Annual Report on Asylum and Migration for FINLAND 2004

Annual Report on Asylum and Migration for FINLAND 2004 INTRODUCTION The figures relating to statistics on migration and asylum are based on Statistics Finland s data, data received from Eurostat and the aliens' register compiled by the Directorate of Immigration. A. MIGRATION ISSUES 1) Analysis and interpretation of the migration statistics Note that asylum applicants should not be counted, as far as possible, as new migrants. However, once they have received a status and settle in the country, they can be counted in the stock of legal migrants. The immigration flow (for family, work, study) should not include the asylum-seekers flow. a) Migration Flows How did migration flows in your Member State change compared to the previous years, from 2002 onwards? Please explain the reasons for changes. Did the migration trends observed in this field reflect immigration policies at the time? Figure 1: Finland s emigration and immigration in 1945 2004 60 50 Thousands Emigration Immigration 40 30 20 10 0 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: Statistics Finland Emigration has been common among the Finns almost throughout the 20th century and it is calculated that about a million people have left the country during that time. Many of them

has gone to Sweden, especially during 1960 s and 1970 s, because of the higher wages and standard of living that existed there. Although many of these have since returned, it is estimated that there are about 300000 people living abroad at the moment who were born in Finland. Positive net migration is a quite recent phenomenon in Finland. Up to the end of the 1980 s, most immigrants coming to Finland were return migrants from Sweden. The situation changed radically during the 1990 s when the number of foreign citizens residing in Finland quadrupled. Table 1: Migration flows in 2002-2004 Legally resident population (1st January) Recorded immigration Recorded emigration 2002 2003 2004 5 194 901 5 206 295 5 219 732 18 113 17 838 20 333 12 891 12 083 13 656 Source: Statistics Finland Between 2002 and 2004, migration flows in Finland did not significantly change both with regard to immigration and emigration. As illustrated in Table 1, compared to 2002, 275 fewer immigrants moved to Finland in 2003. But in 2004 their number increased almost 2500. Regarding the number of emigrants, the differences between the individual years went in the same direction than the number of immigrants, but are smaller. Consequently, Finland s net migration increased in the period between 2002 and 2004. Table 2: Immigration by main groups of citizenship in 2004 2004 Total Immigration 20333 Nationals 8822 Non-nationals 11511 of which EU nationals (EU 25) 4046 Non-EU nationals 7465 Most important third country nat.: Russian Federation 1939 China 433 Thailand 393 India 315 Sudan 299 Afghanistan 284 Iraq 277 Turkey 249 United States of America 247 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 232 Other third country nationals 2797 Source: Statistics Finland 2 of 22

Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the countries of citizenship of the immigrants, who moved to Finland in 2004. Nearly half of them were Finnish nationals (8822 out of 20333). 4046 immigrants were from the EU 25 Member States. The overwhelming majority of third country national immigrants had Russian citizenship (1939), followed by citizens of China (433), Thailand (393), India (315) and other countries with just less than 300 immigrants each. The persons from Russia form the largest single nationality group of foreign citizens permanently residing in Finland has been a constant fact since the beginning of the 1990 s. The comparably high number of Russian immigrants may be explained by the return status of Ingrian Finns emigrating from these countries and who since 1990 have the status of returning emigrants and it is also related to the marriage migration of Russian women. The majority of foreign immigrants into Finland in the late 1980 s were men, and the same situation still prevails among the foreigner population of Finland as a whole, but an increasingly large proportion of the new immigrants in the 1990 s have been women. This is on account of the preponderance of women among those arriving from the former Soviet Union, i.e. Russia and Estonia b) Population by Citizenship in 2004 (and 2003) What were the largest groups (by citizenship) of third country nationals in 2004 (and 2005)? If significant changes occurred in reference to the size of particular groups of third country nationals in 2004 (and 2005), what were the underlying causes of these changes (e.g. legal, political, economical, other)? The number of foreigners living in Finland at the end of 2004 was 107346, of which one third was EU-nationals and two thirds non-eu nationals. The foreigner proportion of the resident population was 2.0 percent and the number of foreigners increased 3321 persons in the course of that year. At the same time the number of persons born outside Finland was 158867 and the number of native speakers of other languages (than Finnish, Swedish and Saami) was 124817. 3 of 22

