonal work carried out with a visa is berry picking.

On 13 April 2011, Councellor Vesa Häkkinen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs held an introduction to the topic, in which he noted the following, for instance: Section 81, Subdivision 4 of the Aliens Act lists berry picking and harvesting as well as working on a fur farm among sectors in which one is allowed to work with a three- month visa. Persons from visa-free countries can also enter the country and work in these sectors for three months without a work permit. There are many such persons entering Finland and no statistics are compiled about them.

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, approximately 12,000 berry pickers within the scope of the visa requirement enter Finland each year. Approximately 8,000 of them are employed by berry farms and approximately 4,000 pick wild berries. The most important country of origin is Russia: approximately 6,000 of these berry pickers are Russian, and they mainly work on berry farms. Furthermore, these figures do not include those Russian berry pickers who already hold a Finnish visa

36 Government Bill 28/2003 vp, p. 15 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2003/20030028.pdf 37 Government Bill 28/2003 vp, p. 19 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2003/20030028.pdf 38 Government Bill 28/2003 vp, p. 22 http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2003/20030028.pdf 19

on other grounds and engage in berry picking as an additional activity. The second most important country of origin is the Ukraine, with approximately 3,500 pickers each year, about 3,000 of which work on berry farms and 600–700 in forests. Third on the list of top countries of origin is Thailand, with approximately 2,500 wild berry pickers and 200–300 berry farm workers, followed by Moldova and Belorussia.

Finland and Sweden are the only countries where this is (or has been) possible – nowadays tax-free berry picking is no longer possible in Sweden and berry picking can be carried out there only by those in an employment relationship.

The inviter should be a company with a good financial standing, active in this sector and registered in Finland. At the moment, there are approximately ten companies inviting berry pickers from Thailand to Finland, for instance.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides its diplomatic missions with annual guidelines on berry pickers’ visas. These guidelines are also published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see Appendix 1).

Inviting companies are requested to provide diplomatic missions with an advance report on how much money berry pickers will need for fixed expenses (travel, accommodation, food, etc.) and how much they will earn approximately. Companies are also requested to provide reports after work has been performed, stating how much money berry pickers actually used for expenses and how much they earned. Particular attention has been paid to berry pickers from the Far East: their travel expenses are high and they hold visas for a fixed period of time so if the berry yield is low, they can easily run into trouble. Travel plans have to be made well in advance before there is any information on the yield outlook (e.g. for wild berries) and airline tickets are purchased for certain dates, so an early return is not possible even if there are no berries to pick.

For instance, in 2008 the wild berry yield was poor and some of the Thai berry pickers returned home in debt. The average income for Thai berry pickers in Finland has been approximately EUR 3,000 over a three-month period.

The Ombudsman for Minorities has expressed concern about this and provided the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with guidelines regarding the protection of foreign berry pickers in December 2008.

Wild berries can be sold tax-free (this applies to Finns as well), but persons working on berry farms (e.g. strawberry pickers) pay taxes to Finland. The inviting company commits to buying all the berries the invitee picks but the picker is not obliged to sell berries to the inviter and can choose freely to whom to sell them. 20

This is a complex phenomenon: on one hand, one has to take needs of Finnish business life into account (business life could not function without berry pickers) while, on the other hand, there are aspects related to foreign policy which must be considered (such as how Thai berry pickers are treated here and how any problems and other issues related to this phenomenon affect Finland’s external relations with Thailand).

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, when it comes to wild berry pickers, there have not been any usual forms of visa abuse, that is: berry pickers have not remained in the country after the expiry of their visas. Any visa problems have been related to the question of means of subsistence.

The future Seasonal Work Directive will apply only to persons in an employment relationship. In Finland, the picking of wild berries is based on the principle of everyman’s rights, and thus there is no employment relationship and the Seasonal Work Directive will not apply to this activity. The fact that picking of wild berries is an everyman’s right in Finland is an exceptional and rare feature in Europe. For Finland the point is that the country wants to attract short-term seasonal workforce for picking berries due to the constant need thereof and that the chosen approach has been to arrange this with visas in order to gain better control and management. Any problems, such as questions related to means of subsistence, have been tackled with the aid of guidelines. Issuing visas for berry picking does not exactly constitute promotion of legal migration, as the aim is that berry pickers stay in Finland only for a short term, in line with visa regulations. Nevertheless, it satisfies, for its part, annual labour demand.

According to Section 81 of the Aliens Act, an alien may have the right to gainful employment in Finland without a residence permit.39 Residence without a residence permit may be based on a visa or the right to a visa-free residence. The right to work applies only to Finland, although Finland utilises Schengen visas, entitling the visa holder to move in other parts of the Schengen area as well. If a person has used up the visa-free period or there are no days of residence left on the Schengen visa, the person has to apply for a residence permit on the grounds of employment. If the visa has been issued for a period shorter than three months or if there is less than three months left in the visa-free period of residence, the right to work is valid only for this shorter period of time. If it is known in advance that employment will last for more than three months, the alien should apply for a residence permit required for this employment. In most of the circumstances referred to in Section 81, Subsection 1 of the Aliens Act, the right to work applies to cases where, according to the Act, an alien “arrives in the country” for working, that is: the basis for entry is employment as defined in the said Section. The objective of the Act is not to create a “tourist labour market” for persons residing in the country for the purpose of tourism.

Furthermore, Section 11, Subsection 1, Subdivision 3 of the Aliens Act states that an alien should, if necessary, produce documents which indicate the purpose of their intended stay and prove that the requirements for entry are met, and Section 148, Subsection 1, Subdivision 3 of the Act states that an alien may be refused entry into the country if, upon application for a visa, he or she deliberately gave false information on his or her journey,

39 The rest of the text under this heading are based on the book: Ulkomaalainen työntekijä – rekrytointi, maahantulo ja työnteko, Olli Sorainen, Työsuhdekirjasto, Edita publishing, 2007 21 which affected the issue of the visa. Subsection 2 of the Section mentioned above applies to citizens of visa-free countries: according to it, an alien who has entered the country without a residence permit and who is required to hold a visa or residence permit to stay in Finland but who has not applied for one may be refused entry.

In Section 81 of the Aliens Act, employment refers to the following circumstances: Section 81, Subsection 1: ○○ interpreters, teachers, experts or umpires (Subdivision 1), on the basis of an invitation or agreement; ○○ professional artists or athletes, including assisting, technical and training staff (Subdivision 2); ○○ seamen (Subdivision 3); ○○ picking and harvesting or working on a fur farm (Subdivision 4); ○○ contracting under the freedom to provide services (Subdivision 5).

Section 81, Subsection 2: ○○ product demonstrators, members of a film crew (Subdivision 1), members of the crew of a motor vehicle (Subdivision 2); ○○ leaders of tourists groups (Subdivision 3).

It is worth noting that the concept of “expert” has not been defined in the Finnish Aliens Act. According to a decision of the Government, when applying for a visa for working in expert duties, one should be able to produce proof that the duties include research, application of scientific or artistic methodology or administrative or business regulations, teaching or managerial duties. This decision guides but does not restrict the scope of application of the provision. When interpreting the concept in the general sense and taking into account the proportionality principle stated in Section 5 of the Aliens Act, other duties than those mentioned in the decision of the Government are also conceivable. In particular when it comes to work that does not require an academic degree, the salary or compensation paid for the duties also influences consideration of the issue: it can be expected tobe substantially higher than what is normally paid for duties with similar content.

The Administration Committee40 seems to restrict working on a fur farm so that the exemption of a residence permit only applies to seasonal skinning work in November–December or urgent tasks related to the mating season of fur animals in March–April.

3.2.2 Challenges and success factors for facilitating legal migration

Visa policy can be used to facilitate migration in the sense that refusals of visas, unreliable information on methods and documents related to the application process and treatment that is considered unfriendly affect the country’s image in the eyes of visa applicants. Abroad, the EU’s and its Member States’ image as potential destination countries for migration is formed to a great extent on the basis of their visa policy and practices.41 In an EU-level comparison carried out by a Polish researcher in 2006, Finland was rated high in this respect.

40 The Administraiton Committee’s memorandum HaVM 4/2004 41 cf. Visa Policies of European Union Member States, p. 52. 22

In visa issuance practices, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs42 aims at good service and a customer-friendly interpretation of visa regulations, promoting in this way a positive image of Finland and interest in migrating into the country.

3.3 Visa procedures for the purpose of preventing irregular migration

3.3.1 Prevention of irregular migration during the visa issuing and monitoring process

A key factor in making a decision about a visa application is considering whether the applicant intends to leave the Schengen area before the expiry of the visa. The risk for a person’s illegal entry is assessed by reviewing ties with the home country (family, work, home), for instance. In addition, the applicant may be requested to present a ticket entitling him or her to a return journey. The decision about whether a return ticket is required is usually made through local Schengen co-operation so in this aspect, the practices in different diplomatic missions vary.43

Information about a visa application is entered into the Suvi visa system that contains not only visa application data but also direct, automatic connections to several official registers. For instance, if the visa applicant has committed a crime during a previous visit to Finland, the processor of the visa application will see this in the system. The visa application may also be sent to Finland to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or the Finnish Security Intelligence Service for a statement, if necessary.44

If an applicant’s passport shows that another Schengen State has refused to issue a visa for the applicant, the Finnish diplomatic mission processing the application contacts the diplomatic mission of the State in question.45

The authenticity of the supporting documents is verified. Diplomatic mission personnel who handle visa applications are provided with training on the inspection of documents by the National Bureau of Investigation and the Border Guard. Furthermore, any suspicious documents can be submitted for inspection by a Police or Border Guard liaison officer working at the diplomatic mission, if such officer exists.

The diplomatic mission can invite the applicant to a personal interview in order to determine the purpose of the journey. However, not all applicants are interviewed: the interviewees are determined by profiling them on the basis of their applications. For instance, persons applying for a visa for the first time or applicants from a region with a high risk of illegal entry are most likely to be interviewed.46

42 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas, interview 31 March 2011 43 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas, 19 May 2011 44 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas, 19 May 2011, and Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 45 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas, 19 May 2011 46 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2011, Unit for Passports and Visas, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen, Training session on visa affairs for the staff of the Finnish Immigrations Service, 14 March 2011 23

Once a person has arrived in the Schengen area, violations of visa regulations are detected either at the border when the person tries to leave the country or in the country in connection with the Police’s inspection or supervision.

At the external border, when a person is leaving the country, the Finnish Border Guard may examine whether the person has indeed been in Finland for the purpose that they declared when applying for the visa. Any unclear issues related to the purpose of residence in the country may affect the issuance of subsequent visas.47

At present, exceeding of the period of validity of a visa cannot be supervised. If a person enters Finland with a Schengen visa issued by Finland but leaves the Schengen area across another external border, the Finnish authorities do not receive any information about the departure.

3.3.2 Prevention of irregular migration through other measures during visa issuing

With their activities, diplomatic missions can influence illegal entry and irregular migration in advance. Pre-emptive prevention is efficient, economical and important for public order and safety.48 In visa matters, effort has been invested in making the prevention of illegal entry more efficient by training visa officers at diplomatic missions, assigning experts to diplomatic missions and collecting and distributing information related to illegal entry among authorities.

Training and guidelines The Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides visa training for visa personnel in its diplomatic missions. Training also includes a module on recognition of forged documents, organised by the National Bureau of Investigation. In addition, training related to trafficking in human beings has been arranged by various authorities in co-operation.

Assigning experts to diplomatic missions In certain diplomatic missions, there are immigration specialists whose main task is to prevent illegal entry to the Schengen area. These immigration specialists are liaison officers sent by the Finnish Border Guard, the police and the Finnish Immigration Service. Liaison officers of the liaison officer network of the Finnish Border Guard work in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Petrozavodsk, Beijing, Tallinn and Riga. In addition, a temporary liaison officer of the Finnish Border Guard works for a part of the year in Abuja, Nigeria. The liaison officer operations of the Finnish Border Guard aim at supporting national crime prevention. The role of these liaison officers is to facilitate the prevention and suppression of irregular migration, the return of irregular migrants and the management of legal migration. The liaison officers provide support for the processing of visa and residence permit applications, inspect suspicious travel documents and other related documents as well as train and support the site employees in investigating the authenticity of travel documents.

47 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard , 30 March 2011 48 Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009, p. 17 24

At the same time, the Finnish Border Guard liaison officers co-operate closely with the Police and Customs liaison officers assigned to Finnish diplomatic missions.49 For instance, on 1 July 2011, a representative of the Finnish Border Guard will travel to the Embassy of Finland in Delhi for a 6-month secondment and at the same time an adviser of the Immigration Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service will also travel there for a 1-month secondment to learn how to investigate the authenticity of documents.50

The Police’s liaison officer operations are coordinated by the National Bureau of Investigation. In addition to taking care of various tasks related to international crime, the police liaison officers also help diplomatic missions in issues related to the prevention of illegal entry. The police liaison officers participate in the processing of visa applications, if necessary: they could help in the inspection of documents or take part in visa interviews. Visa refusals usually circulate through the Police if the reason for refusing a visa is the applicant’s criminal background or suspected participation in criminal or terrorist activities. In case of suspected terrorism, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service shall be contacted. In particular in China and Russia, the operations of the police liaison officers concentrate on prevention of illegal entry. Finland has 12 such liaison officers and in addition there are Nordic PTN liaison officers51 that can be used if no Finnish liaison officers are available. There are approximately 50 Nordic PTN liaison officers in all.52

Collection and distribution of information related to illegal entry Another means of preventing illegal entry is the collection and distribution of information among authorities. In June 2011, an assessment report on illegal entry was published and the aim is that the official working group on prevention of illegal entry will update it semiannually. This intersectoral report describes illegal entry as a phenomenon by presenting figures from various administrative sectors.

Statistics about illegal entry are gathered by the National Bureau of Investigation. In addition, police liaison officers working in diplomatic missions provide the National Bureau of Investigation with information on suspicious events that come up in the processing of visa and residence permit applications.

3.3.3 Challenges and success factors for preventing irregular migration

Challenges The free movement of people within the Schengen area and a shared Schengen visa system create their own challenges for the prevention of illegal entry. According to both the Police and the Finnish Border Guard, the significance of the area of free movement diminishes constantly because control of aliens within the country has to be increased as control of

49 Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009, p. 18; the Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 50 The Finnish Immigration Service, Intranet (SUVI). Interview: Counsellor Vesa, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Unit for Passports and Visas 51 The police and customs authorities of the Nordic countries have a contact person network (Polis och Tull i Norden mot narkotika, PTN) that covers approximately 20 countries around the world. The contact persons in the network are available to all Nordic countries and are located in Albania, several countries in the Balkan region, Poland, Turkey, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Pakistan and United Arab Emirates, for instance. PTN co-operation was launched in 1972 mainly to prevent drug crimes. Later the network’s operations have expanded to the prevention of other organised crime as well. Source: The National Bureau of Investigation, http://www.keskusrikospoliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/pages/3C6929FB285B13C4C2256C8 A0039D456?opendocument 52 The National Bureau of Investigation, 11 March 2011 25 external state borders decreases.53 An indication of the fact that persons residing illegally in Finland are caught to an increasing extent within the country is that in the last few years the number of violations of the Aliens Act handled by the Police has increased while those handled by the Finnish Border Guard has decreased.54

The volume of illegal entries from within the Schengen area to Finland is greater than that from outside the Schengen area. According to estimates, up to 90% of persons that are caught residing illegally in Finland have entered the country across internal borders.

It is easy to find out the arrival date and the border crossing point in a certain Schengen State if a person crosses an external border of the Schengen area with a visa. However, if the person enters Finland across an internal border of the Schengen area, it is often difficult to obtain detailed information on this entry. Similarly, it is nearly impossible to find out where and when a person left Finland across an internal border of the Schengen area if this person did not cross an external border when leaving the country.

Another challenge in the prevention of illegal entry is Member States’ different interpretations of visa regulations and different administrative cultures. Despite local Schengen co- operation, there are differences the issuing of visas for different Schengen States. It is easier to get a visa from diplomatic missions of some Schengen States even though the permit to enter the country applies to the entire Schengen area. In order to prevent illegal entry, visa policies should be consistent across all Schengen diplomatic missions.

In practical border control activities, problems are caused by the fact that not all Schengen States have approved the same travel documents and there are national differences. In addition, Schengen States have various bilateral agreements with other Member States and third countries, which also causes confusion at the border. Visa regulations and various agreements create different interpretations regarding which regulation should be applied in each case and how the time resided in the Schengen area should be calculated, for instance. Occasionally similar problems are encountered even between different authorities.55

The Police take care of removing persons residing illegally in Finland, and according to them, visa policy should accommodate to circumstances and a different visa policy should be followed in different countries and at different times. The lower the threshold is to enter Finland, the lower the threshold to remove persons residing illegally in the country should be. It is challenging to return a person residing illegally in the country to their home country if the person has lost travel documents on purpose when entering the Schengen area. Proving such a person’s citizenship may be difficult, and the diplomatic mission of their home country will not necessarily issue a certificate for the return journey if it has not been possible to prove citizenship. In these cases it would helpful if the archives of the diplomatic mission that issued the Schengen visa contained, in addition to a photograph, copies of the documents (a passport, various documents, bank statements, etc.) that were presented with when the visa was applied for. These documents could be used as reference when proving a person’s citizenship.56 Another problem related to returning persons is costs.

