A, Iraqi national, had applied for a residence permit based on a family tie as B's spouse. His application had been rejected on the basis of evasion of the immigration regulations, and it had been decided to return A to his home country. The administrative court rejected A's appeal and he appealed further before the Supreme Administrative Court alleging also that best interest of his child has not been taken into account.

The applicant is a spouse of a Finnish citizen living in Finland, and he could therefore be granted a residence permit as referred to in section 50 subsection 1 of the Aliens Act on the basis of family ties, if all requirements for granting a residence permit were met. The applicant and his spouse had a minor child. The Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) and the Administrative Court considered that he could not be granted pursuant to § 36 subsection 2 of the Aliens Act which provides that a residence permit may not be granted if there is reasonable cause to suspect that the foreigner's intention is to circumvent the regulations regarding entry or stay in the country.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant applied for asylum and had been rejected in 2015 and that he reapplied by giving false information, fact for which he had been convicted of a minor state border crime. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that applying for asylum after a negative asylum decision, i.e. making a repeat application as referred to in Section 102 of the Aliens Act, is not in itself evidence of an intention to circumvent immigration regulations. However, the applicant has tried to mislead the authorities by giving false information and has been convicted of a minor state border crime. Considering this, the administrative court has been able to assess that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant’s intention was to circumvent the regulations regarding entry into the country. Moreover, in the case, it still had to be assessed whether the refusal of the residence permit was to be considered proportionate.

In his additional explanation in the administrative court, A had relied on the fact that a child had been born to him and his spouse. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the consideration of the child's interest in the consideration of conversion was not limited to the time when the matter was resolved at the Immigration Office.

The Supreme Administrative Court mentioned that according to the Aliens Act, when applying for a residence permit on the basis of family ties due consideration has to be made as to whether to grant a permit, the nature and strength of the alien's family ties, his stay in the country must be taken into account height and his family, cultural and social ties to his home country.

The best interests of the child are separately provided in section 6 subsection 1 of the Aliens Act and mentions that special attention must be conferred in the decision-making process to matters related to the development and health of a child younger than 18 years old.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that Article 8 ECHR and the related jurisprudence of the ECtHR must be taken into account when evaluating the protection of family life. The Supreme Administrative Court mentioned that the child's parent has explicitly invoked the importance of the child's birth in the overall consideration of both appeals, regarding his residence permit.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that although the applicant's actions have demonstrated evasion of entry regulations, by his actions in 2015 in providing false information about the location of the passport and residence permit and crossing the border without the required document, can be considered relatively minor in terms of the general interest related to immigration management. However, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that insufficient information has been presented about the actual circumstances of the family and the importance of the applicant's life. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the FIS is better placed to re-examine the current circumstances of the child and his parents and other matters that may affect the child's interests.