Figure 3: Number of foreigners in 1976 2004 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 12154 12120 11816 11656 12502 13342 13971 15231 16266 16478 16585 17730 18676 21174 26255 37579 46250 55587 62012 68566 73754 80600 85060 87680 91074 98577 103682 107003 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Source: Statistics Finland The number of foreigners had remained fairly constant at something over 10000 for a long time, so that where the exact figure in 1950 was 11423 (0.3% of the population), it was still just 12000 in 1976. A slow increase then began to take place during the 1980 s, and this was followed by a "wave of immigration" beginning in 1990, when the Finnish-speaking Ingrians from the former Soviet Union were granted the status of "returning emigrants". This led to an immediate increase in immigration and made a significant contribution to the rise in the numbers of foreigners resident in Finland. The steepest annual rise of all was recorded in 1991, over 11000 persons, the largest groups among whom were the Ingrians and refugees from Somalia. 4 of 22

Table 4. Number of foreign population in 2004 1-01-2004 Total Population 5 219 732 Nationals 5 112 729 Other EU-24 Nationals 34 558 of which EU-10 Nationals 15 876 Non-EU-25 (3rd country) nationals 72 445 Most important third country nat.: Russian Federation 24 998 Somalia 4 642 Iraq 3 485 Serbia and Montenegro 2 782 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 531 China 2 372 Turkey 2 287 United States of America 2 149 Thailand 2 055 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 694 Others 23 450 Suorce: Statistics Finland In 2004 the largest group of foreign people in Finland was Russians, 24998 persons. The second largest group was Estonians and after them Somalis. Figure 2: Naturalised foreigners in 1971 2004 7500 7000 6880 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 4017 4730 4502 3500 3000 2977 2720 3049 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 326 316 367 281 223 332 352 466 527 633 799 1037 884 776 1138 1111 1173 1063 1504 899 1235 876 839 651 668 981 1439 0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Source: Statistics Finland Although Finnish citizenship was awarded to only about some 100 people a year in the 1970's, the figure increased during the next decade to almost 1,000 a year. The most common 5 of 22

cases were former Swedish citizens; most of whom had some prior ties with Finland. After 1995 the number of foreigners to be granted Finnish citizenship turned to increase and in 2000 the citizenship was granted to 3,000 persons. Year 2004 citizenship was granted to 6,880 persons, which was more than ever before. The growth in the number of awarded citizenship was mainly due to decision of Finnish Directorate of Immigration to process citizenship applications faster. In year 2004 more applications were processed and therefore more people gained Finnish citizenship. c) Residence Permits: annual total positive decisions 2004 (and 2003) How did the total number of positive decisions for residence permits (or other authorisations to reside) change in comparison to the previous year? Please explain the reasons for this (legal, political, administrative changes, etc.). There were not major changes in the total number of positive decisions in 2004 compared to previous year. The share of positive decisions was in both years approximately 90%. In 2004, 35 786 decisions of the total of 40 939 residence permit decisions were positive. In 2003, 41 151 residence permits decisions of the total of 44 752 decisions were positive. These figures include also extended fixed-term residence permits issued by the local police. 2) Contextual interpretations (legal, political and international factors) Finland carried out a total reform of the Aliens Act. The new Aliens Act entered into force on May 1st, 2004. The previous Act dated from 1991 and included a number of amendments that had weakened its readability. The main legal implications are the following: - Competence to issue residence permits to foreigners abroad was transferred from Finnish diplomatic and consular missions to the Directorate of Immigration. - Family members of Finnish citizens may now come to Finland to apply for a residence permit on the basis of family ties. Previously, the residence permit applications were submitted outside of Finland, and the applicants had to wait abroad for the decision. The residence permit is issued by the local police. - Asylum-seeker interviews are now conducted by the Directorate of Immigration, and not by the police. - Foreigners coming to Finland to work in this country need only a residence permit for an employed person now, whereas they previously had to have both a work permit and a residence permit. - Almost all residence permit decisions are now subject to appeal. 6 of 22

