Identification

Author

aditus Visit Website

Visit Website

In terms of the Reception Regulations, vulnerable individuals include minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms or psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation.[1]

The Regulations provide that the identification of vulnerable applicants must be carried out by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum-seekers (AWAS) in conjunction with other authorities as necessary and that the vulnerability assessment must be initiated within a reasonable period of time after an application for international protection has been lodged.[2] AWAS’ assessment of vulnerability does not occur in the context of the asylum procedure but rather for the purpose of identifying suitable reception conditions, particularly in relation to detention and provision of psycho-social support.

The amendments of December 2021 (Legal Notice 487 of 2021) introduced new provisions for vulnerable applicants to the Reception Regulations, which now transposes the Directive more faithfully, as they include a more comprehensive implementation of provisions related to the material reception conditions of vulnerable individuals and the guardianship and care of minors (see Special Reception Needs of Vulnerable People and Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Minors).

Furthermore, applicants are also screened by the IPA at the moment of lodging the application in order to assess whether the applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees. [3] The IPA confirmed that, in 2024, five applicants were identified as vulnerable, coming from the following countries: Colombia (1), Palestine (2), Syria (1) and Venezuela (1).[4] Data on 2025 was not made available as of early May 2026.

In January 2024, UNHCR provided training to 11 IPA staff members on gender-based violence as a ground for international protection.[5]

Screening of vulnerability

Vulnerability assessments and age assessments are carried out by the Assessment Team (AT) of AWAS, The AT will carry out assessments on referral from other governmental entities, UNHCR and NGOs, including for people in detention.

AWAS is present at the point of disembarkation and conduct a prima facie vulnerability assessment for new arrivals. Persons identified as vulnerable at this stage are flagged to the PIO, as the assessment will affect decisions relating to the person’s detention. Persons identified as vulnerable are generally released from detention after a couple of days. Since all persons are automatically detained following disembarkation, a more in-depth assessment of other persons is generally conducted at a later stage, either in detention or in the open centres.

The AT will undertake an assessment whenever a person who potentially falls within the vulnerable profiles referred to in the Regulation is referred to them. These referrals can be done by the IPA, the PIO or NGOs visiting people in detention or reception centres. A referral form is made available to NGOs.

Since 2024, AWAS is wholly responsible for conducting vulnerability assessments

The team operates both in reception centres and in detention centres. It uses new and updated tools created jointly with the EUAA.

Vulnerability is assessed on 4 levels:

• being a very urgent support need, L1: Urgent (immediate follow up/on the spot) – Risk of self-harm, Risk of harm to others, Suicidal Ideations, Life-threatening issues;
• being in need of medical support, L2: high priority (within 0-3 days) – Severe Trauma, Victims of THB, Urgent medical attention;
• being in need of medical but not urgent, L3: medium priority (within 2 weeks from the date of assessment) – Important medical appointments and other medical issues, counselling, psychologist;
• being a need in terms of housing and education, L4: low priority (within a month from the date of referral) – Issues of employment, education and housing.

Following the assessment, a report is produced, and recommendations are made in relation to the need or otherwise of special reception conditions or procedural guarantees in the asylum procedure.

It is noted that the AWAS assessments and recommendations are not binding for the PIO and the IPA, which is particularly relevant in the context of detention.

Lawyers and NGOs reported that throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025 they faced serious challenges to obtain the vulnerability assessments from AWAS, despite these being shared with other Government entities such as the Immigration Police and the IPA. As such, NGOs and lawyers are unable to monitor or assess the effectiveness of the authorities in implementing the recommendations of the reports and are unable to effectively refer to relevant vulnerability issues in the context of the asylum procedure. In 2024 Malta’s Information and Data Protection Commissioner upheld an applicant’s complaint that access to vulnerability assessments constitutes a protected right under GDPR legislation, and ordered AWAS to ensure access to all documentation.