53 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011; the Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011 54 Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 11 May 2011 55 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 56 The Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011 26

Finland has not implemented any arrangements with regard to recovering the costs related to a return from the party who provided the visa invitation. One possible option would be that the inviter deposits money as a security for potential costs of return.57

At the moment, the EU has valid visa facilitation agreements with several third countries. The agreement with the Russian Federation entered into force on 1 June 2007, the agreements with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and the Ukraine on 1 January 2008 and the agreement with Georgia on 1 March 2011.58 According to the Police and the Finnish Border Guard, the visa agreements listed above have not caused any particular problems in Finland with regard to illegal entry.59 However, visa facilitation agreements may have affected the number of asylum seekers. Visa facilitation and exemption agreements lower the threshold to move to the Member States as the price of the journey lowers and the amount of time and effort required by travel arrangements decreases.60

One distinct problem area is so-called middlemen who – sometimes for quite unreasonable compensation – help visa applicants in a dubious manner before the submittal of a visa application and supply them with required documents. Because of the debt incurred thus, the applicant may become a victim of a profiteer both in the country of origin and in the Schengen area, and may consequently end up a victim of trafficking in human beings and/ or illegal employment. Middlemen are often members of a well-managed organisation that may also arrange illegal transportation into the Schengen area.

Success factors, success stories Despite a high volume of visas, the Finnish visa system has clearly functioned well in preventing illegal entry. In 2010, the number of persons caught residing illegally in Finland was approximately 4,000. Of these, approximately 3,000 originated from Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan, meaning that only 1,000 were from countries for which visa policy can actually be used to control migration. Of these 1,000 persons, approximately half entered the country by abusing the visa system. In 2010, Finland issued over a million visas. The volume of illegal entries from within the Schengen area to Finland is greater than that of illegal entries crossing the external borders of the area.61

The diplomatic mission personnel who process visa applications play a key role in preventing abuse of visa regulations. Sufficient resources, training and good motivation are crucial factors, as are a good understanding of local circumstances and people and experience in processing visa applications.62

57 The Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011 58 The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Visa facilitation agreements, http://www.formin.fi/Public/default.aspx?nodeid =40875&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 59 The Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011; the Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 60 The Finnish Immigration Service, the Asylum Unit’s legal and support services, written comment, 25 May 2011 61 The National Bureau of Investigation , 11 March 2011; the Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, 30 March 2011 62 The Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011 27

Another extremely important factor is practical co-operation among authorities. For instance, co-operation between diplomatic missions and the Police in individual cases constantly produces more shared information on which channels are used at the present moment for illegal entry in various locations. It is important that the Police and the Finnish Border Guard have good contacts with diplomatic missions, in particular for those countries that are problematic with regard to illegal entry.63 Intersectoral co- operation is promoted by the national Visa Working Party, led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and consisting of representative of various authorities, and the “Lama” working group, led by the National Police Board, that monitors the state of illegal entry.64

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ view is that making training, information exchange and above all co-operation between authorities, such as liaison officer operations, more efficient has resulted in successful and effective prevention of illegal entry.65

The Police Administration also considers functional and efficient co-operation between authorities a central success factor for the prevention of illegal entry. One testimony of this co-operation is the first national action programme against illegal entry for 2010–2011, approved by the Ministry of the Interior’s Executive Steering Group in February 2010. The action programme was prepared through intersectoral co-operation led by the Police, and is based on objectives defined in the Internal Security Programme. The “Lama” action programme contains approximately 30 recommended actions for making the prevention of illegal entry more efficient, with responsibilities for these actions divided among authorities. Recommended actions range from suggested legal amendments to development of operations and include several recommendations related to the execution of visa policy, for instance. The main parties in the action programme against illegal entry are the Police, the Finnish Border Guard, the Finnish Immigration Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior’s Migration Department. The implementation of the action programme is monitored by the “Lama” working group and reported semiannually to the Ministry of the Interior’s Executive Steering Group and the Internal Security Programme management group. An update to the action programme is scheduled to be carried out during this year.66

According to the Police Administration’s view, the main idea of the action programme against illegal entry is that efforts to prevent illegal entry should be directed toward proactive measures, in practice to the visa process, in order to avoid the need to take costly measures afterwards. Another focus area in the action programme is developing the control of aliens within the country.67

63 The Helsinki Police Department, 8 April 2011 64 The so-called “Lama” group is an intersectoral working group led by the National Police Board. In the group, there are representatives from the Police, the Finnish Border Guard, the Finnish Customs, the Finnish Immigration Service, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The tasks of the working group include monitoring the state of illegal entry on the basis of status reports prepared by the National Bureau of Investigation, for instance, hearing representatives of the authorities participating in co-operation as well as those of NGOs, making suggestions for the development of intersectoral co-operation methods and recommend actions for the development of co-operation with the authorities of neighbouring countries and third countries. Source: Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009, p. 25 65 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, written comment, 6 July 2011 66 The National Police Board, written comment, 21 June 2011 67 Ibid 28 4. CO-OPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES: CASE STUDIES

4.1 Case Study I – Russia

The volume of passenger traffic from Russia to Finland is considerable. In 2010, there were altogether 6.8 million crossings at the Finno-Russian border, a 15% increase from the previous year. The highest number of crossings was reached at the Vaalimaa–Torfyanovka border station, accounting for 2.7 million crossings. A daily record was set on 3 January 2010 with 47,000 persons crossing the border. At the Salla border station, there were 100,000 crossings in 2010.68

Also at the EU level, Finland is the country issuing the most Schengen visas to Russia. Finland has diplomatic missions in the following Russian cities: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Murmansk and Petrozavodsk. In addition, Finland is represented by Estonia in Pskov, by Hungary in Yekaterinburg and by Lithuania in the Kaliningrad region.

Although most of the visa-based movement from Russia to Finland is tourism, that is not the only factor fuelling the high volume of border traffic. According to Russian authorities, more than 1,485,000 trips were made to Finland in the first half of 2010, but only approximately 310,000 of these were categorised as tourism. Other border crossings are mainly related to business or movement of Russians living in Finland.69

In a slightly longer time perspective, in the year 2005 Finland issued altogether 435,000 visas, whereas in 2010 the corresponding figure was as high as 1,020,400. In five years the growth has amounted to 100%, most of which was generated in Russia. If these total figures are compared to the corresponding figures at the Consulate General of Finland inSt. Petersburg, one can see that the Consulate General processed 234,000 visa applications in 2005 and 743,500 applications in 2010. The figure has tripled in five years. Approximately 90% of visas issued at the Consulate General in St. Petersburg are multiple-entry visas. According to an estimate by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs70, one could put it simply and say that approximately 10% of the residents of St. Petersburg always hold a multiple-entry visa for Finland.

In 2011, the state of affairs is such that Russians have been applying for visas at a rate that breaks all records and there is a huge backlog in the issuance of visas for Finland. In April 2011, the number of visa applications submitted to the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg had increased by 65%, and at this rate, over 1 million visa applications will be processed this year at the Consulate General only, in comparison to last year’s figure of approximately 750,000 applications. The Consulate assumes that the underlying reasons for this flood of visa applications are the opening of the new visa centre and turbulence in the Arab countries. Both of these factors have further increased interest for Finland as a travel destination.71

68 BarentsObserver.com, 7 January 2011 69 HS Talous, 22 November 2010 70 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, written comment, 6 July 2011 71 Helsingin Sanomat, 11 May 2011 29

This year, this interest has manifested itself particularly in the diplomatic mission of Finland in Murmansk as a dramatic increase in the number of visa applications for Finland. During the first part of the year, nearly 83% more visa decisions were made in comparison to the same period in 2010. The peak period was May, with an increase of approximately 120%, whereas in June, growth was “only” approximately 37%. In January–June, altogether 18,527 visa decisions were made at the Murmansk site of the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg, while last year the figure was 10,153, signifying a 35% increase in comparison to the same period last year. If growth continues at the current rate, well over 30,000 visa decisions will be made in Murmansk this year, deducing from the last year’s record-breaking figure of 29,632 decisions. In 2009, the number of decisions was 19,340. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland strives to meet the increasing demand for visas by hiring one new permanent visa officer at the Murmansk site in the autumn. Currently, the Murmansk site employs four permanent visa officers. Moreover, additional personnel are always hired for the peak periods in the summer and in the Christmas season. In Murmansk, most visa decisions are positive: only approximately 1% of visa applicants is refused a visa. In addition, issued visas are generally multiple-entry visas.72

To facilitate the constantly overflowing receipt and processing of visas in the Finnish diplomatic missions in Moscow and especially in St. Petersburg, the receipt of visa applications was outsourced, first in Moscow and then in St. Petersburg. On 11 February 2011, the Indian company VFS Global opened a visa centre at the Olympic Plaza shopping centre in St. Petersburg. The receipt of visa applications and the delivery of issued visas were outsourced to this company.

The verification of information about a visa applicant and the decision regarding visa issuance are still carried out by the Consulate General, and no downsizing of consulate personnel has resulted from outsourcing. According to the Consulate General in St. Petersburg, the new visa centre solves the problem posed by the need to queue for submitting a visa application as the new centre has reduced the queuing time to 15 minutes at the maximum. The visa centre premises are located on two floors, with a total area of 3,000 2m . There are altogether 83 customer service counters, and the visa centre employs approximately 200 persons. The centre is also nicknamed “a visa factory” and it is the biggest of its kind in the world. A similar but smaller centre provides services for the Finnish diplomatic mission in Moscow, the initial pilot site for outsourcing. Outsourcing does not incur additional expenses for Finland because visa applicants need to pay EUR 21 more than before for this accelerated customer service. They can also get a visa for the old price (EUR 35) directly from the Consulate General if they make an appointment in advance. 73

The opening of the Finnish visa centre received wide media coverage throughout north- western Russia. The event was featured in practically all main media in St. Petersburg, including television, radio and press. The visa centre was inaugurated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb, and his comment about Finland being a superpower of visas was quoted in many media. Media also used Stubb’s words in describing the centre as the world’s biggest and most beautiful visa centre. The Finnish visa practices were praised as the simplest and most flexible in the world. However, several publications also mentioned the new, EUR 21 higher service fee related to the new service as a drawback.

72 Lapin Kansa, 6 July 2011 73 Helsingin Sanomat, 9 February 2011; Ulkoasiainministeriö, Luoteis-Venäjän uutiskirje 1.1.-31.1.2011 30

4.1.1 Rationale for case study selection

The most significant reason for selecting Russia for this case study is that it is the most significant receiver of visas for Finland: over 90% of visas issued by Finland are for Russians, amounting to nearly 1 million visas last year. Less than 1% of applications, i.e. less than 10,000 applications, are refused annually. It should also be noted that the number of people entering the country is even greater when taking into account longer-term multiple-entry visas, which enable a person to enter Finland several times during one year. Secondly, as a neighbouring country with a large economic potential for Finland, Russia is a desireable source country for tourism and legal migration.

Furthermore, the number of visas issued for travelling from Russia to Finland increases each year. Despite the glum economic situation, application for visas has continued at a hectic rate during this year, too. By the end of August, the Consulate General in St. Petersburg had processed slightly under 340,000 applications, which is 20,000 applications more than in the corresponding period last year.

According to the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg74, the reasons for the increasing volume of visa applications are the following:

The main reason is the flexible Finnish visa policy that is also considered liberal. Finland is regarded as an easy country for applying for a visa, and Russians are rarely refused a visa. For instance, the new outsourced visa centre that was opened in St. Petersburg on 8 February 2011 for the receipt of visa applications has further streamlined the visa application process. After taking a number, the waiting time to be served is on average only one minute, and the entire visa application process takes an average of 15 minutes. Furthermore, the premises are located centrally in a popular shopping centre.

Economic growth in last few years has increased travelling in general. On the other hand, during the recession of 2008, there was less money for travelling but Russians could still afford to travel to neighbouring areas in particular, such as Finland.

Russian customs regulations have changed.

In 2011, rail traffic increased in comparison to last year by 20%, thanks tothe Allegro speed train connection launched in December 2010 between Helsinki and St. Petersburg. The journey takes only 3.5 hours and border crossing formalities are taken care of on the train during the journey. In Finland, checks are carried out on the train between Helsinki and Vainikkala, and in Russia, between St. Petersburg and Vyborg.

In Russia, it has become more commonplace to issue passports to citizens. As a result, the number of trips abroad made by Russian citizens has increased. According to information received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs75, last year approximately

74 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview:, 30 May 2011 75 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, written comment, 6 July 2011 31

600,000 new passports were issued and this year there will probably be a more than 30% increase, with approximately 800,000 new passports.

The number of visas issued to Russians has grown in the diplomatic missions of other Schengen States in Russia – this phenomenon is not specific to Finland as such. Moreover, the number of visa applications has certainly increased in other Finnish diplomatic missions, too.

Improved travelling possibilities and increased marketing by travel agencies have boosted citizens’ willingness to travel and curiosity about the outside world.

The high number of Russian visa applicants is undoubtedly linked to the significant position of Russians as immigrants in Finland. As a result of our countries being neighbours, Russians are the largest group of aliens in Finland, followed in the top three by immigrants from Estonia and Sweden, two other neighbours of Finland. They have entered the country as employees, spouses of Finnish citizens, students and family members of people who have moved into the country from Russia for various reasons.

When it comes to the economic significance of Russian tourists for Finland, the effect can be seen not only near the eastern border but throughout the country. For instance, the majority of foreign berry pickers and other seasonal workers spread throughout Finland come from Russia.

Finland follows a favourable visa policy with regard to Russia.76 In general, a visa is issued unless there is a clear reason to refuse it. As mentioned above, only less than 1% of applications is refused. The reasons for refusing a visa are the following:

Information regarding crimes committed in Finland is obtained from the Police’s registers: the most typical crimes are traffic violations, usually related to speeding, sometimes accompanied by unpaid fines. In addition, to some extent there are also petty thefts, thefts and other minor offences.

A visa that has been issued before has been abused (and the destination country has not been Finland). After all, it is a Schengen visa that entitles the person to travel to other EU Member States within the scope of the Schengen Agreement, not just to Finland. However, the main destination needs to be Finland if the visa is applied for at a Finnish Consulate. If preliminary examination of a visa application profiles it as requiring the applicant to be invited for an interview, the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg encourages the applicant to tell them openly if they intend to use the Finnish visa for travelling to Germany in order to pick up a used car they have bought, for instance.

It is explained that a shopping trip to Germany is by no means a reason to refuse a visa, in compliance with the principle of free movement, but that they are also expected to visit Finland and in principle it is assumed to be the primary destination.

76 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 30 May 2011 32

The applicant has committed minor customs violations. Typically this involves exceeding customs regulations in the amount of tobacco and/or alcohol brought from Russia to Finland. Another example is minor tax evasion related to tax-free shopping.

There are indications that the applicant is a persona non grata in one or more EU Member States. If it is known that the applicant has been refused a visa by a diplomatic mission of another EU Member State, the diplomatic mission in question is contacted to verify the issue. A stamp in the passport, indicating that a visa application has been submitted, is a sign of a refusal. Another indicator is the fact that the applicant has applied for and been issued Schengen visas for a certain country and used them in travelling for years but suddenly applies for a visa for another Schengen State (Finland or Estonia, for instance). In this case, there is reason to suspect that the person in question has no longer been issued a visa from the said diplomatic mission, for one reason or another. Persons who have committed more serious crimes and persons with an entry ban to the Schengen area can be found directly in the SIS registry.

It is assumed that the applicant intends to seek asylum in Finland.

In addition to the favourable visa policy, the processing of visa applications from Russian citizens at a Finnish diplomatic mission has been made as smooth and flexible as possible.

In general, only a few supporting documents are requested – however, the number of supporting documents required depends on the purpose of the journey. This is exceptional in comparison to several other Schengen States, such as Germany, which employ a particular list of supporting documents that an applicant has to deliver in addition to answering certain questions in the application since all visa applicants are interviewed. Finland does not use such listings, instead requiring only those supporting documents that are needed.

Furthermore, not all applicants are interviewed: on the basis of preliminary profiling, only those applicants whose motives for entry should be validated as for their genuineness are invited to an interview. The applicant is invited to an interview held at the diplomatic mission, if necessary, or in some cases additional details are requested on the telephone. A liaison officer of the Finnish Border Guard can participate in interviews, if need be. Third-country nationals are always interviewed when they apply for a first visa, and they also have to submit the application personally. Particular attention is also paid to visa applications of children. If the entire family is not applying for visas together, parental consent or a certificate of single parenthood, for instance, is required.

