Finland’s Immigration Service (Migri) granted refugee status to Alexander Zheleznikov. This happened 7 years after the Russian first applied for protection.
Zheleznikov arrived in Finland in March 2019. The man had fled Russia after drawing the FSB’s attention: he had been an activist in the anarchist and antifascist movement opposing Putin’s rule. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Zheleznikov helped 11 Russians join the Ukrainian army and donated 3,000 euros in support of Ukraine. For these actions he faces a prison sentence back home.
Despite these circumstances, Migri initially refused Zheleznikov asylum. He tried to challenge the decision in court, reaching the highest instance in February 2026, but without success. However, Finnish law allows for a new application to be filed if new circumstances have arisen. Which the man did. And in May, Migri scheduled him for an interview.
To improve his chances of a successful interview, Zheleznikov turned to “Aliens’” lawyer Timur Filippov. The result: asylum, a residence permit, and the right to work in Finland!
Timur explains what’s important to understand about dealing with migration services — and why a lawyer’s help in this process matters so much.
Hi, this is Timur Filippov.
Although the court upheld Migri’s initial refusal to grant asylum, it made an important reservation. In its ruling, the court noted that the migration authority had failed to assess how Alexander had lived and what he had been doing since leaving Russia. I think that was the first thing that helped Alexander when he filed a repeat application for refugee status.
So, another interview with migration-service officers awaited him. And it was at this stage that he came to me. And he did the right thing. As a criminal-defense lawyer, I have extensive experience preparing clients for interrogations. And an interview at Migri really is a genuine interrogation.
The main mistake in this kind of case is thinking you’re smarter than the Migri officer. In reality, you can’t know in advance exactly what question they’ll ask, or in exactly what wording. But you can understand the goals and objectives migration-service employees are working toward. And you can know the criteria European officials use to assess applications for protection.
The general rule is: asylum goes to those for whom returning home carries the risk of unlawful persecution by the state. “Unlawful” here means a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s important to understand this in order to assess whether a person can claim asylum under the Geneva Convention.
But even if a person is entitled to protection, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll get it. You have to present the available evidence correctly, since the burden of proof lies with the applicant. At Migri, no one is going to help a person gather evidence or diligently dig up facts in their favor.
The migration service will make its decision based on the police report and whatever documents the applicant brings (or doesn’t bring). The interview record will contain exactly what the person says. And if he can’t find supporting documents, forgets to mention something, or phrases it clumsily — that’s his problem alone.
When dealing with officials, correct wording and a certain logic in describing events and facts matter. You need to clearly and legally lay out exactly what awaits the applicant back home — and why that would amount to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Special attention also needs to be paid to the work of interpreters, whose errors often result in distorted information making it into the record.
In Alexander’s case, there was no problem with the body of evidence. But there were difficulties in how he initially presented it. So we worked out a correct description of the case, discussed how to convey episodes that are hard to understand, and rehearsed answers to possible difficult questions.
If you also need our lawyers’ help — write here or email: chuzhie93@gmail.com
Leave a Reply