A, Iraqi national, has applied for international protection first in September 2015 claiming that security situation and the threat posed by ISIS and Shia militants. The FIS rejected the application and ordered the return of the applicant. The appeals lodged by the applicant were both rejected. He has submitted a second application for international protection and invoked a threat related to his spouse work in Iraq. The FIS rejected the application for residence permit, left unsolved the subsequent application for international protection and ordered the return of the applicant to Iraq. B. his spouse, and C. his minor child, appealed against this decision and argued against the return decision taken against the applicant. A. also appealed against the negative decision. The administrative court of Helsinki rejected the applicant's appeal and did not examine the appeal of the spouse and the child considering that they are not entitled to lodge an appeal as the contested decision is not directed against them.

In a second appeal brought by B and C, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the right to family life as guaranteed by the ECHR and the EU Charter must be taken into account when assessing whether the decision on the subsequent application could be considered as to directly impact the right or interest of the applicant's spouse and child. 

B. and C. argued before the Supreme Administrative Court that the lower administrative court has not properly assessed the best interest of the child, that the child had the right to be heard as the deportation of his father affected his rights. They mentioned that the applicant faced a threat sur place if returned, because his spouse is an Iraqi refugee. They added that A. and his spouse have started their family life in Finland and that the persecution which is directed at the applicant's spouse in Iraq is also directed at his family members. B and C highlighted that they cannot return to Iraq due to persecution. The applicants argued that the best interest of the child will be infringed if the father is transferred to Iraq and showed that the family has spent everyday life together, and the father has been present in the child's everyday life. The applicants argued that in the event of return of the father to Iraq, it would be impossible to continue to enjoy family life.

The Supreme Administrative Court reiterated the applicable legal standards and guidelines with regard to the right to family life as enshrined in international treaties and the EU law.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that taking into account the child's interest and the protection of family life also implies that the minor child and the spouse of a third-country national have the right to lodge an appeal against the FIS's decision regarding the family member against whom removal decision has been adopted.

The Supreme Administrative Court decision not to examine the B and C's appeal was overturned.