Upon the submittal of a visa application, the SUVI visa system automatically checks certain basic registers. In addition, authorities may check several official registers. By combining this information, one can often get a good overall picture of the applicant and the bonds to the country for which the applicant is seeking a visa (Finland). In most cases, this provides reliable information for making a decision. 33

The supporting documents presented by the applicant in connection with the visa application are recorded in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ visa register SUVI. These supporting documents are stored at the diplomatic mission for three years, eliminating the need to present the same documents again with the next visa application. Refused visa applications are stored at the diplomatic mission for at least five years. The background of an inviter can easily be investigated by authorities also from Finland with the aid of various official registers, particularly if it is a Finnish company, and registers can also shed some light on a private person’s motives for getting a Russian person into Finland.

Good Finnish administrative culture also shows in that co-operation between authorities functions well intersectorally – it is easy to contact any authority if necessary. This facilitates the smooth processing of visas and conveys an image of Finland as a flexible visa-issuing country.

The fact that a customer can complete a visa application online or at an outsourced visa centre has further increased the amount of background information collected about visa applicants and recorded in SUVI. In the long run, this proves useful as the data repository on the applicant grows constantly. A great deal of information has already been gathered on long-term visa customers, and the diplomatic mission in St. Petersburg is able to retrieve information on a certain applicant from mid-1990s onwards.

The proximity of the border influences the type of journeys made with a visa: it is not reasonable to require an invitation or a return ticket from persons who travel by car to visit relatives or to shop for food and clothes.77 Finland also used to apply an invitation system to persons travelling with a visa from Russia to Finland but gradually the system was being abused to such an extent that it was considered redundant. For instance, near the border shopkeepers gave copied invitation letters to all those interested who were travelling out of Russia.

Finland has been criticised by some for following too lax a visa policy in St. Petersburg. Nevertheless, the Finnish diplomatic mission in St. Petersburg has received little feedback on any real problems caused by this approach to visa policy in other Schengen States.78

It is worth noting that the authenticity of supporting documents is investigated extremely carefully at the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg, particularly in cases highlighted in the profiling phase. It is not considered sufficient that for persons invited to a visa interview, required supporting documents are simply marked as received / seen. Instead, their authenticity is investigated thoroughly.

As for human resources, there are 120 employees processing visa applications at the Consulate General of Finland in St. Petersburg and only 3 full-time employees processing residence permit applications. In addition, there is also a visa police officer and a liaison officer from the Finnish Border Guard available. The latter concentrates on the inspection of forged documents, for instance, as part of prevention of illegal entry.

77 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 30 May 2011 78 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 30 May 2011 34

A third of the persons committing violations of the Aliens Act, mainly exceeding the validity of a visa, are Russian. These cases are mainly detected during exit checks at the eastern border.79

According to the National Bureau of Investigation view is that within the framework of the current visa policy, Russia does not pose a risk when it comes to illegal entry.80

With regard to removal or illegal entry, Russia is not a problematic country for Finland. Relations with Russian officials are good and returning of persons is carried out without problems. Outsourcing of the receipt of visa applications has not caused any trouble either.81

According the Finnish Border Guard82, there is little pressure of illegal entry from Russia to Finland. However, Russia is a potentially risky country with regard to entry for the following reasons: Russia’s large population as such, crime in the St. Petersburg area and the short distance from St. Petersburg to Finland’s border. From Finland’s perspective, Russia is a country of transit for illegal entry. As noted above, approximately 10,000 visa applications of Russian applicants are refused each year. If a visa exemption is introduced, persons belonging to this category should be stopped at the border check, which usually lasts only approximately a minute. Much more time is devoted to the processing of a visa application and the applicant can also be invited to an interview and requested to provide additional written documents. This will be a challenge for border control personnel. Approximately 55% of residents of St. Petersburg currently hold a passport for travelling abroad. With a visa exemption, it might be the case that even more people will acquire passports for travelling abroad and travel to Finland. In fact, there are signs of this already: at the moment, Russians use the Finnish visas for shopping trips near the border (Lappeenranta, Imatra) or for travelling to other parts of Finland or to farther locations, such as Sweden.

Russia is one of the top countries when measured by the number of asylum seekers. The majority of asylum seekers that come from Russia to Finland are members of ethnic minorities from the northern Caucasus. They usually enter Finland illegally. Presumably persons in direst need of international protection will not be able to acquire travel documents by legal means in the future either, so the planned visa exemption for Russia would hardly facilitate their entry into the Schengen area. Instead, an increase in the number of asylum seekers could probably be expected, at least at first, estimates the Asylum Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service

Finland is also used as a gateway to other Schengen States. This poses a problem with regard to those for whom Russia is a country of transit, not so much with regard to Russians. According to the National Bureau of Investigation83, other Schengen States have not reported any problems related to visas issued by Finland. Each year, nearly a million visas for Finland are issued in Russia. Nevertheless, in the illegal entry statistics for last year, there were approximately 500 Russians who had committed a crime related to illegal entry. Consequently, it can be stated that there has been no reason to change visa policy with regard to Russia.

79 Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009, p. 14 80 the National Bureau of Investigation, interview, 11 March 2011 81 The Helsinki Police Department (8 April 2011) 82 The Finnish Border Guard 83 The National Bureau of Investigation, 11 March 2011 35

The principles of application of Schengen visa regulations are not always clear for Russians either. An example of this is Anastasija Sjomova, a tourist from St. Petersburg who was interviewed in a Finnish magazine84. She was interviewed on a day trip to Finland, her third one under her current visa. The six-month multiple-entry visa, which she acquired in March, was about to expire soon, and Sjomova was in a hurry to visit Finland:

“I got the visa so that I could make shopping trips to Finland. It is close, it is easy, and it is fast, then I was also able to travel much more, and I went to Spain, Germany, Norway, and Estonia.” Sjomova was worried, because a Schengen visa acquired at the Consulate of Finland is supposed to be used primarily for travel to Finland. However, the visa rules seem unclear to Russians. “In principle I have the right to travel in the whole Schengen zone, but that is not really the case. It would be good if the rules were clearly stated somewhere.”

According to the practice followed at the Finnish consulates in Russia, it is permissible to travel to other Schengen countries as well, but the number of visits to Finland has to be greater than to any other country. Although Sjomova had visited each of the other countries only once, and had been to Finland already twice, she decided to visit Finland one more time. Sjomova knows several people who are in a similar situation. The more they travel to other countries on a visa acquired in Finland, the more visits they make to Finland as well. Neither the Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor the Finnish Consulate General in St. Petersburg have any idea how widespread the issue is. “In any case, most of those who get a visa genuinely do travel to Finland. These one-day shopping trips are a very positive thing from our point of view”, says Deputy Consul Harri Heikkinen from the Consulate General in St. Petersburg in the same interview.

It is a common misunderstanding that a visa needs to be “launched” by making the first trip to the country through which it has been acquired. However, according to the Schengen rules the destination for the first trip can be any country.

Unlike many other countries, Finland easily grants long-term multiple-entry visas of six months or a year, and Finland does not require the applicant to show an invitation or a ticket and a hotel reservation. Consequently, other countries have criticised Finland for having too lax a policy on visas. Sjomova says that flexibility and fast service make the Finnish Consulate General the most attractive place to apply for a visa. “In Finland they understand that you can’t plan travel in advance to the most minute detail, and they treat applicants well. After all, we aren’t criminals.”

Certainly Schengen visas are being abused, too. As noted above, a visa should be primarily used for travel to the country whose diplomatic mission has issued the visa. However, some people acquire a visa for Finland, cross the border, get Finnish stamps on their passport and continue their journey to other Schengen States. Upon noting such violations, some people have been refused entry at the Helsinki Airport. 85

84 Helsingin Sanomat, 12 September 2009 85 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 March 2011, interview 36

Finland is one of the key targets of “visa shopping” as the Finnish diplomatic missions have a reputation of being smooth and flexible visa issuers in Russia. It increases the popularity of Finnish visas even if the true destination were another country. Nevertheless, flagrant abuse occurs rarely. According to the Finnish Border Guard, it is uncommon that persons would come to the border only to get stamps and then return immediately. “People usually go shopping at the very least, go to sales or spas,” says Head of the Border Control Department Pasi Tolvanen86.

A visa exemption between the European Union and Russia will probably become a reality one day. According to estimates, the number of border crossings of persons may double at the crossing points of the south-eastern border with the introduction of the visa exemption. Ensuring smooth and safe border crossings will be a challenge for Finland.87

Visa exemption between the EU and Russia has been lately covered in media to a great extent. In addition to conditions set by the EU (reliable passports, improved border control and weeding corruption out from Russia so that passports cannot be bought), Finland has stated its own requirements: elimination of aliens’ obligation to register and facilitation of the acquisition of work permits for aliens. The Finnish rail transport company VR is also promoting the introduction of visa exemption for train passengers. Since April 2010, cruise passengers have been able to travel without a visa on trips lasting a maximum of 72 hours.88

According to the Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard89, such problems related to public order and safety as minor offences, drug use and disorderly conduct will increase near the border if the visa exemption is introduced. More serious crime originating from Russia is already present in Finland and this will presumably not change with the introduction of the visa exemption.

Finland was featured particularly heavily in the news in north-western Russia in February 2011 as the visa centre in St. Petersburg opened and Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb visited Finland’s neighbouring areas. News about both of these topics paid a great deal of attention to the question of visa exemption that has been discussed in the Russian media for a long time. One concrete issue that came up in this context was the possibility of granting a three-day visa exemption to passengers of the Allegro train. This topic brought about some contradictory news, too: after Stubb had met Governor Serdyukov of the Leningrad Oblast in Vyborg, the news site 47 News reported erroneously that they had agreed on a visa exemption for the Allegro train travelling in both directions. This news spread to other media as well, but was later rectified efficiently.

In January-February 2011, the Finno-Russian border was crossed by altogether 1.5 million travellers (2010: 1.2 million travellers). Increase from the corresponding period last year was no less than 25.9%. Of this traffic, the share of Russian travellers was 78%. The biggest increase was witnessed in Nuijamaa (+38%), Salla (+38%), Imatra (+36%), Kuusamo (+26%) and Niirala (+25%). In Vaalimaa, the increase was “only” 13%, which is probably explained by the fact that this border crossing point is less used for so-called short-term shopping tourism.

86 Helsingin Sanomat 12.9.2009 87 Turvallinen ja moniarvoinen Suomi – sisäinen turvallisuus ja maahanmuutto 2020, p. 48 88 Korkalainen 2010, p. 10 89 The Headquarters of the Finnish Border Guard, interview, 30 March 2011 37

In spring 2011, the Finnish Border Guard, Customs and the Police90 compiled the first more extensive joint report on how the situation on the eastern border of Finland would change if Russia and the EU were to sign a visa exemption agreement. According to them, passenger traffic at the eastern border would more than double from the current level to approximately 15 million border crossers, as the travelling threshold would become lower for Russians. This would require major extensions to be made at the border stations of the eastern border of Finland since even the current volume of passenger traffic causes traffic jams and other difficulties at the border crossing points. As Tommi Kivilaakso, Director of the Eastern Customs District of Finland, stated in an interview by Yle on 9 March 2011 that Imatra, for instance, exceeded its calculated capacity limits a long time ago.

The extension of the Vaalimaa border station, including a separate terminal for lorries, will begin next year but the renovation of the Imatra border station is only under consideration. Even the Nuijamaa border crossing point, which was completely renovated five years ago, will probably require more car lanes and border check points. 91

One possibility for enhancing smoothness is automatic passport control devices, which have been tested at Vaalimaa. The Finnish Border Guard hopes that the pilot project could be expanded to cover Russian travellers by the end of the year. The automatic devices free up personnel to solve unclear cases. According to Commander Pasi Kostamovaara, cases requiring clarification will undoubtedly increase.

According to Commander Pasi Kostamovaara of the Southeast Finland Border Guard District, if the visa requirement were lifted, the number of Russian travellers would increase in particular, because St. Petersburg, for instance, has five million residents and thus more potential than the entire population of Finland. Trips to Finland would then also be made by people for whom it has not been financially possible to do so before. According to Kostamovaara, at the moment most Russian travellers belong to the most prosperous third of the nation. The threshold for making a trip becomes lower if there is no need to acquire a visa that costs approximately EUR 50 or more.

At the Consulate General in St. Petersburg, less than 1% of applicants are not issued a visa for Finland. Visa exemption would pose a threat that the border may be crossed by people who would have been refused a visa before. According to Commissioner Kai Markkula of the North Karelia Police Department, the risk exists, but professional criminals do not respect any borders at the moment either, so visa exemption will probably not have much influence in this respect.

However, a visa exemption might affect road safety. At present, an applicant is not granted a visa if they have not paid traffic fines imposed in Finland, but in the future, unpaid fines will not necessarily prevent entry into the country.

90 Helsingin Sanomat, 24 May 2011, Juhani Saarinen 91 Yle.fi, 3 September 2011 http://yle.fi/alueet/kymenlaakso/2011/03/vaalimaan_rekkaterminaalin_rakentaminen_on_varmistumassa_2419988.html 38

4.1.2 Historical overview of relations between Finland and Russia in visa matters

The defining factors for the Finno-Russian relations in visa matters are geographic proximity as neighbouring countries and, above all, common political history. From 1809 to 1917, Finland was an autonomous region of the Grand Duchy of Russia. In the early years of independence, Finnish travel documents as well as access permits and visas needed by foreign citizens, including citizens of Russia, for their travel documents were modelled to a great extent after documents of police administration in the times of the Russian rule. Similarly, procedures adopted reflected methods used in the Russian police administration. This applies to the entire domain of the Ministry of the Interior even in today’s Finland.

After the Second World War, Finland paid heavy war indemnities to the Soviet Union. With and in addition to this, trade relations with the Soviet Union kept expanding as decades passed, boosted by the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance as well as by the general atmosphere that was favourable for Finnish exports and business activities in the Soviet Union. These trends also brought along ever-growing border traffic and an increase in the volume of visas. As of the 1990s, the number of visa travellers across the eastern border to Finland was further increased by the Ingrian returnees’ visits to relatives and by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

As noted elsewhere in this study, Finland’s attitude toward visa-based travelling from Russia is positive. It is regarded as benefitting Finland in several ways, and visa applications are not refused without a weighty reason.

Due to the great volumes of visas, the safety perspective has also been taken into account in visa policy. Co-operation with Russian authorities is considered the best method for succeeding in this.

In Finland, there had been no studies regarding the co–operation of border management authorities before the study on co-operation of Finnish and Russian border management authorities carried out in 2004–200892. The aim was to collect systematic information about organisational structures, basic tasks and different forms of cross-border co-operation of the Russian and Finnish police, customs, border guard organisations and border guard services.

Historically, border management has referred to barriers between strictly outlined states, dividing states into geopolitically different regions competing with each other. In this scenario, what was an advantage for one country was usually disadvantage for another. In such a world, a border served first and foremost two purposes: it separated the armies of two countries from each other and created a space where the movement of people and goods could be taxed and controlled by customs. Nowadays, the concept of a border is substantially broader. In border-related research, one can distinguish different periods in which the focus has been on different definitions of the research subject. Traditionally, a border has been viewed from the perspective of geopolitics, investigating its historical development. This type of border-related research has been static research of predictability. In 1980s and 1990s, after the transformation which took place in Europe, research has concentrated on various forms of cross-border co-operation, in particular due to EU funding.

92 Heusala et al., 2008, p 11 39

In their study, Heusala et al. emphasise the meaning of a border as a region of trust, co- operation and co-existence. 93

In the Finnish safety debate, border management is expected to be efficient in order not to significantly undermine internal safety. In addition, aliens policy is part of border management. One aspect of border management is that co-operation between authorities is a daily and natural part of operations. The change that has taken place in the operations of authorities in Finland is a good example of how border management has, to an increasing extent, transformed into internal safety management and how it is closely linked with other official control exercised in the country. The matter can be viewed from many perspectives. In the spirit of European integration, Finland’s view is that border management requires common practices in order to ensure quality and legitimacy of authorities’ operations. 94

In Finland, laws and provisions regulating the operations of Russian authorities are available but otherwise the understanding of administration is rather flimsy. Even organisations that carry out cross-border co-operation on a daily or weekly basis occasionally have a vague perception of which authorities have the decision-making responsibility in each case. The situation has been similar in Russia as well, so in spite of opportunities offered by the Internet, there is a need to compile information about which tasks fall under which authority’s domain at the local level and which authorisations various organisations possess. This information can be found in different units and by those involved in Finno-Russian co-operation but there has been no compilation of public and systematically gathered information available. 95

4.1.3 Existence of agreements with Russia

Co-operation between Finland and Russia is regulated by both international and bilateral agreements. Of the bilateral agreements, the most important ones are the intergovernmental Crime Prevention Agreement of 1993, the Border Regulation Agreement of 1960 and the Agreement on Border Crossing Points of 1994 between national customs. Over the years, these have been complemented by regional and inter-organisational agreements.96

The EU and Russia have signed a re-admission agreement97 which entered into force at the same time as their visa facilitation agreement.98 In addition to this agreement, Finland and Russia have signed a bilateral re-admission protocol on procedures for the application of the re-admission agreement.