NGOs and lawyers reported that the assessments do not always mention clearly whether the individual is considered to be vulnerable and AWAS is generally reluctant to clarify. This leads to situations where vulnerable individuals are kept in detention despite clearly belonging to one of the categories above.

Data on 2025 was not made available at the national level as of early May 2026. In 2024, 69 persons underwent a full vulnerability assessment, but no information is available as to whether they were in detention during the assessment, or otherwise. Information is also not available as to when the assessments were conducted. 69 decisions were taken, as follows:[6]

The vulnerability screening is not regulated by clear and publicly available rules. Where a referral is rejected, the individual concerned is not always informed of the decision; where the decision is communicated, it is rarely communicated in writing and no reasons are given to the individual concerned. In terms of Regulation 16 of the Reception Regulations, an appeal against a vulnerability assessment procedure should be available to applicants, yet in the absence of the Agency’s reports and conclusions this is difficult to implement.

According to the Home Affairs Ministry, there is indeed no positive or negative decision following a vulnerability screening, but migrants are asked if they would like to receive further support, and, if they agree, they are referred to the psychosocial unit within AWAS.

The length of time taken to conclude assessment procedures varies.

NGOs confirmed that since 2023, the PIO is more reluctant to release vulnerable applicants from detention, noting the authorities’ reliance on the increased provision of services within Safi detention centre, including mental health services. It was noted that this occurred in parallel to the adoption of Legal Notice 87, essentially codifying the detention of vulnerable persons. They also noted that 2023 saw a revision of AWAS’ remit to exclude rejected asylum applicants, effectively leaving this group of persons without the possibility to have their needs assessed and, if vulnerable, to receive any form of support or care.

In 2024 a Bangladeshi LGBTI+ applicant filed an application before the ECtHR alleging violation of Articles 3 and 5, in which they flagged the PIO’s refusal to order their release from detention despite several reports, including prepared by AWAS, confirming their severe vulnerability.[7] The application remains pending at the time of writing (January 2026).

Asylum applicants arriving regularly are not automatically screened by AWAS and their vulnerability may never be identified unless referred by Government entities, NGOs or UNHCR.

Per the latest GRETA report by the Council of Europe, published in May 2026, there “is no systematic vulnerability screening in reception or detention centres because the AWAS assessment team is severely understaffed” with just two assessors available during GRETA’s visit (including one of maternity leave), compared to a team of 13 during GRETA’s previous visit, when the EUAA was supporting vulnerability assessments. GRETA also highlighted that ‘Initial assessments by AWAS upon disembarkation are limited to visible vulnerabilities, such as unaccompanied children or persons with disabilities’ and that the IPA’s vulnerability assessments ”rely mainly on obvious signs or applicants’ self-disclosures.[8]

Age assessment of unaccompanied children

At the outset, it is underlined that Malta does not adopt the presumption of minor age for persons claiming to be minors. This was flagged as a concern in cases before the ECtHR and the national courts in the context of their detention and lack of specialised care and support.[9]

Unaccompanied asylum-seekers who declare that they are below the age of 18 upon arrival or during the asylum procedure are referred to AWAS for age assessment. Persons claiming to be adults but who, in the opinion of AWAS on first encounter, appear to be children, are also referred to the age assessment procedure. The Minor Protection (Alternative Care) Act[10] provides that persons claiming to be unaccompanied minors should be immediately referred to the PIO for onward referral to the Director of the Child Protection Services.

The Director is responsible for filing a request for a provisional Care Order to the Maltese Courts, which should be issued within 72 hours. The Care Order stipulates that the Head of AWAS is responsible for the care and custody of the minors. The Unit Leader of the Unaccompanied Minors Services within AWAS assigns the representative, who in turn delegates the responsibility to the social workers within the same unit. The Act further specifies that the Director should refer the applicants to age assessment procedures and other investigations in order to ascertain whether they really are unaccompanied children.

If, following these procedures, it transpires that the child is indeed found to be an unaccompanied minor, the Director will file applications before the Court for the issuance of the Care Order and for the appointment of a legal guardian.

