Author
The procedure in place is a single procedure with the examination and determination of eligibility for refugee status, subsidiary protection and Temporary Humanitarian Protection (THP)[1] being undertaken by the International Protection Agency (IPA) within the context of the same procedure and at the same time. The language of the procedure is English. The IPA is the only entity authorised by law to receive applications for international protection. Should the individual express a need for international protection at the border, this information is passed on to the IPA for the necessary follow-up.
The registration process consists of collecting personal details and issuing a unique IPA number as well as the Asylum-seeker Document (ASD). The lodging of applications consists of completing and signing an application form stating the reasons for seeking international protection, personal and family background information, memberships and affiliations and the travel route taken to reach Malta.
Immigration and asylum procedures only commence following confirmation by the Health Authorities that applicants have been screened and found not to suffer from any contagious disease (namely COVID-19 and tuberculosis). All those who apply for asylum are systematically fingerprinted and photographed by the immigration authorities for insertion into the Eurodac database. In 2024 this procedure, conducted by the Immigration Police, moved to the IPA premises with police officers in plainclothes. Still in 2024, applicants rescued at sea are immediately placed in detention on health grounds, and subsequently fingerprinted and photographed. Other applicants, namely persons who had entered Malta through other means than following a rescue operation, are directed to the health authorities following their initial contact with IPA, and in 2023 and 2024 some applicants were detained following this initial contact.
Following the initial health-based detention, or often simultaneously, the Principal Immigration Officer (PIO) decides whether the applicant should remain detained or be released, as described below in the relevant section on Legal framework of detention.
Dublin assessments are conducted for all cases and, if necessary, an interview with the Dublin Unit is scheduled. If required, the examination of the application for protection is suspended pending the outcome of the Dublin procedure. The IPA CEO is designated as the head of the Dublin Unit.
Following the initial collection of information in the application form, and if Malta is deemed responsible for processing the application, the IPA schedules an appointment for an interview with the applicant. After the recorded interview takes place, the applicant is informed that they will be notified of the decision in due course. No interviews are scheduled for applicants claiming to be unaccompanied children until an age assessment procedure is finalised and, if necessary, a guardian is appointed. JRS reported that, in certain individual cases, the appeals stage of the age assessment procedure lasted for more than two years.
A more experienced officer or manager reviews the caseworkers’ decision on the application and the IPA makes the final decision.[2] According to information provided by the Ministry of Ministry of Home Affairs, Security and Employment, as of 2024 each decision is reviewed by a minimum of 2 officials (a Senior Protection officer and a Manager), and may, depend on the circumstances of the case, also be reviewed by the IPA’s Quality Control Unit before being forwarded to the IPA’s CEO for final approval.[3]
According to the amended Procedural Regulations, the IPA shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded within six-months of the lodging of the application. The examination procedure shall not exceed the maximum time limit of twenty-one months from the lodging of the application.[4] However, most of the decisions by the IPA are, in practice, not taken before the period of time established by the Regulations.
The International Protection Act provides for a right of appeal against a negative decision in the regular procedure, within a two-week time period from the day of the notification of the decision for rejected applicants to apply for an appeal.[5] Appeals against negative decisions in the accelerated procedure are generally not possible in practice due to inadmissibility, although in 2023 and 2024 IPAT accepted as admissible a very small number of appeal applications against such negative decisions.
Appeals are to be filed before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), an administrative tribunal which is currently operating in a one-chamber composition of one Chairperson and three Board Members. Appeals to the Tribunal have suspensive effect, which guarantees that an asylum applicant may not be removed from Malta prior to a final decision being taken on their appeal.[6] The Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure, and its decisions are binding on the parties. The Tribunal may not remit cases processed under the regular procedure back to the IPA for a new decision and must take a decision itself; however, the law does allow the Tribunal to refer an application back to the IPA for either cases processed under an accelerated procedure or applications deemed inadmissible by the IPA, when following review of the case and appeal the Tribunal does not agree with the IPA’s conclusion: it can in such cases order the IPA to respectively examine the case under a normal procedure or declare the application admissible (and thus resume examination on the merits). In 2024 IPAT referred three cases back to the IPA.[7] By law, the Tribunal must decide within a total of six months of the appeal, and this can only be extended for a further 6 months in exceptional circumstances.[8] In practice however, the IPAT takes on average more than two years to decide on appeals. It is noted that the IPAT is housed within the Home Affairs Ministry and its members are all effectively appointed by the Prime Minister.