The following types of visas are covered by the Agreement: “B” visas (transit visas) and “C” visas (short-stay visas). The facilitations provided by the Agreement also apply to visas with limited territorial validity (LTV).

93 Heusala et al. 2008, p 11 94 Heusala et al. 2008, p 12 95 Heusala et al. 2008, p.13 96 Korkalainen, 2010, p. 9 97 Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Visa facilitation agreements, http://www.formin.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=141221&nodeid =40875&contentlan=2&culture=en-US 98 Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (The Official Journal of the European Union, 17 May 2007, L 129/27) 40

4.1.4 Other measures

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is currently carrying out a study about seasonal workers entering the country with a visa. This study discusses Russians, too, but will not be completed until December 2011. A major portion of seasonal workers are Russians.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ guidelines with regard to seasonal work carried out by citizens of countries within the scope of the visa requirement are presented in an Appendix to this study (Appenix 1). These guidelines apply to any third country nationals, but as most of the seasonal workers in Finland arrive from the neighbouring countries of Russia and Estonia, which is an EU Member State, these regulations mainly concern Russian seasonal workers.99

4.1.5 Statistics

As noted at the beginning of the Case Study, Russia is by far the largest source of visa applications for Finland. The table below describes the development trend over a five-year period and shows that the number of visas applied for and issued in Russia has increased enormously. The number of refusals has remained at roughly the same level, so the share of refusals has decreased steadily during the review period as the number of applicants has grown.

Table 1: Issued and refused visas in 2005–2010

Year Total Issued Refused Share of refusals,% 2005 373,179 366,629 6,550 1.75% 2006 508,284 501,407 6,877 1.35% 2007 644,800 637,739 7,061 1.10% 2008 741,984 734,055 7,929 1.10% 2009 735,839 729,603 6,236 0.85% 2010 958,292 952,056 6,236 0.74% Source: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Table 4.1.5.2 provides a point of comparison: the residence permit decisions with regard to Russian citizens in the same period. It can be seen that in 2005–2008 the trend in residence permit decisions follows that of visa decisions but in 2009 and 2010 the number decreases and the volume of refusals increases. This change results mainly from the situation in the economy and labour market: the effects of the international financial crisis can be seen in Finland, too, and one of these effects is that Russian citizens have been issued fewer residence permits for working. In general, the most common grounds for a residence permit are working and family ties. More detailed information grouped by different residence permit categories and grounds for visas can be found in the statistics appendix of this study.

99 Thailand is another considerable source country for seasonal workforce in Finland as regards berry picking, 41

One should also take into account the fact that the total number of residence permits in particular varies for Russia, for instance. The reason for this is that some of the figures in the statistics appendix are those that have been reported to Eurostat and the source for the figures in the following table, for instance, is the Finnish Immigration Service. Differences stem mainly from two factors: the time when the figures were extracted from the statistical database and the basis for compiling statistics: those for statistics submitted to Eurostat, for instance, are somewhat different from those used at the national level.

Table 2: Issued and refused residence permits 2005–2010

Year Total Issued Refused Share of refusals,% 2005 4,428 3,938 490 11.10% 2006 4,261 3,860 401 9.40% 2007 5,484 5,028 456 8.30% 2008 5,882 5,292 590 10.00% 2009 4,453 3,778 675 15.10% 2010 4,075 3,268 807 19.80% Source: the Finnish Immigration Service

Table 4.1.5.3 presents information on Russian citizens residing in Finland by gender. Statistics Finland has compiled these figures from the Population Information System. The figures show clearly that majority of Russian citizens in Finland are female and that the total number has grown moderately during the review period.

Table 3: Russian citizens in Finland by gender 2005–2010

Year Male Female Total 2005 9,550 15,071 24,621 2006 9,951 15,375 25,326 2007 10,504 15,707 26,211 2008 11,022 15,887 26,909 2009 11,593 16,617 28,210 2010 11,801 16,625 28,426 Source: Statistics Finland

In the table below one can see the number of Russian citizens who have been refused entry. In 2007 and 2008 the numbers were somewhat higher, which can be at least partially explained by the fact that in those years both the number of visas and the number of residence permits were high. Thus, these higher volumes also include more persons who did not have a valid visa and residence permit when arriving at the border. 42

Table 4: Russian citizens who were refused entry 2005–2010

Year Total 2005 918 2006 1,051 2007 1,228 2008 1,535 2009 1,095 2010 1,045 Sources: 2005–2007: the Finnish Border Guard, 2008–2010: Eurostat

Table 4.1.5.5 shows the number of Russian citizens caught residing illegally in Finland. Most of them were persons who remained in the country in excess of the period of validity of a visa or after the expiry of a residence permit and whom the Police and the Finnish Border Guard caught when carrying out control of aliens.

Table 5: Russian citizens caught residing illegally in Finland 2005–2010

Year Total 2005 106 2006 76 2007 363 2008 460 2009 655 2010 545 Sources: 2005-2007: the Police, 2008–2010: Eurostat

4.1.6 Findings of Case Study I

The findings of the case study show that in general, Finnish public debate about visa policy is not particularly heated. The only thing that interests the general public, media, politicians and business life alike is the possibility of visa exemption for Russia. Also, every two or three months, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs100 receives regional suggestions regarding visa exemption at the border regions between eastern and northern Russia (the Murmansk region) and Finland in order to facilitate cross-border trade, for instance. Nevertheless, Finland has not taken measures with regard to this issue.

100 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview, 5 May 2011 43

When it comes to the state of Finno-Russian relations with regard to facilitating legal immigration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland advocates a visa exemption between the EU and Russia. In the spring of 2008, one of the first political moves of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Stubb, was to suggest the introduction of a visa exemption between Finland and Russia.101 Media visibility of Minister Stubb’s three- day trip to Finland’s neighbouring areas on 8–10 February 2011 reached near-maximum level. Nearly all main media followed the visit of the Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs at one point or another – and some covered it from start to finish. The trip was discussed in approximately 300 Russian news items in newspapers and on the Internet, television and radio.

At the top of the list of topics discussed were visa matters and co-operation between Finland and Russia in arctic regions. In several press conferences and meetings, the Minister of Foreign Affairs informally expressed his views on introducing a visa exemption for 2018, for instance, when Finland and Russia would play in the World Cup final in football, which became one of the most popular Stubb quotes in the media. Many of the articles expressed the Russian media’s wish for the visa exemption, and the Minister’s three minimum requirements – an extensive implementation of biometric passports, elimination of aliens’ registration obligation and streamlining of immigration registration and work permit practices – were diligently listed. 102

A mutual visa exemption agreement between the European Union and Russia would further increase border traffic between Russia and Finland. The travelling of Russian citizens to Finland would increase in particular.103 In anticipation of this increase of travellers, the establishment of a direct train connection between St. Petersburg and Tampere, located approximately 200 kilometres north of Helsinki, is being pursued. In July 2011, a regional business development company published a preliminary report that examines opportunities for an Allegro train connection between western Finland and St. Petersburg. According to the report, the establishment of this connection is crucial for Russian tourism, international co-operation, export business, benefits for society and transport economics. Even with relatively low passenger volumes, Allegro would be able to cover most of its operating costs and expenses would be marginal in comparison to the economic benefits it would generate. The preliminary report states that in case of a visa exemption being introduced, an Allegro train between western Finland and St. Petersburg would benefit all of Finland. As for the trade of daily consumer goods, service providers, tourism and exports of the Pirkanmaa region around Tampere and its neighbouring regions, the report estimates that the added value created by a direct train connection from Russia is 4 on the scale of 1 to 5.104

Ensuring smooth and safe border crossing traffic is important for Finland’s competitiveness. With the recovery of the global economy, border traffic has again taken an upward turn. Travel and traffic across Finnish borders increases constantly. The number of travellers increases primarily at the border crossing points at the external border of Schengen in south-eastern Finland, at the Helsinki Airport and at the Port of Helsinki. It is estimated that by 2020, traffic at the external borders will have nearly doubled from the current level.

101 Helsingin Sanomat, 9 January 2010, Counsellor Vesa Häkkinen 102 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs / Luoteis-Venäjän uutiskirje (1–28 February 2011) 103 Turvallinen ja moniarvoinen Suomi – sisäinen turvallisuus ja maahanmuutto 2020, p. 9 104 Tamperelainen, 2 July 2011 44

As to the security estimate, the view of the National Bureau of Investigation105 is that visa exemption as such would probably not affect the number of Russians caught residing illegally in the country. Instead, the essential point would be how Russia would change its border control: if Russia does not consider it important to guard its Finnish border anymore and shifts focus to other borders, that could have a significant influence. Russia’s interest in controlling the traffic across its border to Finland might be rather low, as there is hardly any illegal entry from Finland into Russia and the flow of illegal entry usually occurs towards Finland. A study published by the Finnish National Defence University in April 2010106 is along the same lines. This study was written in Finnish, with English translation of the title being: “The effects of the Russia’s visa exemption on the European Union border security”

As for the better co-operation between the Finnish and Russian border authoritites to ensure a smooth flow of persons and goods and to tackle the security concerns of both parties, one of the key findings in the study by Heusala et al. is that there is a willingness to co-operate both in Finland and in Russia among those authorities and other parties for whom co-operation is necessary. On the Finnish side there are somewhat more guarded attitudes, while in Russia the need to co-operate with Finnish authorities was regarded more as a practicality. Both in Finland and in Russia the need for local, low-threshold co-operation was emphasised. Both parties had quite little information about the other country’s authorities, which means that for co-operation, each personnel change results in reinventing the wheel. 107

Heusala et al. also suggest some recommendations as good practices for co-operation. They note that when reviewing cross-border co-operation, most attention is usually paid to favourable development of structural issues, that is: to the institutional side of co-operation, sufficient contractual foundation and reliable execution. These certainly are important criteria, but the study by Heusala et al. also highlights another significant aspect of co- operation that has to do with prerequisites for the development of interaction between organisations in different cultures: increasing the motivation for co-operation. In the light of the history of activities in neighbouring areas, it seems that co-operation development needs are related to a more versatile and longer-term development of inter-organisational interaction, the creation of intercultural teams (common researcher groups, for instance) and internal changes within organisations participating in co-operation, driving changes in the positions and tasks of personnel. 108

Heusala et al. 109note that increased initiative would be desirable in all fields of co-operation. In addition, it is important to include all parties in the learning process. This far, one of the means utilised in the development of operational structures has been conventional seminars where participants have sought answers to professional questions. These will not be an insignificant means in the future either if they are targeted at the correct persons and their programme includes participative sections, too. However, these should be targeted equally at all employee groups, not only at management or administrative officers. The creation of a safety zone is not a linear chain of events where Finnish and Russian authorities advance as one front towards the target. Consequently, it is theoretically and methodologically challenging to study this development.

105 The National Bureau of Investigation, 11.3.2011 106 Hirvonen, Tero, 2010 107 Heusala et al. 2008, page 269 108 Heusala et al., 2008, page 270 109 Heusala et al., 2008, pages 275-277 45

In order to understand safety administration as a whole, the aspects that should be examined include at least the following: influences of changes in society (both countries are undergoing a transitional phase), target setting for administration internal development of organisations in compliance with these targets the development of cross-border co-operation among authorities. 110

It is no longer sufficient for states to have signed an agreement on co-operation. The authorities in the states in question should share a common view about why we need each other, what we can achieve together in practice and where this co-operation will lead, the study of Heusala et al. conclude. 111

4.2 Case Study II – Nigeria

4.2.1 Rationale for case study selection

There is a high level of pressure among Nigerians to emigrate to Europe. This pressure is maintained by the wide gap in the standard of living between Europe and Africa as well as by hopes and stories of a better life in Europe. In addition to legal migration, the pressure is also channelled into attempted abuse of visa and residence permit systems.

Nigeria has the highest population of all African countries, approximately 150 million citizens, and the population is growing at a dizzying rate: according to forecasts, it will be 289 million by 2050. Nigeria is also the second largest economy in Africa after South Africa.112 The Embassy of Finland in Abuja is the only diplomatic mission of Finland in all of West Africa. Approximately 64% of customers applying for a permit to enter the country come from Nigeria and 36% from other countries in West Africa, mainly from Ghana and Cameroon.113

The high pressure of illegal entry can be seen in the visa statistics of the Embassy of Finland in Abuja as a high number of visa refusals. Last year, altogether 714 visa decisions were made in Abuja, the share of refusals being 67.5%. On the other hand, 232 of the decisions resulted in the issuance of a visa. There are several Finnish companies operating in Nigeria, and their customers and business partners visit Finland. In addition, relatives of Nigerians living in Finland come here for a visit. When there is a high degree of pressure to emigrate illegally from the region of origin and the majority of visa decisions refuse a visa, maintaining a visa system becomes burdensome and expensive. Applicants have to be screened to find those who are entitled to a visa and at the same time to prevent the entry of those who plan to abuse the visa system.

With regard to organised crime, Nigeria is one of the worst countries in Africa. These phenomena can be seen in Finland, too: in addition to illegal entry, other common operations

110 Heusala et al., 2008, page 269-272 111 Heusala et al., 2008, page 278 112 The Embassy of Finland, Abuja: Muuttuva Nigeria – Afrikan talouskasvun tulevaisuus? http://www.finlandnigeria.org/ public/default.aspx?contentid=213809&nodeid=31434&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 113 Rajamme vartijat 3-4/2010, page 54 46 include fraud, trafficking in human beings and drugs.114 African organised criminal groups engage particularly in different forms of visa abuse and forgery.115 Nigerian organised crime has not yet become rooted in Finland, and in order to prevent it, it is important to prevent illegal entry.116

Nigeria is an interesting research subject for studying the interconnectedness of visa policy and immigration policy, in particular when it comes to the prevention of illegal entry. Nigeria’s case illustrates well how in regions where there is a high pressure of illegal entry, restricting or blocking one channel leads to new channels being sought. According to a consul who used to work at the Embassy in Abuja, many residence permit applicants had first applied for a visa several times, with several different stories. When they did not succeed in getting a visa, they moved on to apply for a residence permit.

At the Embassy in Abuja, in the background of a refused visa application there often is a cover story put together to conceal the real reason for entry. The most common cover story is tourism, although Finland is an extremely unusual and expensive holiday destination for Nigerians. Another story is a visit to relatives who actually are not true relatives but instead are persons living in Finland who have been recruited to act as inviters.117 There have also been cases in which Nigerians living in Finland have been forced to act as “relatives” and inviters for such visits.118 Cover stories could also be related to participation in conferences and seminars. Often one can register to participate in these events on the Internet. At the latest a visa interview reveals whether the visa applicant in question is truly an expert in the field of the seminar or not. A visa may also be applied for business trips that seem genuine. A small Finnish company with no experience in foreign trade is recruited through the Internet to send an invitation. The company is promised major business deals in Nigeria and persuaded to send an invitation to visit the company in Finland to learn more about their products. These cover stories will be revealed during interviews, when the applicant does not seem to know their business sector at all.119

Nigeria is the most significant country of origin for trafficking in human beings in Africa.120 Sometimes visa interviews also reveal cases that suggest trafficking in human beings. These cases are particularly frequent in the summer, as organisers of illegal entry know that the Embassy is very busy in the summertime with the processing of permits and hires new employees to help. In general, suspected victims of trafficking revealed in the visa application process are teenage girls and children. In these visa application cases, there are also some typical cover stories. An example is a couple leaving for a honeymoon in Europe. The husband is older than the wife, who is usually a teenage girl, although in the passport she is recorded as an adult. The husband has usually travelled in Europe before. Even if only the wife applies for a visa, both spouses are interviewed separately. In the interview it becomes evident that the couple is not really married. Another cover story is a group of girls accompanied by an older woman. The group applies for a visa for a leisure trip to Europe. In these cases, the Embassy usually contacts NAPTIP, a Nigerian anti-trafficking organisation that aims at catching organisers of trafficking in human beings and helping victims. A third cover story is a visit to relatives or a business trip, where children are also

114 The Natiounal Bureau of Investigation, Interview: 11 March 2011 115 Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009. s.14 116 The National Bureau of Investigation, 11 March 2011 117 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview, 11 May 2011 118 Helsingin Sanomat, 3 August 2008: Opiskelija-asunnon väärennöstehdas huijasi oppilaitoksia; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 11 May 2011 119 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview, 11 May 2011 120 Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010, p. 55 47 taken along. The parents are not the children’s real parents, which usually becomes evident in the visa interview. The Embassy has no clear understanding of the children’s destiny once they would arrive in Europe. Due to the high risk of trafficking in children, the Embassy has not issued tourist visas to children.