The main admission categories are work, self-employed, study, family tie and returnee. Family tie has traditionally been the biggest group of all. The new Aliens Act came into effect on 1 May 2004. The old Aliens Act did not include the same kind of categories of residence permits as the new one does. Therefore we don t have breakdown data on decisions on applications that were submitted before the new Aliens Act came into effect. In 2004, most of the decisions were made according to the old Aliens Act. Therefore, the statistics on decisions made according to the new Act do not reflect the actual situation. We don t have statistics on the grounds for negative decisions. The reasons for refusing a residence permit if the alien in question would otherwise fulfil the requirements are laid down in the section 36 of Aliens Act. According to the Act, a residence permit may be refused if the alien is considered a danger to public order, security or health or to Finland s international relations. Endangering public health does not, however, prevent the issuing of an extended permit, if the requirements for issuing a permit are otherwise met. Endangering international relations does not, however, prevent the issuing of a residence permit on the basis of family ties or issuing a residence permit to an alien who has been issued with a long-term resident s EC residence permit by a Member State of the European Union. A residence permit may also be refused if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the alien intends to evade the provisions on entry into or residence in the country. 7 of 22

B. ASYLUM ISSUES 1) Analysis and interpretation of the asylum statistics a) Please describe trends in first-time asylum applications in 2004 (and 2003) compared to the previous year. Are these trends related to legislative or administrative developments/ changes? Table 5: Applications and decisions on asylum 2000-2004 Year Applicants Favourable decisions Total negative Annulmen t I II III Total 2000 3170 9 248 210 467 2121 1049 2001 1651 4 346 463 813 1045 307 2002 3443 14 250 327 591 2312 431 2003 3221 7 142 345 494 2443 383 2004 3861 29 206 565 800 3418 546 Suorce: The Directorate of Immigration In 2004, there were 3 861 asylum applications which was an alltime record. This was a growth by 16 % compared to 2003 when there were 3 221 asylum applications. The growth in asylum applications however started already in 2002 when there was a 52% increase compared to the previous year. In comparison to other EU member states, Finland has haft a relatively high amount of asylum seekers from current EU member states. However, the actual numbers are quite small. In spring 2004, there were 341 asylum seekers from Slovakia, 132 from Romania, 238 from Bulgaria. Slovakia was in fact the second largest country of origin 2004. The number of Slovakians increased from 2003. There was also a substantial growth in the number of people coming from Serbia and Montenegro which was the largest country of origin in 2004 with 837 applications. Otherwise there were no major changes in the top-10 list. Russia for example, has traditionally been one of the top-10 countries. The other top-10 countries in 2004 were: Macedonia (279), Somalia (253), Bulgaria (238), Russia (215), Afghanistan (166), Turkey (140), Romania (132) and Iraq (123). The top-10 countries of 2003 were Russia (289), Bulgaria (287), Serbia and Montenegro (285), Yugoslavia Fed. Rep. (234), Turkey (185), Croatia (174), Iraq (150), Yugoslavia (126), Romania (109), Somalia (91). In 2003, there were 85 applications from Slovakia. See also annex 1 for more detailed information. 8 of 22