After years in which practitioners and NGOs lamented the fact that AWAS lacked independence in the way it simultaneously conducted age assessments, provided legal guardianship and secured accommodation for UAMs, it can be observed that currently there is a higher degree of separation of these responsibilities amongst the Agency’s various units.

Age Assessments are conducted by the AWAS’ Assessment Team (AT), also responsible for vulnerability assessments. AWAS’ UMAS Protection Unit is now strictly responsible for the care of minors confirmed as such by the AT and those who are pending age assessment decision either from the AT or at appeal. The team leader of the UMAS Protection Team is the appointed legal guardian for all minors, with each minor being also appointed a social worker of the team. NGOs remain concerned at the lack of independence of the legal guardian, being a public officer engaged by AWAS.

The age assessment consists of an interview conducted by three social workers of the AT team of AWAS and an interpreter, if required. For persons visibly under the age of 14, AWAS begins this first phase on the day immediately following their arrival. For other claims, AWAS begins two working days later and this phase must be completed by the sixth working day. If the age assessment is inconclusive, the minor may be referred for a medical examination which is a bone density test of the wrist by X-Ray carried out by the Ministry for Health according to the Greulich and Pyle method. If the panel recommends that the person is a minor, the minor is referred to the Director responsible for child protection who will file an application before the Juvenile Courts for the issuance of a Care Order and appointment or confirmation of the legal guardian.

AWAS stated that they take into account any documentation provided by the applicant or third parties, including the PIO.

In 2022 in K.J. and K.B.D., the Bangladeshi appellants challenged AWAS’ decision, which reversed a previous decision of the Agency to declare the appellants as minors, following the submission of a “photo of documentation” by the PIO which allegedly showed that the appellants were adults. The Immigration Appeals Board declared both appeals closed, noting that the Principal Immigration Officer has no locus standi in age assessment procedures and that AWAS has no competence to review its own decisions on age assessment. The Board concluded that the appellants are minors, as originally concluded by the AWAS and that they must be released and returned to the Dar Il-Liedna open shelter for unaccompanied children.[11]

Since this decision, the PIO systematically submits pictures of passports which are found in the confiscated phone of the applicants before AWAS decides on the age assessment procedure and AWAS appears to give significant weight to this evidence.

The Age Assessment Tool filled in by the panel and the transcript of the interview is not provided to applicants unless they file an appeal against the decision declaring them as adults. The decision provided to applicants is a one-page document in English mentioning the date of birth the panel decided to attribute to the applicant.

Whilst NGOs acknowledge the significant improvements in the age assessment system, they flagged the following shortcomings:

• Conflict of interest of the legal guardian, who remains a Government employee engaged by AWAS;
• No best interest assessment is carried out before the age assessment procedure;
• No sufficient information is provided to those undergoing age assessments;
• Lack of legal representation and legal assistance during the age assessment process;
• The age assessment process is generally undertaken while minors are detained, and no consideration is given to such for the purpose of the assessment;

Essentially, NGOs pointed out that the UMAS Protection Team and the Assessment Team still report to the same Senior Managers and that, since ultimately AWAS falls under the Ministry for Home Affairs, interference is inevitable.

Moreover, a substantial number of applicants are kept in detention by the PIO for the whole duration of the procedure (see Detention of vulnerable applicants). NGOs report that, in such cases, vulnerable persons face difficulties in having their vulnerability recognised and their specific needs met.

In 2024, AWAS stated that 71 persons underwent age assessment procedures, and it issued 71 decisions: 21 applicants were declared to be adults (30%), 39 as minors (55%), and 11 were not conclusive (15%). As with the vulnerability assessment procedure, no information is available as to when the age assessment was carried out, or whether these were carried out whilst the applicants were in detention. The numbers also do not include applicants who were declared to be minors at the appeals stage, by the Immigration Appeals Board. Data on 2025 was not provided at the national level.