In addition to those described above, there is still another typical cover story: a football player posing as a professional coming to play in Finland. Previously, these football players were issued visas so that they could travel to Finland to showcase their talent. These persons never returned to Nigeria, and therefore visas were no longer issued for this purpose. Nowadays one can obtain a visa for showcase matches only if a professional Finnish football agent has visited Nigeria to scout the player and after that decided to invite the player to Finland. Other football players planning to become professionals in Finland apply for – and are often granted – a residence permit. These players are victims of trafficking in human beings in the sense that usually they have first bought a story about a career as a professional football player with references and videos from a local football club and consequently have gone into great debt. Finnish football clubs invite more players to Finland than they can actually hire. In addition, showcase matches may reveal that some of the players cannot play football at all and are thus not offered a position in the team. Even players that are selected to a team by football clubs are paid very small compensations, leading to trouble with subsistence in Finland. Furthermore, in the background there often is a debt obligation to the organiser of illegal entry in Nigeria who may threaten the player’s family in order to ensure payback.121

In addition to cover stories, another problem is forged documents. Presenting forged documents as supporting documents for visa and residence permit applications is particularly characteristic of illegal entry from Nigeria to Finland. Of all passports examined by the Forensic Laboratory of the National Bureau of Investigation, Nigeria has been at the top of the forgery statistics ever since 2006.122 For instance, in summer 2008, a document forgery factory run for years by persons of Nigerian background was found in a student apartment in Helsinki. The suspects held forged documents for altogether 263 persons in their possession.123

It is often very problematic to return persons caught residing illegally in Finland to Nigeria. Each year, Finland returns approximately 30–40 persons to Nigeria, about half of whom are accompanied by an escort to the destination.124

4.2.2 Historical overview of relations between Finland and Nigeria in visa matters

In the 21st century, there have been no changes in visa and immigration policy in relations between Finland and Nigeria. As Finland joined the Schengen area in 2011, interest for Finnish visas rose from earlier levels due to the fact of Finland becoming a gateway to the Schengen area.125

121 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview, 11 May 2011 122 Varjos, 2010 123 Helsingin Sanomat, 3 August 2008: Opiskelija-asunnon väärennöstehdas huijasi oppilaitoksia 124 The Helsinki Police Department, interview, 8 April 2011 125 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview, 11 May 2011 48

Migration from Nigeria to Finland has increased throughout the 21st century. The number of Nigerians in Finland has grown over fivefold in one decade. The basic configuration for immigration has not changed essentially during the 21st century: the gap in the standard of living between Nigeria and Europe is still wide, which maintains the pressure to enter illegally, too. Furthermore, the fact that access to the Internet has become more common in the 21st century has also influenced migration, as much more information on Europe and migration channels is available there. There is also a chance to meet Finns online, which has increased interaction as well as romances, thus increasing the number of migrants.126

So far, the possibility to appeal against visa decisions, introduced on 5 April 2011, has had no effect on the number of complaints related to visa applications at the Embassy in Abuja. However, although there was no right to appeal defined by the law before 5 April 2011, the Embassy has observed good governance practices and provided responses to all complaints. Nevertheless, the number of complaints has remained at the earlier level. One factor affecting an applicant’s willingness to enter a complaint against visa refusals is the participation of visa organisers, taking care of arrangements for irregular migration, in the visa process: a fee paid for illegal entry arrangements may specifically include an issued visa, and if the application is refused, organisers’ lawyers will immediately send a pre-made complaint template to the Embassy.127

4.2.3 Existence of agreements with Nigeria

Finland has no valid agreements related to visa or immigration policy with Nigeria. Nigeria and Finland have not signed a re-admission agreement.

4.2.4 Other measures

With regard to the processing of visa applications, the Embassy in Abuja observes the same procedures as other diplomatic missions. Due to the high pressure to immigrate illegally, the processing of applications requires a lot of work and special expertise. Special expertise is needed in interviewing visa applicants, verifying the authenticity of documents and identifying impostors (persons using an authentic document that belongs to another person). All persons applying for a visa for the first time are interviewed. Although the Embassy uses extra workforce in preparatory tasks for visa decisions, the consul makes all decisions. The starting point is that all documents are inspected before they are trusted to be authentic.128

In 2007, an appointment system was introduced at the Embassy for making appointments for visa interviews and paying visa fees in advance to a bank account. This brought about a substantial decrease in the number of visa applicants. Presumably the visa shoppers whose stories were most flimsily put together dropped out of the applicant queues at the Embassy, as the application process required a more methodical approach after this change was introduced.129

126 The Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 11 May 2011 127 The Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 11 May 2011 128 The Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 11 May 2011 129 The Ministry of Foreing Affairs, 11 May 2011 49

The visa issuance policy of the Embassy in Abuja has been by design strict rather than generous. It is likely that visas have also been refused from some applicants who would have been entitled to them.130

In addition to burdening the visa application system, the pressure to immigrate illegally has also hit the residence permit system in Abuja. This phenomenon could be seen particularly in the surprising flood of visa applications from students in 2007. That year Nigerian newspapers published advertisements that encouraged people to apply for a place in Finnish educational institutions as it would be easy to get a residence permit for Finland after having acquired a study place. These advertisements were made by Nigerian agencies acting as middlemen. Soon the international study programmes of Finnish universities of applied sciences were practically overflowing with applications from Nigeria and other countries in West Africa. A significant share of applicants were not actually coming to study but were applying for a residence permit for the Schengen area.131 No routine or experience was in place to handle this flood of applicants. Although documents were clearly forged, the Embassy did not have the skills and processes required to verify them or to identify impostors. Nearly all applicants were issued a residence permit, but many of them lost their motivation for studies quite soon after entering Finland. Information about the possibility to apply for a study place in Finland spread fast, and in the following year’s application season, the number of applicants from West Africa had grown further.132

For the summer of the following year, 2008, the Embassy requested administrative assistance from Finland. As of the summer of 2008, there have been temporary liaison officers from the Finnish Border Guard, the Police and the Finnish Immigration Service in Abuja. The liaison officers have helped in the identification of forgeries and impostors during the inspection of documents, the execution of visa and residence permit interviews, the arrangement of entrance examinations for educational institutions and in the development of processes.133 In addition, they have provided training to the Embassy personnel. The effects of expert help received by the Embassy were visible immediately, as the number of both applicants and residence permits issued decreased rapidly. When an officer from the Finnish Border Guard led the inspection of documents, more than 60% of the documents provided by applicants were found to be forged; before this, this happened for only a third of the documents. The Embassy personnel’s skills in the inspection of documents and the identification of impostors have not been sufficient for a country as demanding as Nigeria.134

Liaison officer operations of the Police, the Finnish Border Guard and the Finnish Immigration Service have been fruitful for all parties involved: the Embassy has received much needed expert help and liaison officers have returned home with a deeper understanding of the circumstances in the country. The only problematic aspect has been the project-like nature of activities. A liaison officer sent by the Police or the Finnish Border Guard shouldbe permanent. One liaison officer could be appointed to serve several countries, if necessary: in Abuja, liaison officers sent by Finland have co-operated with other Nordic diplomatic missions, for instance.135

130 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Interview, 11 May 2011 131 Varjos 2010; Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 May 2011 132 Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 May 2011 133 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 May 2011, Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010 134 Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010 135 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 11 May 2011, the National Bureau of Investigation 12 May 2011 50

Local Schengen co-operation as well as informal contacts between diplomatic missions are of great use in the prevention of illegal entry. However, information exchange between diplomatic missions on forged documents could be more regular. Currently information about forged documents presented with a visa application does not flow systematically from one diplomatic mission to another. Furthermore, different diplomatic missions have different procedures and different levels of expertise. In the prevention of illegal entry, the outcome is highly dependent on how much a diplomatic mission has invested in interviews and the inspection of documents in the processing of visa applications.136

Finland has also funded operations against trafficking in human beings carried out by Nigerian authorities, by supporting NAPTIP.137 NAPTIP, National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons and Other Related Matters, is the anti-trafficking centre of Nigerian authorities. The Embassy of Finland in Abuja is engaged in practical co-operation with NAPTIP: if a visa interview arouses suspicion that the visa application might be related to trafficking in human beings, for instance, the Embassy may inform NAPTIP, which may send one of their employees to meet the visa applicants as they leave the Embassy. NAPTIP also informs the Embassy about persons who have been proved to be participants in trafficking or are suspected thereof. Co-operation between the Embassy of Finland and NAPTIP as well as funding provided to NAPTIP by Finland have been frequently covered in local newspapers, so information about this co-operation has spread to organisers of trafficking in human beings, too. This has eliminated the most blatant trafficking cases from visa applicants at the Embassy of Finland – however, they probably have simply directed their visa applications to another Schengen State.

4.2.5 Statistics

In Nigeria, the share of visa refusals is extremely high during the review period, as can be seen in the table below. As noted above, many of these are related to attempts at illegal entry where persons try to enter Finland on improper grounds and with forged documents. Since 2008 the number of visa decisions in Nigeria has decreased, most probably because local actors have realised that the Finnish system and international co-operation prevent illegal entry efficiently.

Table 1: Issued and refused visas in 2005–2010

Year Total Issued Refused Share of refusals,% 2005 1,386 677 709 51.15% 2006 1,755 563 1,192 67.92% 2007 1,486 466 1,020 68.64% 2008 1,022 215 807 78.96% 2009 809 225 584 72.19% 2010 714 232 482 67.51% Source: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

136 The National Bureau of Investigation, 12 May 2011 137 NAPTIP News 2010 51

When comparing the number of visa decisions to that of residence permit decisions, one can note that in residence permits the number of refusals is high, too. The share of refusals grew especially in 2009 and 2010, so one may presume that it correlates with the downward trend in the number of visa decisions. When obtaining a visa for Finland has become more difficult, people have turned to residence permits as a new channel for migration to Finland. The number of refusals shows that in many cases the conditions for issuing a residence permit are not fulfilled. Studying is the most common grounds for a residence permit for Nigerian citizens, but as noted in Chapter 4.2.4 above, there have been attempts to use it wrongfully. More detailed information grouped by grounds for visas and different residence permit categories can be found in the statistics appendix of this study.

Table 2: Issued and refused residence permits

Year Total Issued Refused Share of refusals,% 2005 309 166 143 46.30% 2006 300 198 102 34.00% 2007 381 273 108 28.30% 2008 536 383 153 28.50% 2009 405 167 238 58.80% 2010 489 206 283 57.90% Source: the Finnish Immigration Service

The table below shows the number of Nigerian citizens residing in Finland by gender. On the basis of these figures, it can be noted that in the review period the number of Nigerian citizens in Finland has grown steadily and that most of Nigerians coming to Finland are male.

Table 3: Nigerian citizens in Finland by gender 2005–2010

Year Male Female Total 2005 325 96 421 2006 449 123 572 2007 616 157 773 2008 834 186 1,020 2009 925 216 1,141 2010 1,052 266 1,318 Source: Statistics Finland

In each year of the review period, there have been only isolated cases of Nigerian citizens being refused entry, which indicates that, as a general rule, when persons arrive at the Finnish border or enter the country their residence permits are valid. 52

4.2.6 Findings of Case Study II

Nigeria is an interesting research subject for studying the interconnectedness of visa policy and immigration policy, in particular when it comes to the prevention of illegal entry. Nigeria’s case illustrates well how in regions where there is a high pressure to immigrate illegally, restricting or blocking one channel leads to new channels being sought. A good example of this is the transition of football players from visa applicants to residence permit applicants, as described above. Information about potential channels of entry spreads fast. In these circumstances, alignment of visa and immigration policies and co-operation between various authorities are crucial elements.

A problematic issue related to visa administration at the Embassy in Abuja has been the changeable nature of visa policy. Procedures depend to a great extent on how each incumbent consul arranges them. Changeability is further increased by the project-like nature of liaison officer operations – although experiences of these activities are extremely good, they have not been established as a permanent arrangement. In the prevention of abuse of visas and residence permits there is no clearly defined procedure, agreed in writing, regarding how and with which resources activities are executed.138 The Immigration Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service139 considers it to be extremely useful if a representative of the Finnish Immigration Service could be stationed to at the Embassy in Abuja to process applications from students during the summer, which is the busiest time for student visa applications. The same holds true for many other Finnish embassies continuously dealing with large numbers of student visa applications, having similar challenges as described in connection with the applications from Nigerians in this study. However, this is a financial matter, as well as a question of limited personnel resources. The Immigration Unit of the Finnish Immigration Service (140) considers it to be extremely useful that different authorities combat illegal immigration together in the country of origin, in practice through their embassies. In Abuja, for example, this has already been tried and the experiences have been good. However, this is a matter of resource allocation for all authorities concerned.

The division of visa and immigration administration under two different ministries also complicates efficient prevention of illegal entry. The situation is made even more difficult by constant pressure for savings in central administration. Nevertheless, instead of budgets of individual administrative sectors, one should look at total costs of this phenomenon, both for the state and for people. Although liaison officer operations as such are expensive, preventive measures are still inexpensive when compared to the costs incurred by irregular migration in Finland or other EU Member States. In addition, one should also take into account the circumstances of persons who have entered a country illegally or fallen victim to trafficking in human beings, as they arrive in Europe and their life is probably completely different from what they had imagined beforehand.140

In addition to national intersectoral co-operation, local Schengen co-operation in the country where a diplomatic mission is located is significant. When one country tightens its policy with regard to illegal entry, applicants move over to another country’s visa queue.

138 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 May 2011 139 The Finnish Immigration Service, Immigration Unit, written comment, August 11th 2011 140 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 11 May 2011; Rajamme vartijat 3–4/2010 53 5. EFFECTS OF EU POLICY AND LEGISLATION

EU policy has had a comprehensive effect on the Finnish visa policy: after 2001, national decision-making in Finland has mainly covered decisions related to the distribution of work in visa matters and all other regulations have come from the EU.141 On the other hand, as no national visas are used in Finland, effects of EU visa policy have extended only to Schengen visas, not to other aspects of Finnish immigration policy.

With the entry into force of the Visa Code and Manual, visa guidelines have become clearer and the need for national guidelines has diminished.142

Preparations for the implementation of a Schengen-wide Visa Information System (VIS) have consumed a great deal of resources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With the implementation of the VIS system, national systems (such as Suvi in Finland) will be connected to VIS. Due to large volumes of visa applications, this requires a huge effort from Finland although Suvi has been planned from the start to be compatible with VIS.

At a general level, there has been little public debate on visa policy although immigration policy became one of the most important topics in the parliamentary election of spring 2011. Visa policy debate has concentrated on topics related to Russia’s visa exemption. In spring 2008 Alexander Stubb became the Minister of Foreign Affairs and one of his first actions as minister was commenting on the potential visa exemption agreement for Russia. During his period as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stubb advocated Russia’s visa exemption strongly.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs occasionally receives regional suggestions from regions close to the Russian border in eastern and northern Finland regarding various regional experiments, such as a 72-hour visa-free visiting right from Russia to Finland. These suggestions arise from interests of regional economy.143

6. STATISTICS: VISAS ISSUED AND IMMIGRATION TO FINLAND

As defined in the study specifications, the statistics appendix contains all relevant statistical data that it has been possible to gather when carrying out this study. Visa statistics come from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and information regarding residence permits mainly from the Finnish Immigration Service or Eurostat. Information related to refused entries is from the Finnish Border Guard or Eurostat. As this is an EMN study, Eurostat’s statistics have been used to as great an extent as possible in order to maximise comparability. For this reason, the figures presented in some sections may differ due to the fact that bases for compiling statistics differ from those used at the national level and also as a result of the time when the figures were extracted from the national statistical database.

141 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011 142 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011 143 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interview 5 May 2011 54

For Finland, the review period was set to 2005–2010 on the basis of availability and comparability of information.

As Finland, in principle, issues only Type C visas, only figures that are relevant at the national level have been included here. This means that several statistical tables in the appendix remain empty because Finland does not issue Type D visas. For this reason, the comparison between visas and residence permits does not necessarily create as much added value in the Finnish context because a visa is intended only for a short-term stay and a longer-term stay always requires a residence permit.

Table 1: The total number of Type C visas issued and refused 2005–2010

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Issued 421,179 569,311 703,588 791,688 782,965 1,007,954 Refused 10,388 11,804 14,452 13,350 12,589 12,871 Source: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The table above shows the total numbers of visas. Growth has been extremely strong and results almost entirely from the number of visas issued in Russia. During the review period, the number of visa refusals dropped from approximately 2% to 1%.