b) What is the total number of first and final positive decisions in 2004 (and 2003), disaggregated by the citizenship of the person concerned? Please explain changes in the total number of positive decisions in comparison to the previous year. The share of positive decisions has been quite stable (appr. 17%). In 2004, 800 of the 4764 asylum decisions were positive. Most of the positive decisions (70%) were residence permits for other reasons. A total of 29 received Convention status (3%), 206 (27%) were issued with residence permits for need of protection and 565 persons with residence permits for other reasons. The total number of positive decisions rose substantially compared to the previous year. In 2003, 494 of the 3320 asylum decisions were positive. Nevertheless, the percentage of the positive decisions did not change much. The reason for the increase in asylum decisions was probably due to a project aiming at improving operational efficiency of the Directorate of Immigration. There was also a slight increase in the number of applications. In 2004, there were 3861 applicants and in 2003, there were 3221 applicants. The citizenship groups are quite small. In 2004, there was only one larger country of origin, and it was Iraq. A total of 207 people from Iraq received a positive decision. The next citizenship groups were much smaller: 81 people from Somalia, 61 people from Russia, 49 from Yugoslavia, 48 from Angola. In 2003, there was no larger country of origin. Somalia was the largest country or origin with 75 people. After that came Turkey (56), Yugoslavia Fed. Rep. (44), Iran (39) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (28). See also annexes 2 and 3 for detailed information on the statuses granted to each citizenship group in 2003 and 2004. Table 6. Asylum decisions in 2002-2004 Year Asylum Dublin Dublin decisions decisions % process (days) 2002 3334 344 10 160 2003 3320 479 14 162 2004 4764 1611 24 84 Suorce: Directorate of Immigration In 2004, the number of Dublin cases increased substantially due to the Eurodac-system. In 2003, 479 of the total 3 320 asylum applications were Dublin cases which amounted to 14%. 9 of 22

In 2004, the percentage increased up to 34% of all asylum applications, i.e., 1611 of a total of 4764 asylum applications were Dublin cases. c) When compared with the previous year, can you observe changes in the statuses regularly granted to particular citizenship groups? How do you explain these changes or continuity? There were no specific changes in policy or legislations that would have had an impact on the statuses granted to individual citizenship groups. On should also note, that all asylum applications are examined individually, and there are no governmental guidelines that would guide the decision making by, for example, stating that certain citizenships are granted/denied protection. 2) Contextual interpretations (legal, political and international factors) a) New or amended laws effective in 2004 (and 2003) Please describe briefly any new or amended laws on asylum and relevant case law effective in 2004 (and 2003). Have there been important changes in comparison with the previous year? Finland carried out a total reform of the Aliens Act. The new Aliens Act entered into force on 1 st May 2004. The previous Act dated from 1991 and included a number of amendments that had weakened its readability. No changes were made to the content of provisions on international protection. The wording of the provisions was, however, made more precise, and the structure of the chapter clarified. The legislative amendment to the former Aliens Act concerning asylum procedures entered into force in July 2000. The amendment was passed by the Parliament by a clear majority of votes. The amendment of 2000 aimed to speed up the asylum procedures so that the number of unfounded applications would drop. Before the legislative amendment, a large number of asylum seekers had come to Finland from such EU candidate (at that time) states as Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. After the legislative amendment, the number of applicants from the states concerned fell sharply, so this aim was achieved. In the total reform the content of asylum procedures was mainly kept identical with the past law. Efforts were made to clarify the structure of these provisions, for example so that the situations to which the accelerated procedure can be applied are stated in one section. This makes it easier to have an overview of different asylum procedures. b) Procedural changes effective in 2004 (and 2003) 10 of 22

Please explain briefly administrative or legal changes in the application, decision, or appeals process contributing to any numerical changes. Have there been important changes in comparison with the previous year? The reason for the increase of asylum decisions was probably due to a project aiming at improving operational efficiency of the Directorate of Immigration. c) Can you identify European / international factors explaining certain changes regarding asylum trends in 2004 (and 2003) in your Member State? Has the situation changed in comparison with the previous year? 11 of 22

