2012-06-01-Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification - Synthesis Report

[mietinen]

Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification, European Migration Network

This EMN Focussed Study responds to a growing concern, notably of policymakers as well as in
the media, that the right to family reunification may be misused as a route into settlement in the EU.
It also serves to inform the Green Paper on the Family Reunification Directive 2003/86/EC.

The aim of the study was to identify the scale and scope of two instances of misuse, namely
marriages of convenience and false declarations of parenthood and to provide clear evidence, to the
extent possible and including available statistics, of these types of misuse and how best to address
them. The study also summarises (Member) States' current practices in its detection and prevention.

The Synthesis Report presented here summarises the main findings of National Contributions from
24 EMN NCPs (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and
Norway). It is available, along with the National Contributions, from www.emn.europa.eu, under
"EMN Studies".

Lumeavioliitot ovat arkitodellisuutta EU-maissa, Maahanmuuttovirasto, 10.7.2012

Lehdistötiedotteet
10.7.2012

Euroopan muuttoliikeverkoston synteesiraportti:
Lumeavioliitot ovat arkitodellisuutta EU-maissa

Lumeavioliitot ovat osa perheenyhdistämisen arkitodellisuutta EU-maissa, mutta sen laajuutta on vaikea osoittaa vertailukelpoisten tilastojen puuttuessa, todetaan Euroopan muuttoliikeverkoston (EMN) julkaisemassa synteesiraportissa Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification. Lumeavioliitolla tarkoitetaan avioliittoa, joka on solmittu maahantuloa tai maassa oleskelua koskevien säännösten kiertämiseksi eli vain siksi, että puoliso saisi oleskeluluvan.

Lumeavioliittoepäilyjen määrä vaihteli eri EU-maissa ja Norjassa 35 ja 1 740 tapauksen välillä vuonna 2011. Samaan aikaan EU-maiden tekemien lumeavioliittoon perustuvien kielteisten päätösten määrä vaihteli 5:n ja 990:n välillä (vuonna 2010 5–1360).

EU-maissa on tiedostettu, että lumeavioliitot ovat sensitiivinen ilmiö ja vaativat tutkinnalta erityistä huolellisuutta, jotta oleskelulupaa hakevien oikeusturva toteutuu. Jotta valtiot voisivat paremmin hallita ilmiötä ja saada sen torjuntaan enemmän resursseja, tarvittaisiin vertailukelpoisia tilastoja, selkeä ohjeistus tutkinnan avuksi ja erityinen foorumi tietojen vaihtoa varten.

Raportin taustalla EU-komission halu käynnistää keskustelu

Synteesiraportti perustuu 24 jäsenvaltion sekä Norjan kansallisiin tutkimuksiin, joissa selvitettiin lumeavioliittojen sekä oleskeluluvan hakemisen yhteydessä vanhemmuudesta annettujen väärien ilmoitusten laajuutta. Lisäksi selvitettiin väärinkäytöstapojen tunnistamiseen kehitettyjä toimintamalleja sekä keinoja torjua väärinkäytöksiä.

Tutkimuksen taustalla on EU:n vihreä kirja direktiivistä 2003/86/EY kolmansien maiden kansalaisten oikeudesta perheenyhdistämiseen. EU-komissio on halunnut käynnistää julkisen keskustelun direktiivin soveltamiseen liittyvistä kysymyksistä sekä muutostarpeista.

Taustalla yleensä taloudelliset syyt

Lumeavioliittojen taustalla on yleensä taloudelliset syyt. Toisaalta viitteitä on saatu myös organisoituneiden rikollisryhmien järjestämistä avioliitoista.

EU-maat torjuvat lumeavioliitoista johtuvia väärinkäytöksiä keskittämällä tutkintaa lähtömaiden edustustoihin, joissa haastatellaan oleskeluluvan hakijoita ja tutkitaan asiakirjojen aitoutta. Joissakin maissa poliisi voi tarkastaa lumeavioliitoista epäiltyjen asuntoja, työpaikkoja tai kouluja. Myös kunnallisten viranomaisten rekistereihin annettuja, avioliittoa ja yhdessä asumista koskevia tietoja verrataan maahanmuuttoviranomaisille annettuihin tietoihin.

