Finnish deportation case draws attention as authorities plan to send a woman and her two young children back to Italy, where they had already received international protection. This decision follows months after the family was held in an immigration detention unit for nearly two months over the winter.
The woman, referred to here as Mary to protect her identity, comes from Nigeria. She and her children were held at the Joutseno detention unit in Konnunsuo, a former prison, after police lost track of her in December. Officials justified detaining Mary and her two children, aged two and six, on the grounds that she might try to flee or hide.
Mary and her children remained in detention until April, when they were released. Later, the Eastern Finland Administrative Court ruled that their detention was unjustified.
After their release, the family was first moved to a reception centre in Joutseno and then relocated to Pori to await the outcome of Mary’s renewed asylum claim.
Mary has expressed deep fear about returning to Italy. She says she was trafficked into prostitution there and faces threats from a criminal network, her ex-partner, and a pimp. Mary also claims her ex-partner has threatened to send their daughter to Nigeria for genital cutting.
Despite these serious concerns, Finnish immigration authorities rejected her claims, stating they found her account not credible. Because Italy had already granted her international protection, Finnish officials argue she should seek help from Italian authorities instead.
Mary’s lawyer, Emmi Wehka-aho, criticized the Finnish system. She said it failed to properly consider the dangers Mary faces.
“Her need for protection in Italy has been dismissed, along with the fact she sought police help there,” Wehka-aho said.
She also pointed out that the Finnish support system for trafficking victims rejected Mary’s story after a rushed interview. This interview took place under stress, without a lawyer, and suffered from poor interpretation.
The Finnish Immigration Service decided that sending Mary and her children back to Italy does not amount to unreasonable hardship. This means the family will likely be deported despite their previous protection status.
Officials insist the children’s best interests are served by staying with their mother. A social worker’s report included with Mary’s asylum application stated that the children’s wellbeing would be better ensured by remaining in Finland.
However, Wehka-aho noted no formal child welfare assessment has been done, even though multiple child protection reports exist.
She added that the South Karelia wellbeing services county had planned such an assessment but stopped when the family moved to Pori.
“No proper evaluation of the children’s need for protection has taken place,” Wehka-aho said.
Mary’s appeal against the asylum refusal is still pending. Yet, her request to stop deportation on an emergency basis was denied. This means deportation could happen while the appeal is under review.
