Author
General
Children are considered to be unaccompanied if they travel without their parents or their guardian and their parents or guardian are not already present in the Netherlands. One is considered as a ‘child’ (underage) when under the age of 18. However, an underage mother aged 16 or more can request the Juvenile Court to be emancipated in order to raise and care for their child.[1]
In principle, the same conditions apply to unaccompanied children and adults when it comes to eligibility for a residence permit. However, unaccompanied minors seeking asylum are considered as particularly vulnerable compared to adult asylum applicants and therefore specific guarantees apply. As a general rule, unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors are interviewed by employees of the IND who are familiar with their special needs.[2] The IND employees conducting these interviews have followed the EUAA course on interviewing vulnerable persons, but this is not prescribed by law.[3] As other applicants, unaccompanied minors will be screened by MedTadvies in order to determine if there are special needs for the interview (see Screening of vulnerability).
Unaccompanied children may lodge an asylum application themselves. However, in the case of unaccompanied children younger than the age of 12, their legal representative or their guardian has to sign the asylum application form on their behalf.
A guardian is assigned to every unaccompanied child. Nidos, the independent guardianship and (family) supervision agency, is responsible for the appointment of guardians for unaccompanied asylum seeking children in a reception location.[4] Under the Dutch Civil Code, all children must have a legal guardian (a parent or court appointed guardian).[5] For unaccompanied children, Nidos will request to be appointed as guardian by the juvenile court.[6] Even though formal guardianship is assigned to the organisation, individual professionals, called ‘youth protectors’, carry out the tasks.
There is no time limit for the appointment of a legal guardian to an unaccompanied child.
The guardian takes important decisions on behalf of the child, with consideration to their future, inter alia, regarding their education, where the unaccompanied child can find the best housing and what medical care is necessary. Thus, the purpose of guardianship can be divided into legal and pedagogical.
On their arrival in the Netherlands, children under the age of 15 are placed in a foster family, which provides initial reception. After a few days, the child and the guardian go to Ter Apel to lodge the asylum application. While the child is staying with this first family, Nidos looks for a permanent home for them. Children over the age of 15 years old live in small-scale housing units with other children.
Campus reception is only advised if the child is able to live independently in a large-scale setting. Children who arrive at Schiphol airport are transferred to the application centre in Ter Apel and are not detained in AC Schiphol.
Normally, unaccompanied children do not stay in Ter Apel for a long period of time after lodging their application for international protection. Since 2022, there have been reports of serious overcrowding of the reception for unaccompanied children at Ter Apel. In the fall of 2022, the conditions were harrowing: children staying there had to sleep on plastic chairs and did not have access to sanitary facilities.[7] The Ombudsperson for Children has raised concerns on multiple occasions, stating that the situation in Ter Apel constitutes a severe violation of children’s rights.[8] While the situation improved in 2023, there were still too many unaccompanied minors at the reception centre in Ter Apel. The Ter Apel reception for unaccompanied children now has capacity for guidance of 120 unaccompanied minors.[9] In 2024, the occupation continued to surpass the capacity.[10] At the start of the year, the Minister already expressed her concern for the shortage of sufficient structural reception places for unaccompanied minors, and in December the Minister continued to stress this problem, indicating that it is caused by the more general lack of asylum reception capacity in the Netherlands.[11] In 2025, the capacity problems continued in Ter Apel. While extra space became available in the reception facilities for unaccompanied minors in early 2025 as a result of less arrivals of unaccompanied minors in the first quarter of 2025,[12] the Minister of Asylum and Migration reported in September 2025 that the dependency on emergency facilities remains as great as ever.[13] Multiple locations were set up to relieve the location at Ter Apel, although there were concerns about the adequateness of some locations for children. As a result, children will not be placed in two of these new locations anymore.[14]
Age assessment
In case the IND doubts whether an asylum applicant is a child and the child is unable to prove their identity, an age assessment examination can be initiated. Within the scope of the age assessment, two officers from the Immigration Service and the Border Police assess the physical characteristics and the behaviour of an asylum applicant who claims to be a minor.[15] These officers indicate whether they can conclude the asylum applicant is evidently a minor or evidently an adult. Such an assessment does not take place, however, in case of an EU-VIS hit. The Immigration Service will also conduct a search in Eurodac. As explained above, due to a ruling of the Council of State on 9 October 2024, an age registration in another Member State can in itself not be determinative in the age assessment process. Instead, all evidence as to the age of the applicant must be considered on their own merits and on a case-by-case basis. For more information, please see the Age assessment of unaccompanied children section above.