Henkilön historia voi käynnistää tutkinnan

Lumeavioliittotutkinta käynnistyy esimerkiksi, jos perheenkokoaja on aiemmin solminut useita lyhytaikaisia avioliittoja tai lumeavioliiton tai jos hänestä tehdään ilmianto.

Jos lumeavioliittoepäily todetaan aiheelliseksi ja perheenkokoaja on johtanut viranomaisia harhaan, hänelle määrättävät rangaistukset vaihtelevat EU-maissa viiden vuoden ehdottomasta vankeudesta 15 000 euron sakkoihin. Oleskelulupaa perhesiteen perusteella hakeneen henkilön oleskelulupahakemus pääsääntöisesti hylätään tai peruutetaan.

Maahanmuuttovirasto tekee noin 250 lumeavioliittopäätöstä vuosittain

Suomessa Maahanmuuttovirasto tekee noin 250 lumeavioliittoepäilyyn perustuvaa kielteistä päätöstä vuodessa. Poliisin tekemät päätökset eivät ole mukana tässä arvioissa.

Lumeavioliittoa ei ole määritelty Suomen ulkomaalaislaissa. Avioliitto-oikeudellisesti lumeavioliitot ovat muodollisesti päteviä avioliittoja. Voimassa olevan ulkomaalaislain 36 §:n mukaan oleskelulupa voidaan kuitenkin jättää myöntämättä, jos ilmenee, että ilmoitettu avioliitto on solmittu oleskelulupasäännösten kiertämistarkoituksessa.

Epäilyn lumeavioliitosta herättävät tyypillisesti esimerkiksi puolisoiden eriävät kertomukset viettämästään yhteiselämästä, avioliiton lyhyt kesto, epäselvät olosuhteet liittoa solmittaessa sekä puolisoiden suuri ikäero.

Suomi torjuu oleskelulupaprosessin väärinkäytöksiä pääasiassa ennen ulkomaalaisen maahantuloa. Viisumi- ja oleskelulupahakemusten huolellisen tutkimisen on todettu auttavan merkittävästi väärinkäytösten torjunnassa.

Suomen ulkomaalaislain mukaista lumeavioliittoharkintaa valottaa tarkemmin Maahanmuuttoviraston aiemmassa yhteydessä laatima, erityisesti toimittajien avuksi tarkoitettu taustamuistio. Se on pyynnöstä saatavissa Maahanmuuttoviraston viestinnästä.

Lisätietoja medialle

Tulosalueen johtaja Riikka Asa, Euroopan muuttoliikeverkosto, Maahanmuuttovirasto, puh. 071 873 0431, s-posti: [email protected]

EMN:n synteesiraportti Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification on saatavissa Suomen yhteyspisteen verkkosivuilta osoitteesta http://www.emn.fi/raportit/2012.

Mikä on EMN?

Euroopan muuttoliikeverkoston (European Migration Network, EMN) Suomen yhteyspiste toimii Maahanmuuttovirastossa. Vastaavia yhteyspisteitä on kaikissa EU-maissa sekä Norjassa joka myös osallistuu verkoston toimintaan. Verkoston puheenjohtajana toimii EU:n komissio.

Verkoston tehtävänä on tuottaa ajantasaista, puolueetonta, luotettavaa ja vertailukelpoista tietoa maahanmuutto- ja turvapaikka-asioista politiikan suunnittelun tukemiseksi Euroopan unionissa. Tietoa jaetaan poliitikkojen ja viranomaisten lisäksi myös yleisölle.

Keskeistä EMN:n tuottamaa tietoa ovat vuosittaiset raportit maahanmuuttopolitiikan kehityksestä EU-jäsenmaissa ja -elimissä sekä erilaiset teematutkimukset ajankohtaisista muuttoliikeaiheista.

Suomen omat EMN-verkkosivut löytyvät osoitteesta: www.emn.fi.

