A, an Iraqi national, was granted subsidiary protection status in Finland in 2008 on grounds related to the security situation in his home region of Tuz Khurmatu and in 2013 he was granted a permanent residence permit. In February 2013, A. went back to his country of origin and stayed in Erbril until May 2017. Consequently, the Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) proposed the cessation of A.’s subsidiary protection and he was invited for an asylum interview in September 2017, where he mentioned to have travelled following relatives’ request and to treat his psychological illness. He spent most of his time in the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq (KRG) in Erbil and received treatment there. He alleged to have returned to Finland because people with mental problems are treated with contempt but he mentioned not to have faced any other problems during his stay in his country of origin. The applicant received treatment in in Finland for psychotics from December 2017 to February 2018, and a medical report of 15 April 2019 mentions that the applicant was in outpatient care and receives monthly injection medication in an outpatient clinic in psychiatry.  Bu decision of 15 February 2018, FIS terminated the subsidiary protection status of A. and revoked his permanent residence permit.

Both appeals submitted before the Administrative Court and before the Supreme Administrative Court were dismissed. Although granted leave to appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court considered the outcome of the Administrative Court should not be changed. The Administrative Court held that the applicant travelled voluntarily to Erbil where he did not face any issues and according to up-to -date country of origin information the security situation is stable enough and there are no personal reasons to consider that A. would be at risk. The Administrative Court concluded that the applicant can, de facto, settle in Erbil without being in danger of any injustice or without authorities’ protection. For all these reasons, FIS decided to terminate subsidiary protection as all circumstances which led to the granting of protection ceased to exist.

Following the revocation of the residence permit, the Administrative Court assessed that A. is not at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR and that the applicant received medical treatment in Erbil for his mental illness. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court and added that the applicant has relatives in his home country, and that he is not to be considered a vulnerable persons and would not meet the requirements for being issued a residence permit under Article 52(1) of the Aliens Act (Issue of residence permits on a discretionary basis on humanitarian grounds).

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that, following the termination of A.’ subsidiary protection status and the revocation of his residence permit, there is a reason for his expulsion. The fact that he has no family members or any ties in Finland, but in Iraq, was also taken into consideration.