The International Protection Act specifies that no appeal is possible from the decision of the IPAT[9], and the Home Affairs Minister has not yet brought the IPAT under the provisions of the Administrative Justice Act.[10] Procedural issues could be the subject of an application before the Civil Court (First Hall). A human rights claim to the Civil Court (First Hall) in its Constitutional jurisdiction alleging a violation of fundamental human rights in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and/or the Maltese Constitution is available should the rejected appellant be faced with a return that is prejudicial to their rights. Finally, applications to the Civil Court (First Hall) for situations involving alleged breaches of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter should also be possible.
Accelerated procedures are also foreseen in national law for applications that are deemed to be manifestly unfounded, and several provisions of the accelerated procedure also apply to applications deemed inadmissible.[11] Applicants whose case is deemed to be inadmissible because of existing protection in another Member States are usually not invited to an interview.
In such cases, the case file (application form, interview transcript, documentary evidence submitted by the applicant, etc) and decision of the IPA is automatically transmitted to the IPAT Chairperson, who must assess and review the decision of the IPA within three days.[12]
Within the scope of this procedure, applicants are not entitled to appeal against the decision and no provision provides for the right to express their views by way of written or oral submissions. No hearing is held and the IPAT Chair’s decision is generally taken before applicants are notified of their first instance rejection. The decision generally consists of a one-page document confirming the IPA’s decision. The law provides that when the IPAT does not confirm the decision, the case must be remitted back to IPA for a new decision to be issued, however this is a scenario that rarely happens.
The asylum procedure and return procedures are not automatically linked in law. In practice however, they are indeed linked as practitioners have confirmed in 2024 ongoing communications between the IPA, the IPAT, the PIO and, at times, the Detention Services Agency (DSA) regarding pending applications, particularly of applicants coming from countries deemed safe.
Applicants granted subsidiary protection at first instance have the right to appeal this decision according to the regular procedure. [13] Additionally, rejected applicants can apply to THP within a separated procedure at any time[14] and their status will be considered as rejected asylum-applicants until a decision is issued.
The law provides that no appeal can be filed against a decision of the IPA not to grant THP.[15]
The law foresees the possibility to file a subsequent application. Few subsequent applications pass the stage of admissibility, and most are rejected as inadmissible. Inadmissible subsequent applications are channelled through the accelerated procedure as presented above and the review of the IPAT generally confirms the IPA’s decisions. Between 2021 and 2025, applicants with a subsequent application deemed inadmissible were not entitled to access the labour market; this was a policy decision, that was reversed in early 2025.
IPA reports that in 2023 it received 600 asylum applications, of which 491 were first applications, 76 were subsequent and 33 were new applications. 833 cases remained pending at the end of the year. The majority of applicants were Syrian nationals, and of the IPA decisions: 18 recognised refugee status; 241 cases of subsidiary protection; 6 granted THP; 70 dismissed as inadmissible; and 616 rejected.
In 2022, protection was mainly granted to Eritreans (31%), Syrians (50%) and Libyans (6%) followed by Sudanese and Palestinians (2% each).[16] In 2023, eight Syrians, two Pakistanis and one Bangladeshi, Sudanese and Somali were recognised as refugees, whilst 161 Syrians, 51 Eritreans and 28 Somalis were granted subsidiary protection.
[1] THP is a form of national protection regulated by Article 17A of the International Protection Act and awarded to applicants for international protection who does not qualify for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, but who is deemed to qualify for protection on humanitarian grounds (see National forms of protection).
[2] ECRE, Asylum authorities: an overview of internal structures and available resources, October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2Ut8QIK, 55.
[3] Information provided by the Ministry of Ministry of Home Affairs, Security and Employment on 24 July 2025, see annex to the report.
[4] Regulation 6(6) Procedural Regulations, S.L.S.L. 420.07.
[5] Article 7(2) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[6] Regulation 12 of the Procedural Regulations, S.L.S.L. 420.07.
[7] Articles 7(9) and 7(11) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[8] Article 7(7) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[9] Article 7(10) International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[10] Administrative Justice Act, Chapter 490 , available at: https://tinyurl.com/49j3d8nu.
[11] Articles 23 and 24 of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[12] Articles 23(3) and 24(2) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[13] Article 17A (3) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[14] Article 17A (1) of the International Protection Act, Chapter 420.
[15] Ibidem.
[16] UNHCR, Malta Fact Sheet, December 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3IZf2Ai.