Violation of the right to be heard (HL §34). Under Finnish administrative law, before issuing a negative decision Migri must give the applicant the opportunity to be heard. Migri did not request your payslips or invite a response before deciding. This is a direct breach of HL §34.

Reasoning standard (HL §45). The decision's "insufficient employment continuity" reason lacks specifics. KHO 2022:84 held that vague reasoning without facts is itself an independent ground for quashing.

Substantive: UlkL §54. Continuous employment is one of several factors under §54, not the sole criterion. A signed ongoing contract weighs in favour of granting the extension.

1. File appeal to Administrative Court (HAO) within 30 days under UlkL §190.
2. Lead with procedural violation — §34 HL — and cite KHO 2022:84 as primary authority.
3. Attach: payslips, employment contract, employer letter on role continuity.
4. Request oral hearing under HPL §57 to present employment evidence.