C. ILLEGAL ENTRY 1) Analysis and interpretation of statistics a) Please describe developments/trends pertaining to the number of refused aliens in 2004 (and 2003) in comparison to the previous year. Have there been changes in the main countries of citizenship of refused aliens since the previous year? If possible, give reasons for these changes/continuity. The total number of refused aliens decreased in 2004 from 2 910 persons in 2003 to 1 533 persons in 2004. There were no major changes in countries of citizenship of the refused aliens. There were only two more significant groups, both of them geographical neighbours. The largest citizenship group was in both years Russia. The number of refused Russians was in 2003, 1 583 and in 2004, 1 101. According to the Finnish Border Guard, the decrease in Russians is due to the rise of general law-obedience: The smuggling of alcohol and tobacco has decreased and the general financial resources have approved. The second largest group was in both years Estonia. The number of Estonians decreased significantly in 2004 from 802 to 212 persons. This was due to Estonia becoming a member of the European Union on 1 st May 2004. A different legislation is now applied to them since Estonians are no longer thirdcountry nationals and they are treated as citizens of the European Union. In 2003, Lithuania (128 persons) and Latvia (105 persons) were also a bit larger groups. The rest were significantly smaller groups: Unknown (74 persons), China (28 persons), Poland (24 persons), Ukraine (23 persons), Romania (15 persons), Syria Arab republic (15 persons) and others (113 persons). In 2004, all groups were quite small despite the biggest two: China (42 persons), Lithuania (33 persons), stateless (26 persons), Latvia (16 persons), Poland (14 persons), unknown (14 persons), Belarus (9 persons), Ukraine (9 persons) and others (57 persons). The number of Chinese reflects the proportion in passenger traffic. The number of refused aliens from Somalia, Georgia and China has increased the most in total figures during 2003 and 2005. b) Please describe developments/trends pertaining to the number of apprehended aliens in 2004 (and 2003) in comparison to the previous year. Have there been changes in the main countries of citizenship of apprehended aliens in 2004 (and 2003)? If possible, give reasons for these changes/continuity. 12 of 22

There was an increase in the number of aliens apprehended in 2004 compared to the previous year. In 2003, 1 588 illegally present aliens were apprehended. In 2004, the figure increased with almost 50 % to 2 949 aliens (Table 7). The top-10 countries are approximately the same. Serbia and Montenegro (in 2003 under the name of Yugoslavia Fed.Rep.) continued to be the largest country or origin in both years (Table 8). Table 7. Apprehended aliens illegally present by main countries of citizenship, 2004 (source: Eurostat) Total TOTAL 2 949 Serbia and Montenegro 397 Somalia 245 ex-yugoslavia (*) 223 Unknown 215 FYR of Macedonia 195 Bulagria 168 Afghanistan 159 Russia 146 Iraq 112 Romania 106 Others 983 Table 8. Apprehended aliens illegally present by main countries of citizenship, 2003 (source: Eurostat) Total Total 1 588 Yugoslavia, Federal Rep. of *) 311 Iraq 115 Turkey 108 Estonia 93 Russian Federation 84 Somalia 68 Nigeria 65 Romania 60 Unknown 58 Poland 49 Others 577 c) Please describe developments/trends pertaining to the number of aliens removed in 2004 (and 2003) in comparison to the previous year. Have there been changes in the main 13 of 22

countries of citizenship of removed aliens? If possible, explain the underlying factors for these changes/continuity. The number of aliens has remained quite stable. In 2004, it was 2 775 and in 2003 the number was 2773. Russia has continued to be the largest country of origin. See the charts below for detailed information. Table 9. Annual total removed aliens by main countries of citizenship, 2004 (source: Eurostat) Citizenship Total TOTAL 2 775 Russia 750 Croatia 208 ex Yugoslavia 183 Slovak Republic 161 Estonia 134 China 129 Turkey 112 Romania 76 Ukraine 76 FYR of Macedonia 67 Others 879 Table 10. Annual total removed aliens by main countries of citizenship, 2003 (source: Eurostat) Citizenship Total Total 2 773 Russian Federation 919 Estonia 264 Bulgaria 237 Bosnia and Herzegovina 123 Ukraine 103 Yugoslavia, Federal Rep. of 99 Turkey 92 Poland 74 Belarus 64 Unknown 64 Others 734 d) In cases of refused, apprehended, and removed aliens in 2004 (and 2003), are these from the same countries in all categories, or are particular citizenship groups more common in a particular category? If possible, explain the underlying causes. 14 of 22