Tourist visas issued in Russia are by far the largest category of visas issued by Finland. Table 5.1 in the statistics appendix gives a comprehensive general view on the distribution of grounds for visas. After tourist visas, the largest category is “Business”, i.e. visas related mainly to financial and business operations, followed by “Visiting Family/Friends”, i.e. visas for persons visiting family and friends. “Other Reasons” is a major category, too. This is partly due to the fact that for comparability of statistics, it has been necessary to adjust national statistics to the categories in the statistics appendix by using the “Other Reasons” category when none of the other categories provided has been applicable.

The Top 3 (countries where most visas have been issued) has remained the same during the review period: Russia, China and the Ukraine. As for China, it can be noted that towards the end of the review period, the main grounds for visas changed from tourism to business, which indicates that business relations between Finnish and Chinese companies have become more common during the review period. India holds a prominent position in the “Business” category, too, for the same reason as China.

When it comes to nationalities that have been issued visas, they correspond almost identically with the countries where visas have been issued. Exceptions to this in the Top 10 list of the statistics appendix include visa-free countries and the EU Member States, mainly Great Britain and United States, where visas have been issued to citizens of other countries. 55

Table 2: Residence permits issued 2005–2010

Year Total Studying Work Family reasons Other reasons 2005 12,478 3,107 3,029 4,061 2,281 2006 12,803 3,196 2,929 4,108 2,570 2007 19,462 3,783 4,949 6,315 4,415 2008 21,873 4,441 5,722 7,170 4,540 2009 18,034 3,949 2,754 6,643 4,688 2010 19,210 4,433 2,936 6,706 5,135 Source: the Finnish Immigration Service

Table 6.2 provides information on residence permits issued in the review period categorised by grounds. In the total amounts, a drop can be observed in 2009 due to the international financial crisis that affected the Finnish economy and labour market as well. The table shows clearly how the number of residence permits issued for work sank substantially in comparison to 2008. The increase in the number of visas also declined slightly in 2009, mainly in the finance and business-related “Business” category.

Table 3.2 in the statistics appendix gives more detailed information on the distribution by nationalities. In general, it can be noted that Russia is the leading country in the number of residence permits, too, followed by China and India, which have both held the second and third positions in turn.

As for persons who have been refused entry, the overall picture is exceptionally clear as well: Russian citizens are the largest group here, too, and other nationalities are presented by a couple of dozen persons at the maximum in the Top 10 list (Table 10 in the statistics appendix).

There is somewhat more variation in the nationalities of persons who have been caught residing illegally in the country, and especially towards the end of the review period the main nationalities of asylum seekers are in the lead (Table 14 in the statistics appendix). 56 7. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY

The significance of smooth issuance of visas, an easy-to-understand visa system and friendly service for future immigration stems partly from the fact that it builds an image of how dealing with authorities in Finland goes and how it would feel to live in Finland. Thus, visa policy and the visa issuance process can play a role in the decision to migrate into the country.

It is still too early to evaluate the consequences of the implementation of the right to appeal on 5 April 2011. Nevertheless, it is evident that it has increased workload both at diplomatic missions and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On the other hand, it has made the visa process clearer than before as applicants and in particular inviters – with the applicant’s authorisation – who are not satisfied with a visa decision have a right to appeal against the decision. Previously this discontent was vented through long threads of messages exchanged with the diplomatic mission in question and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Unit for Passports and Visas.

As for visa facilitation agreements, their significance for the countries in question and for their citizens is political rather than practical. The political significance of the agreements is emphasised by the fact that for the countries signing the agreement, the entry into force of a visa facilitation agreement and a re-admission agreement has in practice been the first step towards discussing a potential visa exemption between the EU and the third country in question.144

Visa facilitation agreements confine the actual facilitation measures of visa procedures to certain strictly defined groups, such as various occupational groups and family members. Holders of diplomatic passports have been completely exempted from the visa requirement through various agreements. Effects of agreements that benefit all visa applicants are related to shorter processing times of visa applications and lower visa fees. Lower fees also affect the total volume of fees received by the Schengen States.145

According to the Ministry of the Interior’s Migration Department, the state of affairs can be summarised as follows: The visa issuance practices of Finnish diplomatic missions have a great significance for immigration administration in the sense that visas are a channel to the Schengen area and in considering visa issuance, one should also always assess whether or not the intention is immigration. The importance of proper consideration is also emphasised due to the fact that Finland does not use long-term national visas.146

144 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, written comment, 6 July 2011 145 Ibid 146 The Ministry of the Interior, Immigration Department, Migration unit, 21 June 2011 57 8. REFERENCES

Aliens Act 301/2004. Unofficial translation available at http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/2004/en20040301

Etelä-Suomen Sanomat (11.5.2011) KRP: Sisämaassa yhä enemmän paperittomia ulkomaalaisia. ESS.fi http://www.ess.fi/?article=324782

HaVM 4/2004 Hallintovaliokunnan mietintö 4/2004 vp. http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/ utatmp/akxtmp/havm_4_2004_p.shtml

HE 28/2003 vp Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle ulkomaalaislaiksi ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2003/20030028.pdf

Helsingin Sanomat, Kotimaa: Venäläisten viisumivapauden seuraukset, Juhani Saarinen, 24.5.2011

Helsingin Sanomat - Talous - Vaurastuvat venäläiset lomailevat taas ulkomailla, 22.11.2010

Helsingin Sanomat, Pietarin viisumitehdas on maailman suurin, Anneli Ahonen, 9.2.2011

Helsingin Sanomat, Suomen-viisumien myöntäminen ruuhkautui taas Pietarissa, 11.5.2011

Helsingin Sanomat, Schengen tuo venäläisiä pakko-ostoksille Suomeen, Anneli Ahonen, 12.9.2009

Heusala Anna-Liisa, Lohiniva Anja, Malmi Antti, Samalla Puolella - Eri puolilla rajaa – Rajaturvallisuuden edistäminen Suomen ja Venäjän viranomaisyhteistyönä; Poliisiammattikorkeakoulun tutkimuksia 30 / 2008, Raja- ja merivartiokoulun julkaisusarja 1. Tutkimuksia No 2.

Hirvonen, Tero (2010) Venäjän viisumivapauden vaikutus Euroopan unionin rajaturvallisuuteen. Tutkielma, Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu. Huhtikuu 2010

Häkkinen, Vesa (9.1.2010) HS Vieraskynä: Viisumeista ei voida luopua kertarysäyksellä. http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitus/artikkeli/Viisumeista+ei+voida+luopua+kertarys %C3 %A4yksell %C3 %A4/HS20100109SI1MA014j7 58

Korkalainen, Taru (2010) Esiselvitys Luoteis-Venäjän ja Kaakkois-Suomen aluetaloudellisesta, kulttuurisesta ja sosiaalisesta integraatiokehityksestä. Helsingin yliopisto, Aleksanteri-instituutti. Toukokuu 2010. https://helda.helsinki.fi/ handle/10138/23617

Laittoman maahantulon vastainen toimintaohjelma 2010 – 2011. Poliisin ylijohdon julkaisusarja 5/2009. http://www.poliisi.fi/intermin/biblio.nsf/F2AEA0220E3B72A3C225767 A002FAAA3/$file/5-2009.pdf

Lapin Kansa Ulkomaantoimitus, Verkkolehti: Muurmansikssa myönnetty Suomen viisumeita ennätystahtiin, 6.7.2011 http://www.lapinkansa.fi/Ulkomaat/1194685943287/ artikkeli/murmanskissa+myonnetty+suomen+viisumeita+ennatystahtiin.html

Maahanmuuttovirasto, Turvapaikkayksikön Oikeus- ja tukipalvelut, 25.5.2011

Maahanmuuttovirasto Intranet (SUVI) 7.7.2011 New Delhiin avoimin mielin ja avoimin suin laitonta maahantuloa ja ihmiskauppaa torjumaan, Ulkoasiainneuvos Vesa Häkkinen, Ulkoministeriö, passi- ja viisumiyksikkö

NAPTIP News (2010) Finland Supports TIP war in Nigeria. NAPTIP News Vol. 2 No. 2 August-October 2010. s. 16. http://www.naptip.gov.ng/docs/NAPTIP %20MAG0001.pdf

Poliisi.fi - Viisumia koskevat ohjeet sivulla http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/262D 4C47817F3171C22577D1003076F6?opendocument

Rajamme vartijat (3-4/2010) Suomen etuvartio Nigeriassa, teksti ja kuvat Timo Sipola.

Rajavartiolaitos, Tilastotietoja 2009. http://www.raja.fi/rvl/home.nsf/ExternalFiles/Tilasto- osa2009/$file/Tilasto-osa2009.pdf

Saarinen, Sampo K. (2007) Kohti viisumivapautta? Viisumipolitiikka Putinin Venäjän ja Euroopan unionin suhteissa Suomen näkökulmasta tarkasteltuna. Pro gradu –tutkielma, Turun yliopisto.

Sisäasiainministeriö (2010) Turvallinen ja moniarvoinen Suomi - sisäinen turvallisuus ja maahanmuutto 2020. Sisäasiainministeriön julkaisut 25/2010. http://www.poliisi.fi/intermin/ biblio.nsf/3881D9D594BF9958C225779D00275D5D/$file/252010.pdf

Sorainen, Olli (2007) Ulkomaalainen työntekijä: rekrytointi, maahantulo ja työnteko. Helsinki, Edita.

Suomen suurlähetystö, Canberra: Työloma Suomessa http://www.finland.org.au/public/ default.aspx?nodeid=35622&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI 59

Talouselämä.fi (12.5.2011) Kansliapäällikkö: Venäjän viisumivapaus koittaa kohta. http:// www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/article625721.ece#

Tamperelainen (2.7.2011) Suora Pietarin junayhteys Tampereelle? Verkkolehti: Paikalliset http://www.tamperelainen.fi/artikkeli/60784

Ulkoasiainministeriö (2009) Selvitys Suomen edustautumisesta maailmalla. Ulkoasianministeriön julkaisuja 10/2009. http://www.formin.fi/public/download. aspx?ID=46786&GUID={F7DEEBD4-593A-46C6-AD87-016FA47EFCD0}

Ulkoasiainministeriön ilmoitus Schengenin säännöstön soveltamisesta (22.3.2001) Finlex http://www.finlex.fi/fi/sopimukset/sopsteksti/2001/20010023

Ulkoasiainministeriö (14.3.2011) Lähetystöneuvos Vesa Häkkisen viisumiasiain koulutus Maahanmuuttoviraston (MIGRI) henkilöstölle 14.3.2011

Ulkoasianministeriö (13.4.2011) Lähetystöneuvos Vesa Häkkisen alustus Suomeen saapuvista marjanpoimijoista elokuvan ”Palanen taivasta” esityksen yhteydessä; Maahanmuuttoviraston kirjasto; yleisöluentosarja 2011

Ulkoasiainministeriön muistio (30.3.11) (HELM 237-6) Ulkomaalaislain viisumisäännösten muutokset: viisumin epäämisestä, mitätöinnistä ja kumoamisesta saa hakea oikaisua 5.4.2011 alkaen tehdyistä päätöksistä. Ulkoasiainministeriö, Lainsäädäntösihteeri Veli-Pekka Rautava.

Ulkomaalaislaki 30.4.2004/301. Luettavissa: Finlex http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ ajantasa/2004/20040301?search %5Bnimike %5D=ulkomaalaislaki&search %5Btype %5D=metadata

Ulkomaalaislakityöryhmän mietintö 2001. Pentti Visanen [pj], Jorma Kantola [siht.]. Sisäasiainministeriön julkaisuja 12/2001. Helsinki, Sisäasiainministeriö, 2001.

Ulkomaalaislakityöryhmän mietintö. Sisäasiainministeriö, Komiteamietintö 1989:7. Helsinki. Valtion Painatuskeskus 1989.

Ulkoasiainministeriö, Luoteis-Venäjän Uutiskirje 1.1-31.1.2011

Ulkoasiainministeriö verkkosivut: Viisumihelpotussopimukset http://www.formin.fi/Public/ default.aspx?nodeid=40875&contentlan=1&culture=fi-FI

Ulkoasiainministeriö: Kausityönteko viisumivelvollisista maista 2011 (formin. 60 finland.fi ulkoministeriö, uutiset 12.1.2011) http://formin.finland.fi/public/default. aspx?contentid=210319&culture=fi-FI

Varjos, Petri (2010) Tervetuloa Suomeen opiskelemaan! Helsingin poliisilaitoksen henkilökuntalehti Murharyhmä 2/2010

Visa Policies of European Union Member States. Monitoring Report. Stefan Batory Foundation Warsaw, 2006.

Yle.fi (9.3.2011) Vaalimaan rekkaterminaalin rakentaminen on varmistumassa http:// yle.fi/alueet/kymenlaakso/2011/03/vaalimaan_rekkaterminaalin_rakentaminen_on_ varmistumassa_2419988.htm 61 Appendix 1

Appendix to a news item published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Seasonal work and countries within the scope of the visa requirement in 2011 (formin.finland.fi, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, News, 12 January 2011)

Guidelines: Seasonal work and countries within the scope of the visa requirement in 2011

A citizen of a country within the scope of the visa requirement may enter the country for seasonal work in compliance with the visa (a maximum of three months within a six-month period), a citizen of a visa-free country may engage in seasonal work for a maximum of three months within a six-month period and a person entitled to the EU’s freedom of movement may work without any permits according to the EU regulations.

In these guidelines, seasonal work refers both to gainful employment as defined in Section 8, Subsection 1, Subdivision 4 of the Aliens Act (301/2004) and to the picking of wild berries.

According to the said Subdivision of the Aliens Act, aliens have the right to gainful employment without a residence permit if they arrive in the country to pick or harvest berries, fruit, specialty crops, root vegetables or other vegetables or to work on a fur farm for a maximum of three months. This Subdivision does not apply to picking of wild berries that is not carried out as gainful employment. Nevertheless, it is an established practice that the picking of wild berries is considered possible without a residence permit.

1. Prerequisites According to the Visa Code, the financial standing of the person entering the country with a visa should be verified, taking into account both the duration of the planned residence and the return to the country of origin. If the visa applicant’s own capital is not sufficient to fulfil these prerequisites, the applicant’s opportunities to earn more during the residence in the country may be taken into account.

This assessment also covers the financial stability of the employer or the inviting company operating in Finland, including the performance of obligations dictated by the law. During the visa process, the company’s operations may also be investigated with the help of a trade or farming promoter in the company’s place of domicile. Diplomatic missions verify information related to employers and other inviting entrepreneurs annually in connection with the first application, through statement processing groups of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Unit for Passports and Visas (KPA-20).

For persons coming from countries within the scope of the visa requirement and applying for seasonal work, the decision-making by a diplomatic mission needs to take into account not only these guidelines but also location-specific visa issuance principles and requirements that have been agreed on by Schengen diplomatic missions. When considering visa issuance, one always needs to take into account illegal migration into the Schengen area, the prevention of illegal work and trafficking in human beings and the prevention of the 62 exploitation of seasonal workers in the application phase or during employment. As for the last item mentioned, it should be emphasised that income and expense reports provided by inviters are assessed according to requirements for means of subsistence defined in the Schengen acquis.

According to the Ombudsman for Minorities, an inviting company with a good financial standing and active in this sector must be able to cover the costs incurred by a picker’s journey, accommodation and tools in such manner that working in Finland does not lead to economic loss for the picker. In the present situation some pickers have got into debt, which exposes them to phenomena related to trafficking in human beings. In the view of the Ombudsman for Minorities, it must be made possible for full-time pickers to earn a minimum level of income after expenses have been deducted. Diplomatic missions should take this view into account when reviewing advance reports.

To safeguard seasonal workers, it is not possible to use contracted workers from countries within the scope of the visa requirement in seasonal work. According to the Visa Code, prerequisites for issuing a visa include a ticket for the return journey or a document about other means for returning to the neighbouring area (e.g. a car and money for fuel), traveller’s insurance with at least EUR 30,000 as the amount of indemnity, sufficient funds upon entry into the country and/or earning sufficient funds legally during the residence in the country.

2. Advance report In order to safeguard the interests of inviters and invitees (having information early enough / predictability, etc.) and to align them with the resources of a diplomatic mission, the diplomatic mission may request a company that is active in the sector and fulfils its obligations to provide the diplomatic mission with an advance estimate about how many pickers the inviter intends to recruit from the country in which the diplomatic mission is located and when these pickers would work in Finland. In addition, it may also request a report on the following services offered to a visa applicant (e.g. how they are arranged, all fees collected for the services per person per day):

Accommodation. NB! Accommodation must have heating and sufficient sanitary facilities (including hot water for washing up). First aid kits must be provided for the accommodation premises and in addition, regional emergency response centres must be notified of people living on the premises; Meals; Transport to berry-picking areas (for the picking of wild berries); Rental of equipment; Interpretation services; Other supporting services in Finland; Middlemen and visa acquisition costs in the country of origin; Arrangement of guidance for the work (including instructions for working in nature); Any other expenses. This report facilitates the processing of a visa application and one can request that it be provided either by the due date given in these guidelines or by the due date defined by the 63 diplomatic mission in question on the basis of its resources. In reviewing advance reports, a diplomatic mission must pay particular attention to unsolved contradictions in previous advance reports and in reports provided after work has been performed and take these into account when considering visa issuance.