[chacha2]

Luin raportin

Vuoden 2012 ensimmäiseen tiivistettyyn tutkimukseen perustuva synteesiraportti on valmistunut. Raportti, joka käsittelee perheenyhdistämisprosesseissa ilmeneviä väärinkäytöksiä, perustuu 24 jäsenvaltion kansalliseen tutkimukseen. Niissä selvitettiin lumeavioliittojen sekä vanhemmuudesta annettujen valheellisten ilmoitusten laajuutta EU-jäsenvaltioissa. Tutkimuksissa selviteltiin myös em. väärinkäytöstapojen tunnistamiseen kehitettyjä toimintamalleja sekä keinoja torjua väärinkäytöksiä.

http://www.emn.fi/raportit/2012


Raportti kannattaa lukea kokonaisuudessan, mutta jos aika ei riitä niin tässä 'parhaat kohdat':

3.1   Perceptions of the Extent of Misuse

3.1.1   Marriages of Convenience

Marriages of convenience are recognised as an issue in all (Member) States, most notably from a political perspective and from reporting in the media, as highlighted in the following examples.
...
The topic has received media attention in Finland, but there has also been recent case law on the topic (in 2011) and the Ministry of Interior commissioned a project (also in 2011) to examine the family reunification provisions, with the Finnish Immigration Service estimating the number of negative residence permit decisions on the grounds of suspected marriages of convenience to be 250 per year. Also in Finland (and Hungary) there is evidence that individuals entering into marriages of convenience meet online – in some of these cases one of the individuals concerned may not be aware that the marriage has not been contracted for family purposes.
...
3.1.2   False Declarations of Parenthood

In general, false declarations of parenthood are considered to be a much smaller phenomenon and less common in the EU than marriages of convenience, although the phenomenon is recognised as an issue in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland and Portugal. In Norway, cases of false declarations of parenthood have been detected and in Malta there have been suspected cases.
...
In relation to misuse of the right of a parent to be reunified with a child, Finland, France, Italy and Poland, report some specific cases. In France, for example, legislation does not allow for reunification of a minor third-country national with a person other than the legal mother or father, even where parental authority has been granted by the parents to a guardian. This provision meant that Muslim children entrusted to a family under the tradition of 'kafala' could not be reunified with their guardian. However, jurisprudence recently ruled that, when it is in the child's interest, this may be allowed. There is a concern in France that this new form of using family reunification may pose a risk of future misuse.
...
Falsification of age has also been recognised as a problem in Finland and Poland and there have been cases in which third-country nationals have used false medical certificates of a (in fact non-existent) pregnancy in order to obtain a residence permit by the child's 'father'.

Austria, Belgium and Finland recognise the existence of misuse through 'adoptions of convenience,' although in all cases, other than Finland, the evidence of this is quite limited. Finland describes a situation whereby an individual is presented as a foster child, but in reality is a second wife or a domestic worker – these cases tend to have elements of human trafficking in them. Finland also refers to a form of misuse called the 'anchor child phenomenon' whereby an unaccompanied child is sent to Finland against their will to obtain a residence permit and subsequently apply for residence permits for the family members on the basis of family ties. This form of misuse involves circumvention of the rules on entry, and trafficking in women and children, and is particularly common in the asylum process.
...
3.2   Identified Reasons and Motivations

3.2.1   Marriages of convenience

For the sponsor, the main motivations, cited by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, United Kingdom and Norway, were for economic and financial reasons, and these appeared to also be the reasons most frequently cited in the media. For Germany, the political debate has mainly referred to economic motivations as well.
...
Italy cites specific examples of financial transactions, alluding also to organised crime, where an applicant may pay a considerable sum to organised criminals (€5 000-€10 000) and where a small proportion of this (some €1 000-€2 000) is then subsequently paid to the (Italian) sponsor. The United Kingdom also refers to organised crime, and cites anecdotal evidence that migrants targeting marriages of convenience as a migration route may seek the assistance of individual facilitators or organised crime groups, of varying size and structure, demanding fees ranging from
£2 000 – £20 000 (some €2 400-€24 000).
...
In terms of the motivations of an applicant, the majority of (Member) States (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) were able to provide some information, although again this was not firmly evidenced in all cases. Overall, the main motivation cited was to obtain the right of residence (Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) and associated benefits (France and Malta), to avoid paying fines for overstay (Portugal) or to remain in the EU (Hungary, Portugal).
...
3.2.2   False Declarations of Parenthood

