Permanent Residence Revoked After Five Years of Work in Finland; Case Raises Questions Over Evidence Required in Permit Cancellations!

HELSINKI – A Bangladeshi engineer who moved to Finland in 2017 to study and later worked continuously for the same employer for more than five years is challenging a decision by the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri) to revoke his permanent residence permit, order his deportation to Bangladesh, and impose a two-year entry ban.

The case is currently pending before the Helsinki Administrative Court and could have wider implications for how much evidence authorities must present when alleging that a residence permit was obtained through false or misleading information.

To protect his privacy, the appellant is referred to as "the Engineer."

The Engineer arrived in Finland in 2017 to pursue a university of applied sciences degree. During his study his, he continued working full time for the same employer and, based on his long employment history, was granted a permanent residence permit in May 2024. In this meantime, he completed his graduation in the year 2025.

Approximately two and a half months later, his employment was terminated and the termination was sudden without any verbal or written warning beforehand.

After receiving information about the end of the employment relationship through Finland's national income register, Migri initiated proceedings to revoke the permanent residence permit.

According to Migri's decision, it was not credible that an employment relationship lasting more than five years would end so soon after a permanent residence permit had been granted. The authority concluded that the applicant had provided false or misleading information about his employment when applying for permanent residence. On that basis, Migri revoked the permit under Section 58(4) of the Aliens Act, ordered his deportation to Bangladesh, and imposed a two-year entry ban.

The Engineer disputes those conclusions,

In documents submitted to the Administrative Court, he argues that he had a valid permanent employment contract both when he applied for permanent residence and when Migri made its decision.

"At every relevant stage of the permanent residence permit process—when I submitted my application, when the application was processed, and when the permit was granted. I was employed full-time by the same employer," the Engineer states in his appeal.

He further argues that the subsequent termination of his employment cannot, by itself, prove that he intentionally misled the authorities.

"Accordingly, I did not provide any false or misleading information in my application. Every statement I made regarding my employment was true at the relevant time."

The appeal also challenges the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. According to the court filings, the Engineer was accused of workplace misconduct, allegations that he has consistently denied. The appeal includes written statements from colleagues, a formal demand letter sent to the employer, and a legal assessment suggesting that the dismissal was disputed and that the evidence supporting the employer's allegations was not conclusive.

The Engineer states that he sought legal assistance through his labor union but ultimately did not pursue an employment lawsuit because of the significant financial risk involved.

"Because I could not afford such a significant financial risk, I had no realistic opportunity to pursue legal action against my employer," he writes in the appeal.

The appeal further criticizes Migri's investigation, arguing that the authority relied primarily on information provided by the former employer while giving insufficient weight to evidence submitted by the applicant.

Since losing his job, the Engineer says he actively searched for employment in several sectors, including engineering and cleaning, completed additional training, and eventually changed careers after failing to secure work.

Court documents state that he obtained a taxi driver's license, established his own business, purchased a vehicle for commercial use, later obtained a taxi operator's licence, and now works as a taxi entrepreneur.

The appeal argues that these actions demonstrate a continuous intention to remain employed in Finland.

"These actions clearly demonstrate my genuine and continuous intention to live and work in Finland," the Engineer states.

The case also involves significant personal circumstances. According to the appeal, the Engineer has lived in Finland for nearly nine years, completed his higher education in the country, and has a wife and a child born in Finland in March 2026. His wife's residence permit application remains pending, and the family intends to apply for their child's first residence permit in Finland.

The appeal also notes that the Engineer underwent triple bypass heart surgery following a serious heart attack in 2023 and continues to require specialist medical care.

As part of the proceedings, the appellant requested that the Administrative Court suspend enforcement of the deportation order while the appeal is being considered. He argued that removal before a final judgment could cause irreversible harm to his health, family life and business.

The Helsinki Administrative Court has, however, rejected that request in an interim decision, finding no grounds to prohibit enforcement during the appeal process.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.

Its forthcoming judgment is expected to determine whether Migri had sufficient legal and factual grounds to conclude that the applicant knowingly provided false information when applying for permanent residence, or whether the authority relied too heavily on the fact that his employment ended shortly after the permit was granted.

The decision may also provide further guidance on the standard of proof required when Finnish authorities seek to revoke a permanent residence permit on the grounds of alleged deception.