The applicant applied for asylum and invoked a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Ingushetia. The Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) considered that the applicant risked being persecuted by the local authorities of Ingushetia within the meaning of Article 87 (1) of the Aliens Act but did not grant him asylum because t was assessed that there was an internal flight alternative in Moscow. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court mentioned that in the assessment of the internal protection alternative it shall be first looked whether, in addition to Ingushetia, the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted or is in real danger of suffering serious harm there, with due regard to the general circumstances prevailing in that part of the country of origin as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant. For this purpose, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that accurate and up-to-date country of origin information must be obtained from relevant sources.

The courts and also FIS noted that A was not in danger of persecution by Russian special forces, but by the local authority in Ingushetia, thus the possibility of internal escape had to be assessed on that basis.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that when considering the circumstances of the country of origin, it had to be ascertained whether the Ingushetian authorities had powers or possibilities outside the Republic of Ingushetia which allowed the Ingushetian authorities to persecute A also in the Moscow area as well. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that If such powers or possibilities exist, it should be ascertained whether information is available to assess the likelihood that the persecuting authority will exercise this possibility.  Moreover, a risk analysis shall be carried out weighing the relevant information obtained or the absence of such information in order to consider the possibility of internal flight as a whole.

It was noted that lower court and FIS conducted the examination of the risk of persecution of Mr A. in Moscow, in particular by assessing the current nature of his political activities and the degree of profiling resulting therefrom. Neither decision included country of origin information or mentions on absence of information on whether and to what extent the Ingushetic authorities had exercised such an opportunity against the Ingushetian authorities in Moscow. 

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that FIS and the lower court did not conduct a proper risk analysis of the risk of persecution of A by the Ingushetian authorities in Moscow and overturned the contested decisions.

The Supreme Administrative Court assessed the general circumstances of the country of origin and the personal circumstances of the applicant and concluded that he did not have the possibility of internal flight alternative to Moscow within the meaning of section 88 e of the Aliens Act. The applicant was granted asylum.