For persons applying for taxable seasonal work within an employment relationship (e.g. picking of garden berries), inviting companies can normally use a report form prepared by horticultural unions when inviting pickers from Finland’s neighbouring areas. This form can be found in the Internet at www.hedelmatmarjat.fi. If more than the form is required for the report, the diplomatic mission must inform inviters and invitees of this in good time.

For persons applying to pick wild berries, an invitation (if any) and a purchase commitment from the company that purchases berries are requested as well.

3. Special aspects in the processing of a visa application submitted by a seasonal worker Each visa application is processed individually, taking into account the normal prerequisites related to the issuance of a Schengen visa. In addition, for persons who apply for a visa explicitly for seasonal work, a diplomatic mission requests that the inviting company provide a report on accommodation, meals and health care arrangements for the visa applicant in question, unless this information has already been provided in sufficient detail in an advance report, if such a report has been submitted. Furthermore, it also requests a report on how a new seasonal worker is guided in their work and how they cope financially when starting the job.

An inviting company should present the diplomatic mission with information about middlemen’s or subcontractors’ contact persons participating in the recruitment of seasonal workers and in practical arrangements as well as their contact information, both in the country of origin and in Finland. As for companies acting as middlemen, one should verify that they fulfil the requirements set by the country of origin.

Furthermore, the company should also provide the diplomatic mission with a plan for managing surprising special circumstances that are not covered by travel insurance (such as a chronic disease, alcohol abuse or unsuitability for the work in question) and for arranging a return journey for the seasonal worker in these circumstances. For persons within an employment relationship (picking of garden berries), such a plan is considered to be constituted by the reference to an employer’s insurance and contracts dictated by the law that is included in the advance report form mentioned above. A visa can be issued in line with the estimated duration of seasonal work and the plan presented by a company operating in Finland.

For pickers of garden berries, a visa can be issued in line with an employment contract, as a single or multiple-entry visa. Producers have expressed a wish that multiple-entry visas be issued for persons from neighbouring areas who participate in the harvest of various crops that ripen at different periods. This would allow them to travel home between different harvest seasons (June for strawberries, July for raspberries, September for apples and October for late-ripening cabbage, for instance). Collection of lichen or cleaning of vendace, for instance, do not fall within the scope of seasonal work.

As a general rule, pickers of wild berries are issued a single-entry visa. 64

4. Due dates Unless a diplomatic mission define otherwise, inviting parties are requested to submit the advance report defined above in Chapter 2 by Friday, 4 February 2011. In addition, the diplomatic mission always requests that the inviter provide the following details: the name of the company, the business ID (formerly called the business code), a contact person and contact information, and middlemen used, if any.

The diplomatic mission will provide its comments on all duly delivered advance reports by Monday, 28 February 2011 at the latest. These comments include information related to the submittal and processing of visa applications (such as scheduling). The comments provided by diplomatic missions are also based on the assessment of their human and spatial resources, which is an important fact to convey to inviting companies as well, in order to ensure predictability of business operations.

Consequently, a diplomatic mission may make scheduling more flexible than what is stated in these guidelines if it is (e.g. resource-wise) possible for the mission. Inviters and invitees should be informed of this as early as possible, in any case by 14 January 2011 at the latest.

5. Other remarks A visa intended for seasonal work in Finland cannot be applied for at a diplomatic mission of another Schengen State, and it can only be used for seasonal work in Finland. For instance, Sweden does not allow seasonal work to be carried out with a visa. So, as a general rule, a visa for seasonal work can be applied for only at a Finnish diplomatic mission even if Finland had signed a visa representation agreement with another Schengen State. For instance, a person living in Belorussia cannot apply for a visa for seasonal work at the Estonian embassy in Minsk. Instead, they should apply for it at the Embassy of Finland in Moscow. Diplomatic missions should inform inviters and visa applicants of the correct procedures in countries for which they have a secondary accreditation.

A diplomatic mission should communicate to inviting companies that if a seasonal worker who has been issued a visa does not come to the workplace at all or leaves in the middle of the contractual period, they should notify the diplomatic mission that issued the visa and send an e-mail to the address [email protected] as soon as possible. This notification has to be made if the event can be interpreted as an abuse of the visa process.

Diplomatic missions request that companies provide them with information about seasonal workers’ actual income level as well as any other remarks at the end of the season. Income information shall be provided anonymously. Companies should be informed about the fact that income information may be used in the investigation of whether the average requirements for means of subsistence have been fulfilled.

In addition, diplomatic missions need to take into account any special circumstances in the countries where they are located, such as factors related to local legislation (e.g. exit regulations), reports related to the safeguarding of migrant workforce and special requirements set by authorities in the country of origin that may also be significant for bilateral relations between Finland and the country in question, for instance. It is considered worthwhile to inform inviters about these matters, too, if that does not compromise prerequisites for a diplomatic mission’s operations in the country where it is located (Section 24, Subdivision 2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities).

Source: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://formin.finland.fi/public/default. aspx?contentid=210319&culture=fi-FI

65 Appendix 2

Case study Russia

Immigration from Russia by age and sex 2005-2010

Men Age group - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 2005 204 157 196 122 84 39 27 8 2006 224 148 203 164 95 56 22 9 2007 216 181 289 161 162 71 22 12 2008 310 231 355 214 142 58 11 8 2009 237 178 218 170 135 67 25 10 2010 219 188 203 163 105 64 17 5

Women - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 2005 206 248 322 225 185 55 44 23 2006 196 247 328 220 181 79 40 17 2007 202 285 380 226 196 85 46 20 2008 274 361 443 279 219 84 34 21 2009 240 262 352 210 184 88 42 27 2010 209 327 315 222 159 103 32 22

Stock of Russian Nationals in Finland by sex 2005-2010

Men Women Total 2005 9 550 15 071 24 621 2006 9 951 15 375 25 326 2007 10 504 15 707 26 211 2008 11 022 15 887 26 909 2009 11 593 16 617 28 210 2010 11 801 16 625 28 426

Source: Statistics Finland

Visas refused in Russia Visas issued in Russia 2005-2010 2005-2010 Visiting family / Other % of Total Tourism Business friends Reasons Total applications 2005 366 629 243 990 44 207 1 556 76 876 6 550 1,75% 2006 501 407 370 913 47 656 7 385 75 453 6 877 1,35% 2007 637 739 499 911 48 434 9 516 79 878 7 061 1,10% 2008 734 055 589 568 48 162 29 603 66 722 7 929 1,10% 2009 729 603 618 579 33 123 31 343 46 558 6 236 0,85% 2010 952 056 699 979 27 220 30 531 194 326 6 236 0,74%

Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 66

Residence permits Russian nationals 2005-2010

Year Total Positive Negative Negative % 2005 4 428 3 938 490 11,10% 2006 4 261 3 860 401 9,40% 2007 5 484 5 028 456 8,30% 2008 5 882 5 292 590 10,00% 2009 4 453 3 778 675 15,10% 2010 4 075 3 268 807 19,80%

Family Grounds Educational Reasons Employment Issued Refused Withdrawn Issued Refused Withdrawn Issued 2005 781 166 2 2005 595 23 7 2005 1 187 2006 1 069 158 0 2006 689 20 4 2006 1 657 2007 1 266 149 1 2007 658 14 6 2007 2 689 2008 1 589 165 2 2008 867 18 16 2008 2 367 2009 1 258 150 7 2009 820 12 3 2009 1 171 2010 1 056 167 3 2010 824 19 3 2010 915

Source: Finnish Immigration Service

Refusals Year Total 2005 918 2006 1 051 2007 1 228 2008 1 535 2009 1 095 2010 1 045

Source: 2005-2007 Finnish Border Guard, 2008-2010 Eurostat

Apprehensions Year Total 2005 106 2006 76 2007 363 2008 460 2009 655 2010 545

Source: 2005-2007 the Police, 2008-2010 Eurostat 67

2008 Table EIL Y1.1. (cf. art 5.1.a) third-country nationals refused at the external LAND border, by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the Schengen TOTAL B.C.

Country of Citizenship LAND (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL 1456 19 0 249 132 0 0 665 26 365 Russian Federation 1395 15 238 120 646 21 355

2009 Table EIL Y1.1. Third-country nationals refused at the external LAND border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of LAND Citizenship (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL Total 180582 90143086 359924,304 221644 96623 73764 99026,510 3724 14479 570 Russian Federation RU 1005 7 0 232 31 0 0 546 11 178

2010 Table EIL Y1.1. Third-country nationals refused at the external LAND border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of LAND Citizenship (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL Total 89814 46436016 179962,152 110707 48296 36882 49513,255 1590 7234 196 Russian Federation RU >960 15 0 330 32 0 0 394 11 178

Source: Eurostat EIL-data

2008 Table EIL Y1.2. (cf. art 5.1.a) third-country nationals refused at the external SEA border, by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code)

TOTAL by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the Schengen B.C.

Country of Citizenship SEA (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL 10631 32867 17476256 69786,076 39196 16444 15510 24585,127 594 2521 Russian Federation 1 1

2009: no persons from Nigeria or the Russian Federation 68

2010 Table EIL Y1.2. Third-country nationals refused at the external SEA border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of SEA Citizenship (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL Total 29580 17469050 57118,538 36731 15910 10686 12464,064 301 2351 9 Russian Federation RU 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

Source: Eurostat EIL-data

2008 Table EIL Y1.3. (cf. art 5.1.a) third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border, by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the Schengen TOTAL B.C.

Country of Citizenship AIR (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL 1 191 171 1 12 129 69 0 36 55 2 Russian Federation 138 2 12 85 36 1 2

2009 Table EIL Y1.3. Third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of Citizenship AIR (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Russian Federation RU 90 1 0 22 38 0 0 29 0 0

2010 Table EIL Y1.3. Third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of AIR Citizenship (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Russian Federation RU 79 0 0 22 31 0 0 25 0 1

Source: Eurostat EIL-data 69

Case study Nigeria

Immigration from Nigeria by age and sex 2005-2010

Men Age group - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 2005 0 22 50 9 1 0 0 0 2006 1 28 74 5 0 0 0 0 2007 3 42 107 9 1 0 0 0 2008 0 76 130 11 1 0 0 0 2009 4 19 59 9 2 0 0 0 2010 5 24 78 13 1 0 0 0

Women - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 2005 0 5 8 2 0 0 0 0 2006 1 7 10 4 1 0 0 0 2007 7 8 20 2 0 0 0 0 2008 0 6 17 1 2 0 0 0 2009 4 9 11 1 2 0 0 0 2010 9 11 16 3 1 0 0 0

Source: Statistics Finland

Stock of Nigerian nationals in Finland by sex 2005-2010

Men Women Total 2005 325 96 421 2006 449 123 572 2007 616 157 773 2008 834 186 1 020 2009 925 216 1 141 2010 1 052 266 1 318

Source: Statistics Finland

Visas refused in Nigeria Visas issued in Nigeria 2005-2010 2005-2010

Visiting family / Other % of Total Tourism Business friends Reasons Total applications 2005 677 33 86 108 450 709 51,15% 2006 563 29 49 122 363 1 192 67,92% 2007 466 27 80 106 253 1 020 68,64% 2008 215 13 55 62 85 807 78,96% 2009 225 12 39 66 108 584 72,19% 2010 232 2 42 63 125 482 67,51%

Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 70

Residence permits Nigerian nationals 2005-2010

Year Total Positive Negative Negative % 2005 309 166 143 46,30% 2006 300 198 102 34,00% 2007 381 273 108 28,30% 2008 536 383 153 28,50% 2009 405 167 238 58,80% 2010 489 206 283 57,90%

Family Grounds Study Employment Issued Refused Withdrawn Issued Refused Withdrawn Issued Refused Withdrawn 2005 19 14 0 2005 88 46 1 2005 17 17 0 2006 64 16 0 2006 90 17 7 2006 23 21 0 2007 63 14 0 2007 168 38 4 2007 23 14 0 2008 35 31 1 2008 274 65 10 2008 59 25 1 2009 50 31 0 2009 54 83 7 2009 45 57 3 2010 37 24 0 2010 136 147 1 2010 15 32 0

Source: Finnish Immigration Service

2008 Table EIL Y1.2. (cf. art 5.1.a) third-country nationals refused at the external SEA border, by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the Schengen TOTAL B.C.

Country of Citizenship SEA (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL 105 055 23 048 8 754 534 40 388 31 975 15 376 5 862 343 4 2 177 Nigeria 1 1

2008 Table EIL Y1.3. (cf. art 5.1.a) third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border, by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the Schengen TOTAL B.C.

Country of Citizenship AIR (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) TOTAL 1 191 10 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 Nigeria 3 1 1 1 71

2009 Table EIL Y1.3. Third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of Citizenship AIR (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Nigeria NG 9 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2

2010 Table EIL Y1.3. Third-country nationals refused at the external AIR border by citizenship and by grounds for refusal (Annex V, part B of the Schengen Borders Code) (art 5.1.a)

by the 9 GROUNDS for refusal, according to Annex V, part B of the TOTAL Schengen B.C.

Country of Citizenship AIR (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Nigeria NG 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Source: EIL-data delivered to EUROSTAT

Table 1: Total visas by type

D - less D - more than 6 D - 6 to 12 than 12 Total A Total C Total D months months months 2005 Issued 7 421 179 2005 Applied 8 431 567 2005 Rejected 1 10 388 2006 Issued 5 569 311 2006 Applied 13 581 115 2006 Rejected 7 11 804 2007 Issued 5 703 588 2007 Applied 5 718 040 2007 Rejected 0 14 452 2008 Issued 4 791 688 2008 Applied 5 805 038 2008 Rejected 1 13 350 2009 Issued 4 782 965 2009 Applied 5 795 554 2009 Rejected 1 12 589 2010 Issued 20 1 007 954 2010 Applied 21 1 020 825 2010 Rejected 1 12 871

Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 72

Tables 3: residence permit by reason and citizenship

Other Other reason: reason: national national Other Other category category reasons: reasons: not not Humanitarian Other Other elsewhere elsewhere Other / international reasons: reasons specified. specified. reasons: protection Residence not Please Please Total Education Employment Family Total reasons only specified specify: * specify:* 2005 12 478 3 107 3 029 4 061 2 281 n/a 2006 12 803 3 196 2 929 4 108 2 570 n/a 2007 19 462 3 783 4 949 6 315 4 415 1 312 2008 21 873 4 441 5 722 7 170 4 540 1 534 2009 18 034 3 949 2 754 6 643 4 688 1 949 2010 19 210 4 433 2 936 6 706 5 135 2 228

* Please use those columns only if your national data does not fit into the listed “Other reasons” categories and give an appropriate definition of the category.