Information about the motivations of both sponsors and applicants appear to be less well developed and reported than for marriages of convenience. Only Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Malta, Portugal and Spain were able to cite any specific reasons in relation to sponsors and applicants. These predominantly related to financial and economic reasons, for example, for direct payment (Czech Republic); claims for benefits, such as family allowances (Belgium); and to benefit from citizenship (France).
...
3.3   National Means of Preventing Misuse

3.3.1   Marriages of Convenience

Some (Member) States have specific processes in place to prevent the completion of fraudulent applications in relation to reunification between spouses.
...
In Finland, the LAMA group (which brings together the National Police Board, the Police, the Finnish Border Guard, the Finnish Customs, the Finnish Immigration Service, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs), ensures interdepartmental cooperation on irregular migration, including marriages of convenience. Finland also carries out case-by-case assessments of marriages purported to have taken place abroad
checking the registers of the third countries concerned) and of documentation, such as a marriage,
divorce or death certificates through the National Bureau of Investigation's forensic laboratory.

3.3.2   False Declarations of Parenthood
...
Finland has set up specific mechanisms to prevent such misuse, particularly trafficking of children through false declarations of parenthood. The Finnish Immigration Service appointed Immigration Liaison Officers at the Finnish Embassy in Addis Ababa, for example, with the primary duties of arranging interviews to investigate family ties. Also assessing family life and the existence of foster children in interviews has become increasingly important in cases of family reunification of a foster child to a third-country national adult with asylum status. If the sponsor has not mentioned the child in the initial asylum interview, subsequent residence permit applications based on family ties are generally refused.
...
3.5   Factors Triggering an Investigation by the Authorities

(Member) States refer to a range of factors that trigger an investigation of individual cases of suspected misuse of the right to family reunification via marriage / partnership, or false declaration of parenthood, or that might arouse suspicion that such events have taken place. These are in relation to the specific circumstances of the sponsor or applicant, which may provide a motivation for misuse, and the authenticity of the marriage or declaration of parenthood itself. The following examples highlight a number of these factors as reported by (Member) States, which may be used also by those (Member) States not explicitly referred to below.

3.5.1   Marriages of Convenience

A listing of possible indicators which may trigger an investigation is given in Box 1 overleaf. For the specific circumstances of the sponsor or applicant involved in a marriage of convenience, triggers may include where the sponsor has previously sponsored an alien in relation to family reunification (Bulgaria, Netherlands); where either spouse has been involved in a marriage of convenience previously (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Lithuania); or where there is evidence of a record of previous short-term marriages (Finland, Germany).
...
For the applicant specifically, triggers for investigation include where there is no legal basis to be in the country or where the legal basis is expiring (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Norway); where the applicant has been unsuccessful in previous applications for residence through different means (Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Norway); has previously migrated irregularly, is subject to a removal order, or was refused asylum, or originates from a country with a low recognition rate for asylum applications (Germany, Norway); or high levels of immigration (Spain). A further trigger may be where (an unusual sum of) money has been exchanged, except in the case of a dowry (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Spain). In Norway, an exceptionally high dowry may lead to the suspicion that there is payment for a
marriage of convenience.

The circumstances under which the couple met may also arouse suspicion, for example, where the couple had not met before the marriage (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, Norway), had met on a recent holiday or trip, or via the internet (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania), or when the application for reunification is submitted immediately after entering into the marriage (Estonia). In Finland, the timing of the marriage in relation to the issue of travel documents, residence permit documents, etc. may also trigger an investigation.

The specific living conditions of the couple may also act as triggers, for example, where the couple is not cohabiting (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal); or if one of the spouses is living with someone else (Belgium, Latvia); in another country (Italy, Portugal); or where the living arrangements are not conventional, for example, where single living quarters are shared between the third-country national, his or her spouse and the latter's previous or ex-spouse (Estonia). Other conditions reported include where there is a lack of evidence of the practical obligations of marriage or a common household (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Lithuania); where the couple has not made any plans for their financial stability (Germany); and when the female spouse does not take her husband's last name (Estonia). In Latvia, the situation where the address of close relatives of a third-country national applicant was indicated as the planned place of residence for the applicant, rather than the address of the sponsor, triggered an investigation.

