A, an Afghan applicant, requested international protection in Finland on 15 July 2015 for the first time. After the case was dismissed by final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, on 8 June 2020, the applicant requested international protection in Finland for the second time. When he was 16 to 17 years old, he was a member of the Afghan police force and as a police officer, he had been involved in the assault of an apprehended person and in the transport of those detained to and back from the cell for questioning.

The Finnish Immigration Service rejected his request for international protection on 21 December 2020, as although it considered that the applicant had justified reasons to fear that he would be persecuted in his home country due to political opinion, it excluded him due to the commission of an aggravated non-political crime. While the Finnish Immigration Service considered that given his young age he did not have an effective opportunity to refuse to participate in the assault, in relation to the task of transporting apprehended persons, the Immigration Service considered that he had the opportunity to act differently.

The applicant appealed the decision and on 3 February 2022, the Helsinki Administrative Court confirmed the decision.

In the second appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision. It agreed with the Immigration Office and the lower court that the acts of the applicant amounted to an aggravated non-political crime contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, as well as gross non-political crimes. However, it held that the exclusion clauses must be interpreted strictly. In the case of A, the Supreme Administrative Court considered the environment in which he had grown, the culture of the local police and other Afghan authorities, the conflict in his home area, the methods used for disciplinary action by the local police, as well as the reports and rumors that the insurgent local police might have been shot by their own.

Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court held that, because of his young age, uneducated background and environment in which he had grown, A did not necessarily consider that he had made a material contribution to aggravated offences and had no real possibility, based on his knowledge and resources, to act differently in his task of transporting apprehended persons.

The case was returned to the Finnish Immigration Service for further consideration in order to grant asylum.