Author
Competence for taking decisions on the cessation of international protection lies with the Ministry in charge of Migration on the basis of a proposal put forward by the Board of AIMA.[1] The representative of UNHCR or CPR shall be informed of the declaration of loss of the right to international protection.[2]
The Asylum Act establishes the grounds for cessation of international protection.[3] Regarding refugee status, the right to asylum ceases when the foreign national or stateless person:[4]
- Decides to voluntarily accept the protection of the country of their nationality;[5]
- Voluntarily reacquires their nationality after having lost it;[6]
- Acquires a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of the newly acquired nationality;[7]
- Returns voluntarily to the country they left or outside which they had remained for fear of persecution;[8]
- Cannot continue to refuse the protection of the country of nationality or habitual residence, since the circumstances due to which they were recognised as a refugee no longer exist;[9] or
- Expressly renounces to the right to asylum.[10]
Regarding subsidiary protection, the right ceases when the circumstances resulting in said protection no longer exist or have changed to such an extent that the protection is no longer necessary.[11]
The grounds relating to a change in circumstances justifying the cessation of refugee status or subsidiary protection can only be applied if AIMA concludes that the change in circumstances in the country of origin or habitual residence is significant and durable to exclude a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm.[12] Furthermore, this cessation ground is without prejudice to the principle of non-refoulement,[13] and is not applicable to refugees who are able to invoke imperative reasons related to prior persecution to refuse to avail themselves of the protection of the country of their nationality or habitual residence.[14] The latter safeguard is only explicitly provided in the Asylum Act for refugees, failing to adequately transpose Article 16(3) of the Qualification Directive.
AIMA is required to notify the beneficiary of protection of the intended cessation in order to allow them to exercise the right to an adversarial hearing in writing within 8 days.[15]
A decision on cessation is subject to a judicial appeal with suspensive effect.[16] In the absence of specific provisions, it should be understood that beneficiaries of international protection are entitled to apply for free legal aid at appeal stage under the same conditions as nationals as legal aid is an integral part of the social security system (see Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).[17]
Cessation of international protection results in the applicability of the Immigration Act to former beneficiaries,[18] according to which an individual whose refugee status has ceased is entitled to a temporary residence permit without the need to present a residence visa,[19] even though other requirements such as a travel document, accommodation, and income still apply.
Cessation of subsidiary protection has become increasingly relevant in recent years, with decisions recorded between 2021 and 2022, notably involving Ukrainian nationals.[20] According to the information provided by AIMA, no cessation decisions were taken in the course of 2025. Yet, CPR is aware of at least one case where the authorities notified a beneficiary of international protection of intended cessation of status in 2025.
In the past, CPR observed several shortcomings in cessation proceedings, including the lack of renewal of residence permits while proceedings were pending and poor quality assessments of changes in circumstances, with the same information used across cases without individualised analysis. From the limited cases observed under AIMA, the entity’s approach appears to follow a similar pattern.
Following the invasion of Ukraine, cessation procedures concerning Ukrainian nationals where a final decision had not yet been adopted were to be reviewed. CPR has no further information on the implementation of this measure. According to AIMA, the Agency does not have a specific formal policy for the reassessment of cessation cases.
Moreover, CPR identified that, in cases of family reunification procedures where the sponsor acquires Portuguese nationality, it is AIMA’s practice not to renew residence permits for reunited family members and instead refer them to the law regulating the free movement and residence of EU citizens and their families in the national territory[21] or to the regularisation regime under the Immigration Act. Among other requirements, both regimes involve the presentation of documents from their country of origin, such as proof of family ties and valid passports.
This practice, which AIMA confirmed to CPR,[22] stems from the fact that family members are considered to have been granted an extension of the right to international protection which, with the sponsor’s acquisition of Portuguese nationality, ceases and is therefore no longer extended to them.
CPR also identified the same practice in cases of child beneficiaries, who have gone through the asylum procedure in Portugal and whose granting of international protection was not previously considered autonomous but rather an extension of that of the adult. It seems that the same rationale for cessation applied to family reunification cases applies here.
In cases assisted by CPR, children and other family members were not notified of any decision to cease the extension of international protection and therefore had no right to an adversarial hearing nor right to judicial review of the authority’s decision. This practice is at odds with the law and raises serious concerns as it may leave children and other family members in a legal vacuum and without protection in relation to the country of origin.
National jurisprudence on cessation is limited. The existing decisions available concern subsidiary protection cessation due to a change of circumstances, and offer limited guidance. Two main general points are reinforced by such decisions:
- The burden of proof of a change in the circumstances lies with the national authorities;[23]
- A double test – sufficiency and durability – is applicable to cessation due to a change of circumstances.[24]
With regard to the sufficiency criterion, in one of the cases, the holding of an election in DRC, with a subsequent change of president was deemed as representative of a change of regime and, therefore, as sufficient within the cessation context.[25] In the other case analysed, the court concluded that the armed conflict in Ukraine, even if (at the time) limited to certain regions, its indiscriminate and long lasting impact in the civilian population, and the risk of military conscription observed when the applicant was granted subsidiary protection (2016) persisted. As such, the changes in the country of origin were deemed as insufficient to trigger cessation of subsidiary protection.[26]
With regard to durability of the change, TAF Braga considered that there has to be stability in the change, allowing the authorities to predict that it will last. The court further stated that the analysis cannot be based on a fixed timeframe, and that durability must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the case analysed, the court concluded that the change observed in DRC two years after the presidential election and change was not yet consolidated, given the information available regarding the country’s political setting. Furthermore, the court noted that the information to be considered in the analysis must be broad and go beyond the political context (for instance, information regarding the legal and judicial system must be analysed as well).[27]
[1] Article 43(1) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 43(3) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 41 (1)-(4) Asylum Act.
[4] Article 41(1) Asylum Act.
[5] Article 41(1) (a) Asylum Act.
[6] Article 41(1) (b) Asylum Act.
[7] Article 41(1) (c) Asylum Act.
[8] Article 41(1) (d) Asylum Act.
[9 Article 41(1) (e) and (f) Asylum Act.
[10] Article 41(1) (g) Asylum Act.
[11] Article 41(2) Asylum Act.
[12] Article 41(3) Asylum Act.
[13] Article 47 Asylum Act.
[14] Article 41(4) Asylum Act.
[15] Article 41(6) Asylum Act.
[16] Article 44 Asylum Act.
[17] Article 72 Asylum Act.
[18] Article 42(2) Asylum Act.
[19] Article 122(1)(f) Immigration Act. According to CPR’s experience, persons in this situation are granted a residence permit valid for 2 years, that may be renewed for periods of 3 years, under article 77 Immigration Act.
[20] For further details on previous years, see previous editions of this report.
[21] Act no. 37/2006 of 9 August, available here.
[22] Information provided by AIMA directly to CPR in August 2024 and in May 2026.
[23] TAC Lisbon, Decision 1837/21.2BELSB, 23 December 2021, not publicly available.
[24] TAF Braga, Decision 1294/21.3BEBRG, 7 October 2021, not publicly available.
[25] TAF Braga, Decision 1294/21.3BEBRG, 7 October 2021, not publicly available.
[26] TAC Lisbon, Decision 1837/21.2BELSB, 23 December 2021, not publicly available.
[27] TAF Braga, Decision 1294/21.3BEBRG, 7 October 2021, not publicly available.