Triggers that suggest the marriage is not genuine include where statements made by either spouse conflict, or where basic information is not known (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom); where there is no common language (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom); or where there is a significant age gap between spouses (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom).
...
3.5.2   False Declarations of Parenthood

Whilst triggers for investigating marriages of convenience appear relatively well developed, this is less so in relation to detecting false declarations of parenthood. Several (Member) States reported no information on this issue.Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Norway reported no specific triggers, as they have no or very limited experience of this issue.

In Belgium, where there is little evidence to suggest a strong relationship between the declaring person and the child (for example, where he/she does not personally or/and financially contribute to, and has no interest in, the care and custody of the child, and where there is precarious or illegal residence status of the mother/father), may act as a trigger to investigate whether declaration of parenthood is being used with a view to obtain or extend a residence permit.

Other triggers include where there is an unusual age difference (Belgium, Spain), if a nationality pairing is unusual, i.e. no cultural or historical ties between the parents (Belgium, United Kingdom); where the parents are living at different addresses (Bulgaria, United Kingdom); where contradictory information is provided (Bulgaria); or where there is no possibility that cohabitation occurred at the time the child was conceived (Spain).

Anonymous tips may also be received, or issues raised by an official such as a case-worker (Belgium, United Kingdom), or indeed any official body processing an application for a resident permit on the basis of family reunification.
...
3.6   Techniques for Investigating Misuse

3.6.1   Marriages of Convenience

Once a suspected marriage of convenience has been detected, a range of techniques for investigation29 are applied, frequently in combination and depending on individual circumstances.

These include interviews with the sponsor and applicant (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway); background checks (Estonia, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal); home visits (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovak Republic); and third party and community based checks to test the couple is living together (Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Luxembourg), including checks with public services and utility providers (Belgium, Ireland), document checks (Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Slovak Republic), and, in some cases, the couple is asked to independently complete a questionnaire (Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Latvia) and their individual responses are subsequently compared. Greece conducts interviews at its consulates abroad, prior to issuing a visa, with family members applying for reunification.

Where there is suspicion of organised crime, some (Member) States involve specialist services in their investigations. For example, in the United Kingdom, its UK Border Agency immigration crime teams carry out targeted, intelligence-led operations against criminal groups that profit from organising marriages of convenience.

3.6.2   False declarations of parenthood
...
In some cases, DNA testing is used to investigate family relations, especially when no other documentation can confirm the family relationship (Finland, Germany, Norway) and, if found necessary, interviews are also conducted in these cases. However, Germany has reported that the lawfulness of such practices has been questioned. Luxembourg reports some challenges in relation to investigation and the legal problem of making revisions to the nationality of the child once this has been granted. Spain highlights situations where investigation is not possible because documents issued 'legitimately' in countries of origin have biographical content adapted to the false parent and child/children.
...
3.8   Penalties imposed against those misusing the right to family reunification and their impacts

This Section examines penalties likely to be imposed, and possible impacts on the EU citizens and third-country nationals involved, where misuses of family reunification are detected.

3.8.1   Marriages of Convenience
...
Member States that do not have specific penalties for marriage of convenience include Finland, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom. In Finland, for example, penalties vary according to the area of the law invoked. For providing false documents to a public authority, this may be a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months; for immigration, forgery or false statement offences, a fine or imprisonment of 1-2 years; and for registration offences, a fine or imprisonment for up to three years. However, where actions result in grievous harm to another individual, or where organised crime is involved, then the penalty can be extended to a fine and up to 6 years imprisonment.In the Netherlands, a marriage of convenience is prosecuted under the crime of forgery, with may result in penalties of imprisonment for up to six years, or fines of up to € 78 000.

Penalties include, for the sponsor, imprisonment, fines, or both. Lengths of imprisonment and levels of fines vary. Where stated, lengths of imprisonment range from up to 1 year (Austria); 1-2 years (Malta); 3 years (Germany); 1-4 years (Portugal); and to up to 5 years (France). Fines may be imposed alongside a prison sentence, and ranged from up to €3 000 (foreseen in new legislation in Luxembourg), to up to €15 000 (France). In Belgium, the person who contracts a marriage of convenience may receive a prison sentence ranging from 8 days to 3 months and a fine ranging from €26 to €100.
...
For a third-country national, a conviction and / or penalty of imprisonment can result in the withdrawal of a residence permit. In Finland, a marriage may be annulled and a residence permit cancelled. It may also be made more difficult for the applicant to apply for a residence permit for the purpose of family reunification at a later date.
...
3.8.2   False Declarations of Parenthood