The figures of the apprehended alien also reflect the citizenship groups that have applied asylum. The groups are approximately the same. 2) Contextual interpretations (legal, political and international factors) a) New or amended laws influencing irregular immigration in 2004 (and 2003) Please explain the most important changes in policies regarding refusal of entry or return from the previous year. Finland carried out a total reform of the Aliens Act. The new Aliens Act entered into force on May 1st, 2004. A new chapter on carriers duties and responsibilities was added to the Aliens Act. The chapter includes provisions on the duty imposed on carriers to return aliens and on sanctions imposed on carriers. When Finland acceded to the Schengen Convention, it undertook to introduce provisions in accordance with article 26 of the Convention on carriers responsibility to return aliens and on penalties to be imposed on carriers. In addition, the Council of the European Union adopted a directive on 28 June 2001 on complementing the provisions of article 26 of the Schengen Convention (2001/51/EC). The Council Directive specifies the content of the duties imposed on carriers. Formally, Finland fulfilled the duties imposed on it, but in practice no penalties were imposed on carriers. Therefore, provisions were added to the Aliens Act to enable imposing penalties also in practice. The basic principles for the financial penalties imposed on carriers comply with the Council Directive. The aim is to improve the implementation of the Schengen Convention in practice, to combat illegal immigration and to emphasise the supervisory role of carriers transporting third country nationals. b) Procedural changes influencing irregular immigration in 2004 (and 2003) Please describe modifications to the procedure in cases of identified illegal entry, illegal residence and return since the previous year. Include changes that are the result of both administrative and legal developments. c) Can you identify European / international factors explaining certain changes/continuity regarding illegal entry in 2004 (and 2003) in your Member State? The fact that Estonia and other Baltic states became members of the European Union has influenced the way the police supervises the compliance of the Aliens Act. Monitoring carried out by the police in addition to basic police work has been adopted as the principal method of inland immigration monitoring. Inland immigration monitoring is an integral part of basic police work and it is carried out by every police officer working in the field as part of the normal measures for monitoring public order and security or for imposing traffic controls and 15 of 22

as specific theme monitoring. Furthermore, more efficient measures are taken to monitor the use of illegal foreign labour. In 2004, a project unit was established at the National Bureau of Investigation to monitor the use of illegal foreign labour; later, the unit achieved permanent status. The unit has 25 employees. The expansion of the European Union can also be seen in the statistics of refused and apprehended aliens by nationality. 16 of 22

ANNEXES Annex 1, Asylum applicants by citizenship (source: The Directorate of Immigration) ASYLUM APPLICANTS 2003-2004 2003 2004 Afghanistan 51 166 Albania 58 61 Algeria 38 31 Angola 45 38 Armenia 33 43 Azerbaijan 34 25 Bangladesh 12 31 Belarus 46 58 Belize Benin Bosnia-Hercegovina 74 115 British National Overseas Bulgaria 287 238 Burundi 1 Cambodia 2 Cameroon 9 7 Chad Chile 1 China 26 37 Colombia 1 1 Congo Congo Dem. Rep. 38 46 Côte d lvoire 2 4 Croatia 174 13 Cuba 11 2 Czech Rebublik 41 5 Ecuador 3 Egypt 2 2 Eritrea 1 6 Estonia 1 2 Ethiopia 12 18 France Gabon Gambia 3 1 Georgia 26 93 Ghana 15 3 Guinea 4 3 Guinea 1 Honduras Hungary 11 India 6 5 Iran 47 99 Iraq 150 123 Ireland 1 Israel 7 3 Jemen 1 Jordan 5 1 Kazakhstan 7 28 Korea, Republic of 1 Kyrgyzstan 5 9 Latvia 13 3 Lebanon 3 6 Liberia 8 6 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 10 15 Lithuania 31 3 Macedonia 83 279 Madagascar 1 Mauritania 3 Moldova 49 42 Mongolia 8 1 Morocco 8 3 Myanmar 2 Nepal 3 2 Nicaragua 1 17 of 22