On 12 January 2023, following an application filed by aditus foundation, the ECtHR issued an interim measure ordering Malta to ensure that six applicants claiming to be minors are provided ‘with conditions that are compatible with Article 3 of the Convention and with their status as unaccompanied minors’. The six minors had been detained with adults in the so-called China house since their arrival on 18 November 2022, some 50 days after their arrival and AWAS was not aware of their existence before they were referred by aditus foundation in January 2023 and despite a decision of the Immigration Appeals Board, dated 6 December 2022, confirming the detention of the minors but ordering the PIO to refer these applicants to AWAS.[12] Judgement by the ECtHR was delivered in October 2024, confirming that the children were exposed to treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR and that their detention was in violation of Article 5.[13] A similar decision was reached by the ECtHR in A.D. vs. Malta and by the national court in Ayoubah Fona vs The Minister for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et.[14]

Age Assessment Appeals before the Immigration Appeals Board

Regulation 17 of The Receptions Regulations provides that applicants who feel aggrieved by a decision in relation to age assessment are entitled to appeal before the Immigration Appeals Board in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Immigration Act.[15]

The Immigration Appeals Act provides that appeals must be filed within three days of the notification of the decision[16] and this stringent deadline is strictly adhered to by the Board.

No detailed procedure is established in legislation or regulations, or elsewhere in writing, for these appeals: the first stage of the proceedings includes questions to be sent by lawyers to AWAS about the age assessment report. Then, unless the appellant’s lawyer requires to ask further questions, they will be invited to send their final notes of submissions. The appellant’s lawyer may request the IAB to hold a hearing with the appellant and the social worker in charge of the assessment.[17]

According to NGOs, minors have a limited understanding of the possibility to appeal the age assessment decisions and do not receive any legal advice prior to the appeal stage. The short deadline to appeal makes this remedy difficult to access, especially for minors who are detained. In 2023 AWAS amended its notification procedures and now delivers the decision to the applicants, together with an interpreter. The decision is explained in detail and information is provided about the possibility of file an appeal. The 3-day time limit to file an appeal remains a serious challenge, particular for children in detention at the time of the negative decision. If they would have had a lawyer, generally an NGO lawyer, during the age assessment procedure, it would be easier for them to file the appeal, yet this would require them to contact the lawyer before the lapse of the mandatory time limit. Applicants without a lawyer during the procedure would need to identify one in order to file the appeal in time (see Access to detention facilities). NGOs confirmed that in the vast majority of cases, applicants provided with negative decisions inform AWAS right away of their decision to appeal, and a legal aid lawyer is appointed to handle the case.

As in previous years, for 2025, lawyers continued to report that the Immigration Appeals Board lacks the necessary expertise to evaluate appeals on age assessment with no member having any background on the matter. Despite this, the Board refuses to appoint or consult independent experts and these must be brought at the own cost of the appellants if they so wish. This has never been attempted since NGOs do not have the capacity and financial means to bring these experts. Legal aid lawyers have also not attempted to do this as such activities seem to fall outside their remit.[18] According to both aditus and JRS, in several cases the Board waited until the person came of age in order to then close the case. Both NGOs criticised the Board for issuing stereotyped two-page decisions which do not address any of the arguments raised by the appellant and make no reference to any law, jurisprudence or standards, only referring to the initial age assessment decision. Both NGOs declared that their lawyers usually filed several pages of submissions generally highlighting the shortcomings reported above.

The NGOs reported that this situation leads AWAS to make little effort to address the appellant’s pleas during the proceedings. According to them, the Agency’s lawyer usually files a one-page note of submissions.

Additionally, concerns have been expressed in relation to the independence of specialised tribunals such as the Board,[19] as its members are appointed through a procedure involving the executive power and do not enjoy the same level of independence as that of the ordinary judiciary (see Composition of the Board).