Source: If you indicate several sources, please clearly indicate which source refers to which data

Table 3.2 : residence permit by reason and 10 main countries of citizenship (extra EU - 27)

Other reason: national Other category Other reasons: reasons: not Humanitarian Other Other elsewhere Other / international reasons: reasons specified. Position of Name of the reasons: protection Residence not Please the country country Total Education Employment Family Total reasons only specified specify: * 1st Russian 2005 main Federation 3 636 656 1 387 1 083 510 n/a 2nd 2005 main China 904 528 148 138 90 3rd 2005 main India 738 69 67 254 348 4th United 2005 main States 567 168 50 137 212 5th 2005 main Turkey 470 94 165 177 34 6th 2005 main Ukraine 389 23 227 62 77 7th 2005 main Thailand 347 25 51 202 69 8th 2005 main Bulgaria 322 38 185 18 81 9th 2005 main Somalia 296 0 0 288 8 10th 2005 main Japan 251 93 28 62 68 1st Russian 2006 main Federation 3 707 689 1 332 1 063 623 n/a 2nd 2006 main India 954 68 47 310 529 3rd 2006 main China 946 549 131 144 122 4th United 2006 main States 592 233 23 113 223 73

5th 2006 main Turkey 462 143 120 171 28 6th 2006 main Ukraine 461 20 284 57 100 7th 2006 main Thailand 333 28 79 172 54 8th 2006 main Bulgaria 285 21 186 13 65 9th Serbia and 2006 main Montenegro 276 11 37 194 34 10th 2006 main Japan 274 100 44 59 71 1st Russian 2007 main Federation 5 276 658 2 240 1 648 730 40 690 2nd 2007 main China 1 278 596 287 238 157 0 157 3rd 2007 main India 1 252 73 106 346 727 0 727 4th 2007 main Ukraine 1 006 17 736 100 153 0 153 5th 2007 main Somalia 825 0 0 434 391 296 95 6th 2007 main Turkey 787 230 263 251 43 7 36 7th 2007 main Thailand 662 25 93 494 50 0 50 8th United 2007 main States 638 228 20 125 265 0 265 9th 2007 main Vietnam 368 62 3 287 16 0 16 10th 2007 main Serbia 243 7 90 73 47 26 21 1st Russian 2008 main Federation 5 388 848 1 965 1 887 688 58 2nd 2008 main China 1 619 671 462 300 186 13 3rd 2008 main India 1 508 76 82 452 898 3 4th 2008 main Ukraine 945 28 657 127 133 2 5th 2008 main Thailand 779 42 206 477 54 0 6th 2008 main Turkey 751 183 232 296 40 13 7th United 2008 main States 727 237 31 216 243 0 8th 2008 main Somalia 701 0 0 529 172 149 9th 2008 main Vietnam 414 129 92 181 12 0 10th 2008 main Serbia 333 9 158 130 36 22 1st Russian 2009 main Federation 2 899 812 847 1 503 737 75 2nd 2009 main India 1 216 130 44 426 616 0 3rd 2009 main China 1 270 615 204 267 184 13 4th 2009 main Somalia 1 093 0 1 512 580 559 74

5th 2009 main Thailand 745 28 129 527 61 0 6th United 2009 main States 705 247 24 202 232 0 7th 2009 main Turkey 617 190 101 294 32 10 8th 2009 main Ukraine 600 35 356 122 87 0 9th 2009 main Vietnam 391 148 59 181 3 0 10th 2009 main Japan 334 130 15 100 80 0 1st Russian 2010 main Federation 3 885 958 697 1 531 699 654 2nd 2010 main India 1 410 148 65 412 785 0 3rd 2010 main Somalia 1 344 1 0 510 833 651 4th 2010 main China 1 195 662 94 260 179 11 5th 2010 main Thailand 735 24 139 509 39 0 6th 2010 main Ukraine 658 28 445 111 74 0 7th United 2010 main States 658 214 57 221 166 0 8th 2010 main Turkey 558 168 76 275 39 0 9th 2010 main Vietnam 517 267 83 154 13 0 10th 2010 main Crotia 488 18 452 11 7 0

* Please use those columns only if your national data does not fit into the listed “Other reasons” categories and give an appropriate definition of the category.

Source: 2005 and 2006: Finnish Immigration Service 2007-2009: Eurostat 2010: Data sent to Eurostat

Tables 5: C visas issued by consular posts and by reason

Please use the council documents on “Exchange of statistical information on uniform visas” whenever possible. Note that no breakdown per reason is available As of 2003, as stated in the study specifications, they are available at (please copy the full link, i.e. the text on both rows, into your browser): http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&ssf=D ATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&typ= Simple&cmsid=638&ff_TITRE=statistical+information+on+uniform+visas&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_ MATIERE=VISA&dd_DATE_REUNION

Please use revised versions / corrigenda as appropriate 75

Table 5.1 : C visas issued by consular posts and by reason

Other Visiting Reason family / Medical Airport Please Total Tourism Business friends Cultural Sports Official reasons Transit transit Specify* 2005 421 179 259 051 58 849 10 016 10 794 9 453 2 381 226 70 409 2006 569 311 391 863 65 060 11 386 11 814 8 639 3 359 304 76 886 2007 703 588 517 064 66 721 14 427 21 732* 2 108 230 81 306 2008 791 688 603 589 70 045 39 106 23 402* 3 121 303 52 122 2009 782 965 629 655 52 981 42 023 17 187* 2 976 168 37 984 2010 1 007 954 847 968 47 937 42 238 6 362 8 508 2 905 43 109 47 151

* Please use those columns only if your national data does not fit into the listed “Other reasons” categories and give an appropriate definition of the category.

Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs

* Includes both Cultural and Sports

Table 5.2 : C visas issued by reason and 10 main countries of consular posts (extra EU - 27)

Position of the Visiting consular family / Medical Airport post Total Tourism Business friends Cultural Sports Official reasons Transit transit Russian 2005 Federation 366 629 243 990 44 207 1 556 2005 China 14 225 4 970 6 028 563 2005 Ukraine 9 378 2 480 1 444 384 2005 Estonia 4 175 1 688 298 197 2005 Thailand 3 306 1 469 350 209 2005 India 2 761 289 1 502 348 2005 Turkey 2 502 881 843 21 2005 Lithuania 1 908 315 458 57 United 2005 Kingdom 1 236 311 518 88 2005 Latvia 1 219 543 241 38 Russian 2006 Federation 501 407 370 913 47 656 7 385 2006 China 20 816 9121 6 425 511 2006 Ukraine 10 967 3 433 1 778 293 2006 Estonia 4 695 2 073 386 352 2006 India 4 065 310 2 343 376 2006 Thailand 3 969 1 455 706 224 2006 Lithuania 3 084 616 560 39 United 2006 Kingdom 1 591 532 349 230 South 2006 Africa 1 579 505 340 99 United 2006 States 1 454 377 626 102 Russian 2007 Federation 637 739 499 911 48 434 9 516 76

2007 China 18 362 6947 6 613 373 2007 Ukraine 11 701 3 643 1 782 556 2007 India 5 767 868 3 232 469 2007 Thailand 5 265 1157 384 246 2007 Lithuania 2 741 309 494 37 2007 Turkey 2 031 396 979 79 2007 Estonia 1 925 650 380 365 South 2007 Africa 1 692 369 418 91 United 2007 Kingdom 1 509 487 290 242 Russian 2008 Federation 734 055 589 568 48 162 29 603 2008 China 13 536 3 780 6 953 879 2008 Ukraine 11 973 4 391 2 941 1 275 2008 India 6 665 1 134 4 306 739 2008 Thailand 5 235 1 746 370 926 2008 Turkey 2 565 663 1 159 378 2008 Peru 1 734 196 505 803 2008 Tunisia 1 555 24 400 740 United 2008 Kingdom 1 465 445 348 481 United 2008 States 1 420 213 727 228 Russian 2009 Federation 729 603 618 579 33 123 31 343 2009 China 11 046 875 6 720 958 2009 Ukraine 10 651 2 786 2234 1 334 2009 Thailand 5 849 1 552 393 1 336 2009 India 5 837 964 3 694 676 2009 Turkey 2 967 1 069 961 495 United 2009 States 1 765 188 1 270 206 2009 Peru 1 671 149 301 871 2009 Tunisia 1 364 12 364 733 2009 Vietnam 1 083 14 174 695 Russian 2010 Federation 952 056 699 979 27 220 30 531 2010 China 11 867 3 693 8 354 1 029 2010 Ukraine 11 460 3 192 1 923 1 590 2010 India 6 523 988 4 158 842 2010 Thailand 5 366 1 319 379 1 666 2010 Turkey 2 659 522 1 161 511 2010 Peru 1 893 168 223 996 United 2010 States 1 763 346 328 174 2010 Tunisia 1 639 32 443 677 2010 Vietnam 1 239 31 159 781

* Please use those columns only if your national data does not fit into the listed “Other reasons” categories and give an appropriate definition of the category.

Source: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 77

Table 8: Residence permits issued by 10 main countries of consular posts (extra EU - 27)

Position of the consular post Name of the consular post Total 2006 1st main Russia 2 425 2006 2nd main India 759 2006 3rd main China 631 2006 4th main USA 464 2006 5th main Estonia 241 2006 6th main Ukraine 229 2006 7th main Nigeria 218 2006 8th main Turkey 215 2006 9th main Bulgaria 214 2006 10th main Japan 200 2007 1st main Russia 2 849 2007 2nd main India 929 2007 3rd main China 755 2007 4th main Ukraine 523 2007 5th main USA 475 2007 6th main Croatia 436 2007 7th main Estonia 378 2007 8th main Nigeria 360 2007 9th main Turkey 314 2007 10th main Japan 233 2008 1st main Russia 2 926 2008 2nd main India 1 170 2008 3rd main China 961 2008 4th main Croatia 526 2008 5th main Nigeria 512 2008 6th main USA 507 2008 7th main Ukraine 500 2008 8th main Japan 319 2008 9th main Estonia 301 2008 10th main Turkey 275 2009 1st main Russia 2 436 2009 2nd main India 996 2009 3rd main China 681 2009 4th main USA 479 2009 5th main Japan 341 2009 6th main Ukraine 288 2009 7th main Croatia 270 2009 8th main Turkey 268 2009 9th main South-Korea 221 2009 10th main Nepal 207 2010 1st main Russia 2 722 2010 2nd main India 1 274 2010 3rd main China 677 78

2010 4th main Croatia 666 2010 5th main USA 394 2010 6th main Ukraine 297 2010 7th main Vietnam 261 2010 8th main Japan 260 2010 9th main Nepal 222 2010 10th main Estonia 204

* Please use those columns only if your national data does not fit into the listed “Other reasons” categories and give an appropriate definition of the category.

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Finnish Immigration Service

Table 10: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders

Please use Eurostat data whenever possible. For the years 2008 and 2009, the following Eurostat table can be used: migr_eirfs.

Table 10.1: Overall trend by reason

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total number of refusals 1 185 1 407 1 424 1 775 1 300

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010

Table 10.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship

Position of the country of citizenship Name of the country of citizenship Total 2005 1st main Russia 918 2005 2nd main Georgia 53 2005 3rd main China 47 2005 4th main Romania 16 2005 5th main Kazakhstan 11 2005 6th main Iraq 10 2005 7th main Ukraine 10 2005 8th main Somalia 8 2005 9th main Croatia 7 2005 10th main Iran 7 2006 1st main Russia 1 051 2006 2nd main China 77 2006 3rd main Ukraine 30 2006 4th main Romania 22 2006 5th main Iraq 18 2006 6th main India 16 2006 7th main Kazakhstan 16 2006 8th main Belarus 16 79

2006 9th main Armenia 15 2006 10th main Somalia 15 2007 1st main Russia 1228 2007 2nd main China 26 2007 3rd main Ukraine 22 2007 4th main Nigeria 12 2007 5th main India 12 2007 6th main Belarus 11 2007 7th main Israel 6 2007 8th main United States 5 2007 9th main Moldova 5 2007 10th main Chile 5 2008 1st main Russia 1 535 2008 2nd main India 60 2008 3rd main Ukraine 30 2008 4th main China 25 2008 5th main Belarus 20 2008 6th main Moldova 10 2008 7th main Turkey 5 2008 8th main Albania 5 2008 9th main Angola 5 2008 10th main Nigeria 5 2009 1st main Russia 1 095 2009 2nd main Turkey 25 2009 3rd main India 20 2009 4th main Belarus 15 2009 5th main Ukraine 15 2009 6th main China 15 2009 7th main Nigeria 10 2009 8th main Afghanistan 10 2009 9th main Iran 10 2009 10th main Iraq 10 2010 1st main Russia 1 045 2010 2nd main Ukraine 20 2010 3rd main Somalia 15 2010 4th main China 10 2010 5th main Israel 10 2010 6th main Turkey 5 2010 7th main Belarus 5 2010 8th main Nigeria 5 2010 9th main Senegal 5 2010 10th main United States 5

Source: Finnish Border Guard 2005-2007, Eurostat 2008-2010 80

Table 11: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders due to the absence of a valid visa or residence permit;

Please use Eurostat data whenever possible. For the years 2008 and 2009, the following Eurostat table can be used: migr_eirfs.

Table 11.1: Overall trend

2008 2009 2010 Total number of refusals due to the absence of a valid visa or residence permit 300 320 420

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010

Table 11.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship

Position of the country of citizenship Name of the country of citizenship Total 2008 1st main Russia 250 2008 2nd main India 10 2008 3rd main Albania 5 2008 4th main Belarus 5 2008 5th main Moldova 5 2008 6th main Ukraine 5 2008 7th main Bolivia 5 2008 8th main South Korea 5 2008 9th main Iraq 5 2008 10th main 2009 1st main Russia 255 2009 2nd main Turkey 5 2009 3rd main Ukraine 5 2009 4th main Nigeria 5 2009 5th main China 5 2009 6th main Afghanistan 5 2009 7th main India 5 2009 8th main Iran 5 2009 9th main Israel 5 2009 10th main 2010 1st main Russia 355 2010 2nd main Belarus 5 2010 3rd main Ukraine 5 2010 4th main United States 5 2010 5th main China 5 2010 6th main Mongolia 5 2010 7th main South Korea 5 2010 8th main Israel 5 2010 9th main 2010 10th main

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010 81

Table 12: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders due to the presentation of a false visa or residence permit

Please use Eurostat data whenever possible. For the years 2008 and 2009, the following Eurostat table can be used: migr_eirfs.

Table 12.1: Overall trend

2008 2009 2010 Total number of refusals due to the presentation of a false visa or residence permit 270 95 75

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010

Table 12.2: Main 10 of citizenship

Position of the country of citizenship Name of the country of citizenship Total 2008 1st main Russia 205 2008 2nd main India 25 2008 3rd main China 15 2008 4th main Ukraine 10 2008 5th main Uzbekistan 5 2008 6th main Azerbaijan 5 2008 7th main 2008 8th main 2008 9th main 2008 10th main 2009 1st main Russia 70 2009 2nd main Turkey 5 2009 3rd main Ukraine 5 2009 4th main Thailand 5 2009 5th main Iraq 5 2009 6th main 2009 7th main 2009 8th main 2009 9th main 2009 10th main 2010 1st main Russia 65 2010 2nd main Ukraine 5 2010 3rd main China 5 2010 4th main 2010 5th main 2010 6th main 2010 7th main 2010 8th main 2010 9th main 2010 10th main

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010 82

Table 14: Third country nationals found to be illegally present

Please use Eurostat data whenever possible. For the years 2008 and 2009, the following Eurostat table can be used: migr_eipre.

Table 14.1: Overall trend

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total number of third-country nationals found to be illegally present 2 757 1 689 1 966 5 375 6 660 3 755

Source: Eurostat 2008-2010

Table 14.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship

Position of the country of citizenship Name of the country of citizenship Total 2005 1st main Bulgaria 413 2005 2nd main Somalia 295 2005 3rd main Serbia and Montenegro 291 2005 4th main Iraq 247 2005 5th main Afghanistan 222 2005 6th main FYR of Macedonia 150 2005 7th main Unknown 109 2005 8th main Russia 106 2005 9th main Turkey 78 2005 10th main Azerbaijan 77 2006 1st main Bulgaria 309 2006 2nd main Iraq 207 2006 3rd main Serbia & Montenegro 184 2006 4th main Afghanistan 84 2006 5th main Russia 76 2006 6th main Somalia 69 2006 7th main Belarus 63 2006 8th main Nigeria 54 2006 9th main Iran 54 2006 10th main Unknown 51 2007 1st main Russia 363 2007 2nd main Iraq 305 2007 3rd main Unknown 176 2007 4th main Serbia and Montenegro 120 2007 5th main Somalia 91 2007 6th main China 84 2007 7th main Turkey 72 2007 8th main Iran 68 2007 9th main Nigeria 51 83

2007 10th main Belarus 45 2008 1st main Somalia 1 595 2008 2nd main Iraq 1 560 2008 3rd main Russia 460 2008 4th main Afghanistan 310 2008 5th main Serbia 140 2008 6th main Iran 135 2008 7th main China 120 2008 8th main Belarus 80 2008 9th main Nigeria 75 2008 10th main Turkey 70 2009 1st main Somalia 1 655 2009 2nd main Iraq 1 600 2009 3rd main Russia 655 2009 4th main Afghanistan 560 2009 5th main Kosovo 250 2009 6th main Iran 180 2009 7th main Nigeria 150 2009 8th main Belarus 115 2009 9th main Turkey 110 2009 10th main Sri Lanka 105 2010 1st main Somalia 585 2010 2nd main Iraq 580 2010 3rd main Russia 545 2010 4th main Afghanistan 265 2010 5th main Serbia 230 2010 6th main China 130 2010 7th main Turkey 115 2010 8th main Iran 115 2010 9th main Nigeria 100 2010 10th main Ghana 80

Source: the Police 2005-2007, Eurostat 2008-2010 European Migration Network Finnish Immigration Service Panimokatu 2a FI-00580 HELSINKI, Finland

+358 71 873 0431 [email protected] www.emn.fi www.emn.europa.eu

ISBN 978-952-5920-05-5 (PDF)

The EMN has been established by Council Decision 2008/381/ EC and is financially supported by the European Commission. The objective of the EMN is to meet the information needs of Community institutions and of Member States’ authorities and institutions by providing up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum, with a view to supporting policymaking in the European Union in these areas. The EMN also serves to provide the general public with such information.