The applicant is a minor who was born in Finland in 2015. His parents unsuccessfully applied for international protection for them and for him in Finland in the same year. He reapplied for protection in 2018 together with his parents and sister. Except for the father whose application was assessed and dismissed separately, the rest of the family were also refused international protection, and a return decision was issued. The applicant alone applied for a third time on 26 August 2022, but his request was dismissed, and a return decision was adopted.

In its decision, the Finnish Immigration Service assessed that the return was not contrary to the best interests of the child in view also of the fact that his family members were subject to deportation to the same country of origin. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Administrative Court and the applicant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court adopted an interim decision on 4 September 2025 prohibiting the applicant's deportation.

The court first noted that the applicant and his parents had resided in Finland without a residence permit since 2015, when they applied for asylum; that the Finnish Immigration Service had issued separate enforceable return decisions to the same country of origin for his parents and siblings; and that a third application for international protection had been rejected. The applicant mainly argued on appeal that he could not be ordered to return to his parents' country of origin, as he was born in Finland, had lived his entire life there, and was a vulnerable person with special needs due to developmental delays.

The Supreme Administrative Court emphasised that pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Aliens Act any decision concerning a person under the age of 18 must take into account the best interests of the child, and aspects related to the development and health of the minor.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant entered Finland in 2015 with his parents, not alone and he was not to be considered unaccompanied within the meaning of Article 10 of the Return Directive even if his third application was decided separately. It distinguished the present case from its previous assessments in cases A. v Finnish Immigration Service (KHO:2017:172, 10 November 2017), A. v Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto‚ FIS) ( KHO:2017:173, 10 November 2017) and Applicant v Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto‚ FIS) (KHO:2026:14, 15 March 2026), which concerned the return of unaccompanied minors.

The court affirmed that the present case did not concern an applicant who was to be removed alone and agreed with the Finnish immigration Service assessment according to which it is in the best interests of the child to live with his family, also because his parents can provide support for his special needs.

The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal and upheld the contested decision. It also refused leave to appeal against the negative decision on international protection, finding no particularly weighty reason to grant it.