As per the Immigration Act, the decisions of the Board are final and cannot be challenged before any Court of law, save for human rights complaints before the Civil Court (First Hall). The Decisions of the Board are not published by the Board and not publicly available. aditus foundation at times publishes significant decisions relating to its clients.[20]

Legal Assistance

Following the referral by AWAS to the Child Protection Directorate, provisional Care Orders are issued, and representatives – AWAS social workers – are appointed for each person. This representative is also present during the age assessment process. Furthermore, according to the Home Affairs Ministry, before starting the process of assessing an applicant’s age, relevant information on the process is provided to the applicant in a language they understand, with the support of interpreters where necessary.

Nonetheless, lawyers representing unaccompanied minors observed that they are not allowed to be present during the interview carried out by AWAS and the appointed legal guardians are mostly absent from the procedure, beyond having a clear conflict of interest since they are employed by AWAS itself.

The procedure generally happens while the minor is being detained and the observations made on access to legal assistance in detention are applicable to age assessment procedures (see Legal Assistance). As such, unaccompanied minors are deprived of legal assistance during the initial age assessment procedure.

With regard to the appeal, the Reception Regulations provide that appellants who lack sufficient resources to appeal from an age assessment decision are entitled to free legal assistance and representation which must entail free legal assistance and representation, the preparation of the required procedural documents and participation in the hearing before the Immigration Appeals Board.[21]

Since 2022, minors have full access to the legal aid lawyers provided by the Ministry for Home Affairs.

According to the Ministry for Home Affairs,[22] legal aid lawyers are to provide the following assistance:

• Provide legal assistance under Regulation 16(1) of S.L. 420.06;
• Prepare and present written submission to the IAB;
• Attend IAB hearings, as needed;
• Report outcomes and raise relevant issues with MHSE.

Legal Aid lawyers receive a fee of 100 euro (inc. VAT) per case.

[1] Regulation 14(1)(a) Reception Regulations.

[2] Regulation 14(1)(a) Reception Regulations.

[3] Information provided by AWAS, 2025.

[4] Information provided by IPA, 2025.

[5] Information provided by UNHCR in February 2025.

[6] Information provided by AWAS, 2025.

[7] ECtHR, M.S. v. Malta, no. 30737/24 (Communicated Case), available at: https://tinyurl.com/2z8tknds.

[8] Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Fourth evaluation round: Measures to prevent and detect vulnerabilities to human trafficking – Evaluation report: Malta, 6 May 2026, available here.

[9] See before the ECtHR A.D. v. Malta no. 12427/22, 17 January 2024, at https://tinyurl.com/4xewxehk; J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, 22 January 2025, at https://tinyurl.com/5n9yzpcr; and before the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Ayoubah Fona vs. The Minister for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et, No. 75/2022, 13 January 2026, at https://tinyurl.com/33yp3ayk.

[10] Minor Protection (Alternative Care) Act, Chapter 602.

[11] Immigration Appeals Board, K.J. and K.B.D. (Bangladesh) vs. the PIO and AWAS (AA/11/22/DO), 14 July 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3U2UVGf and the press release from aditus foundation at: http://bit.ly/3Ess4Fm.

[12] aditus foundation, ‘European Human Rights Court orders Malta to release children from detention’, 12 January 2022, available at http://bit.ly/3j3aVeM.

[13] ECtHR, J.B. and Others v. Malta, Application no. 1766/23, 22 October 2024, at: https://tinyurl.com/mr2h83rs.

[14] ECtHR A.D. v. Malta no. 12427/22, 17 January 2024, at https://tinyurl.com/4xewxehk; and Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Ayoubah Fona vs. The Minister for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et, No. 75/2022, 3 January 2026, at https://tinyurl.com/33yp3ayk.

[15] Article 16(1), Reception Regulations.

[16] Article 25A(7), Immigration Act.

[17] Information provided by the Immigration Appeals Board, January 2022.

[18] Information provided by the Immigration Appeals Board, January 2022.

[19] European Commission, Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, 13 July 2022, available at https://bit.ly/3XRYS2D, 5-6.

[20] Under ‘Our Cases’, https://tinyurl.com/yc8jeb82.

[21] Article 16(1), Reception Regulations.

[22] See https://tinyurl.com/m3y5n8vh.