Penalties are imposed in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovak Republic. Such penalties may include imprisonment and fines, for example, in France, Italy and Malta, similar to those set out in relation to marriages of convenience, and, in the case of France, the penalties extend to 10 years of imprisonment and a €750 000 fine where discovered to be part of an organised crime.
...
5.2   Marriages of Convenience via Refused/Revoked Residence Permits

Some (Member) States provided statistics on residence permits revoked and/or refused because of detected / suspected marriages of convenience, summarised in Table 5.2 below. In 2011, the number of permits refused/revoked ranged from 5 (Latvia) up to 990 (Belgium), whilst in 2010 it was again from 5 (Latvia) up to 1 360 (Belgium).

( Suomen luvut , oma huomio: Finland 2008 100, 2009 85 , 2010 90 , 2011 160 , 2012 250 )

http://www.emn.fi/raportit/2012 (Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification - Synthesis Report)

Sivut 38- 40 kannattaisi kuitenkin kakkkien kurkata, kyse on EU-maitten luvuista:
Table 5.1: Residence Permits issued for Family Reasons, 2010
Total (EU-27) 747 785 ,
Third-country national joining with a third- country national 510 305
Third-country national joining with an EU national 205 275 (excl. EE, NL)

Total Finland 6 705
Third-country national joining with a third- country national  4 300
Third-country national joining with an EU national  2 405

[mietinen]

Lumeliittoepäilyistä joka kolmas kumoutuu oikeudessa, HS, 5.8.2012

STT

Maahanmuuttoviraston lumeliittoepäilyistä valitetaan usein. Noin joka kolmas valituksista menee hallinto-oikeudessa läpi.

"Suurin syy päätösten kumoamiseen on se, että ajan kuluessa olosuhteet muuttuvat. Oikeusprosessissa vierähtää noin vuosi. Sinä aikana pariskunta voi olla pitkiä aikoja yhdessä ja saada lapsen", sanoo Suvi Tiainen Maahanmuuttovirastosta.

"Lähtökohtaisesti on voinut olla kaikki merkit lumeliitosta, mutta myöhemmin liittoa ei ole enää ollut syytä epäillä."

Joskus myös paljastuu, että vaikka hallinto-oikeus on kumonnut lumeliittoepäilyt, virasto olikin alun perin oikeassa.

"Se paljastuu yleensä, jos avioliitto on päättynyt ja pysyvän oleskeluluvan saanut hakija hakee perheenjäsentään ulkomailta."

[mietinen]

Ranska rankaisee lumeliitosta ankarasti, Suomi ei lainkaan, HS, 30.7.2012

STT

Suomi on lumeavioliittoa yrittävälle armelias. Käytännössä sekä perheenkokoaja että oleskeluluvan hakija selviävät rangaistuksetta, mikäli lumeliittoon ei liity mitään rikollista.

Lumeavioliitto on useimmiten muodollisesti pätevä. Lupaviranomaisen epäilyt heräävät, jos puolisot antavat ristiriitaisia tietoja esimerkiksi yhteiselämästä tai asuinpaikasta.

Ranskassa lumeliitosta rankaistaan ankarasti. Perheenkokoajaa uhkaa jopa viiden vuoden ehdoton vankeus.

Maahanmuuttoviraston mukaan Ranskassa paljastui vuosina 2009–2011 kaikkiaan 16 rikollisryhmää, jotka järjestivät lumeliittoja ja olivat mukana laittoman maahantulon järjestämisessä.

Euroopan muuttoliikeverkoston (EMN) mukaan eniten lumeliittoepäilyjä on Puolassa, jossa määrä kasvoi toissa vuonna yli 5 000:een. Vähiten epäilyjä, 5–20 vuodessa, EMN:lle ilmoittivat Viro ja Liettua.

Suomi pysäyttää lumeliitolla oleskelulupaa hakevan useimmiten jo rajojen ulkopuolella.

Maahanmuuttovirasto teki viime vuonna lumeliittoon perustuvia kielteisiä oleskelulupapäätöksiä yli 200. Maan rajojen sisäpuolella poliisi teki vastaavia päätöksiä alle 30.