Nigeria 77 92 Pakistan 5 5 Peru 2 1 Poland 11 2 Romania 109 132 Russia 289 215 Rwanda 4 6 Saudi-Arabia 1 Senegal 5 Serbia and Montenegro 285 693 Sierra Leone 15 5 Slovakia 85 341 Somalia 91 253 South Africa Soviet Union * 3 2 Sri Lanka 14 11 Stateless 37 28 Sudan 1 5 Syria 39 15 Tajikistan 4 Tanzania Togo 2 1 Tunisia 4 1 Turkey 185 140 Turkmenistan 3 1 Uganda 1 1 Ukraine 49 32 United States 1 Unknown 17 36 Uzbekistan 14 7 Venezuela 1 Vietnam 2 Yugoslavia * 126 45 Yugoslavia Fed.Republic 234 99 Zaire 2 Zimbabwe 2 Total persons 3221 3861 18 of 22

Annex 2. Statuses granted to each citizenship group in 2003 (source: The Directorate of Immigration) DECISIONS ON ASYLUM 01.01. - 31.12. 2003 Convention Residence permit Total Rejected Manifestly Total Annulment Total COUNTRY Status need for other positive unfounded negative protection grounds Afghanistan 5 12 17 15 15 6 38 Albania 5 5 19 16 35 5 45 Algeria 8 8 34 9 43 10 61 Angola 7 16 23 21 1 22 1 46 Armenia 10 1 11 2 13 Azerbaijan 4 4 8 29 29 5 42 Bangladesh 7 7 61 1 62 6 75 Belarus 10 10 31 12 43 9 62 Bosnia- Hercegovina 28 28 105 92 197 32 257 Bulgaria 10 360 370 32 402 Burundi 1 1 1 1 1 3 Cambodia 1 1 1 Cameroon 1 5 6 5 5 11 Chad 1 1 1 China 5 5 Congo 4 4 4 4 8 Congo Dem. Rep. 3 16 19 26 1 27 6 52 Croatia 17 100 117 5 122 Côte d Ivoire 3 3 1 4 Cuba 1 1 7 1 8 9 Czech Rebublik 23 11 34 4 38 Egypt 1 1 1 Ethiopia 2 3 5 3 3 8 Gambia 1 1 2 3 Germany 1 1 1 Georgia 1 1 6 1 7 1 9 Ghana 2 2 1 8 9 11 Guinea 3 3 3 Hungary 3 3 3 India 2 2 4 1 5 1 8 Iran 3 6 30 39 34 34 6 79 Iraq 9 12 21 32 1 33 14 68 Israel 1 1 2 1 3 Jordan 1 1 5 5 1 7 Kazakstan 1 1 2 8 8 10 Kenya 1 1 Kyrgyzstan 4 4 8 8 Latvia - Lettland 3 6 9 3 12 Lebanon 1 1 1 2 Liberia 1 1 1 2 Libyan 2 2 4 1 1 4 9 Lithuania 12 1 13 13 Macedonia 3 3 12 3 15 3 21 Moldova 3 3 6 12 18 9 30 Mongolia 3 2 5 5 Morocco 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 10 Nepal 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 Nigeria 1 4 5 24 2 26 6 37 Pakistan 1 1 2 9 1 10 12 Peru 4 4 1 5 Phillippines 1 1 1 Poland 13 13 13 Romania 9 72 81 34 115 19 of 22

Russia 1 13 14 8 205 213 33 260 Rwanda 2 1 3 3 Saudi Arabia 1 1 1 Senegal 1 1 2 3 5 Serbia and Montenegro 16 30 46 3 49 Sierra Leone 1 1 11 11 2 14 Slovakia 1 1 77 25 102 10 113 Somalia 61 14 75 4 4 14 93 South Africa 1 1 Soviet Union* 1 1 1 Sri Lanka 2 4 6 4 4 5 15 Stateless 11 11 11 2 13 7 31 Sudan 1 1 1 2 Syrien 4 7 11 11 2 13 3 27 Tanzania 1 1 2 3 Togo 3 3 7 7 10 Tunisia 1 1 1 2 Turkey 1 4 51 56 121 66 187 18 261 Turkmenistan 1 2 3 3 Uganda 1 1 1 Ukraine 5 5 48 32 80 11 96 Uzbekistan 1 1 8 4 12 1 14 Unknown 1 2 3 16 6 22 2 27 Yugoslavia * 1 19 20 64 57 121 13 154 Yugoslavia Fed. Republic 13 31 44 115 134 249 31 324 Total 7 142 345 494 1152 1291 2443 383 3320 * former 20 of 22

Annex 3, Statuses granted to each citizenship group in 2004 (source: The Directorate of Immigration DECISIONS 01.01. - 31.12.2004 ON ASYLUM Positive decision Negative decision Safe Safe Convention Need for Other Family Residence Total Rejected COUNTRY country country Dublin Manifes Status protection grounds member permit * positive of of origin asylum unfound Afghanistan 2 18 12 1 33 90 Albania 6 6 12 49 16 Algeria 1 1 18 10 4 Angola 25 22 1 48 8 6 Armenia 3 3 6 25 1 Azerbaijan 6 4 11 21 4 8 Bangladesh 2 4 6 19 2 4 Belarus 1 1 2 11 32 8 Bhutan 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 14 1 19 12 95 17 Bulgaria 13 149 Cambodia 1 1 1 Cameroon 1 3 6 10 5 1 1 China 1 8 5 1 15 5 4 11 2 Colombia 1 Congo dem. rep. 4 10 15 29 46 6 Côte d'ivoire (Ivory Coast) 1 1 3 Croatia 1 2 47 Cuba 1 1 2 5 1 2 Czech Republic 6 Ecuador Egypt 1 1 Eritrea 1 1 3 Estonia 1 Ethiopia 1 2 4 7 9 Gambia 1 Georgia 3 78 6 Germany 1 1 Ghana 2 2 4 8 Guinea 1 1 2 2 Hungary India 5 2 Iran 14 22 1 37 60 14 1 Iraq 7 180 5 15 207 2 52 Ireland 1 Israel 1 2 Jordan 2 Kazakstan 7 11 2 Kyrgyzstan 2 2 1 8 Latvia 3 Lebanon 1 Liberia 3 3 5 3 Libya 2 2 3 5 Lithuania 1 10

Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) 2 2 32 172 20 Madagascar 1 Mauritania 1 Moldova (Moldavia) 3 3 5 16 6 Mongolia 1 4 Morocco 2 2 2 2 Mozambique 1 1 Myanmar [Burma] 1 1 Nepal 1 1 1 Nicaragua 1 Nigeria 7 6 13 66 27 5 Pakistan 2 Peru 2 Poland Republic of Korea 1 Republic of the Congo 4 1 5 2 1 Romania 1 1 17 100 Russia 10 3 39 9 61 23 54 80 Rwanda 2 2 3 Senegal 3 Serbia and Montenegro 11 19 30 88 475 87 Sierra Leone 10 1 11 4 2 1 Slovakia 4 294 5 32 Somalia 77 5 1 2 81 81 Sri Lanka 1 2 1 4 7 5 Stateless 1 6 1 8 18 13 4 Sudan 1 Syria 1 9 10 14 1 3 Tajikistan 4 4 Togo 1 1 3 Tunisia 1 Turkey 1 3 15 17 36 115 63 46 Turkmenistan 1 Uganda 1 1 1 1 Ukraine 1 1 13 10 32 Unknown 1 1 4 6 9 13 7 Uzbekistan 5 5 Venezuela 1 1 Vietnam 1 1 1 Yemen 1 Yugoslavia 2 43 4 49 50 105 52 Zimbabwe 1 1 2 TOTAL 29 206 464 74 27 800 733 322 0 1611 752 * Temporary residence permit, actual removal impossible 22 of 22