One of the issues that unaccompanied minors face when they are registered as an adult in another Member State is that they will be transferred to a reception centre for adults when the immigration service changes their age based on the registration in the other Member State. On 4 November 2022, the Regional Court of Den Bosch ruled that a minor could not be transferred to an adult reception centre until the age of the applicant was properly examined.[16] As mentioned in the Age Assessment of Unaccompanied Children section above, the Council of State ruled on 15 May 2024 that such decisions are open to legal remedies.[17]
Return decisions for unaccompanied minors
On 14 January 2021, the CJEU published its landmark judgment in the case of TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-441/19).[18] The case concerned a minor (TQ) who applied for asylum in the Netherlands when he was 15 years old. The IND rejected his asylum request, a decision that automatically entails a return decision in accordance with Dutch law. TQ appealed the decision and argued that he did not know where his family lived and that he would not be able to recognise his parents upon return to Guinea. The IND followed Dutch policy, which stipulates that minors who are over 15 years of age at the date of their asylum request and receive a rejection of their asylum claim will receive a return decision without examining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the country of return. For minors under 15 years of age, there is the option of granting a special residence permit in case there are no adequate reception facilities.[19] The Regional Court of Den Bosch referred preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the case of TQ. The Regional Court submitted various questions: First, whether a return decision could be taken against a minor without investigating if there are adequate reception facilities. Second, whether a Member State is permitted to make distinctions on the basis of the age of a minor (15-/15+). Third, whether it is permitted under Union law to adopt a return decision against a minor, but not undertake any action to remove the applicant until he turns 18.[20] The CJEU ruled that a Member State must ascertain – before adopting a return decision – that an unaccompanied minor will return to adequate reception facilities. Furthermore, a Member State may not differentiate based on the age of the minor and once the Member State adopts a return decision, the return must actually be carried out. The CJEU also makes it very clear that Member States are under the obligation to apply the principle of the best interests of the child at all stages of the procedure. This ruling shows that the Dutch policy relating to unaccompanied children who receive a return decision is not in line with EU law.
The Regional Court of Den Bosch delivered its final judgement in the case of TQ on 15 March 2021.[21] The Secretary of State appealed the judgement, and the Council of State published its ruling on this onward appeal on 8 June 2022.[22] The Council of State established that there are three possible situations for unaccompanied minors who do not qualify for an asylum permit:
- There is adequate reception in the county of return. A return decision is issued.
- There is no adequate reception in the county of return. The unaccompanied minor must be granted a residence permit on national grounds, which is valid for five years.
- Further research is needed. The unaccompanied minor will receive a rejection on the merit of the asylum claim, and this decision also includes an explanation as to why extra time is needed to investigate adequate reception and how long the investigation will take. The asylum decision and the return decision are therefore separated. In this situation, the unaccompanied minor retains lawful residence on the basis of Article 8(f) Aliens Act. The investigation can lead to two conclusions: either there is adequate reception, so that a return decision can be issued, or there is no adequate reception and the unaccompanied minor receives a residence permit on national grounds. The unaccompanied minor can appeal the decision stating that further research is needed.
The Council of State further ruled that the fact that the applicant is not a minor anymore does not mean that the Secretary of State can refrain from investigating whether they should have been granted a permit based on national grounds.
Following the Council of State judgment, the IND issued an internal information message in which it is stated that the period for further research into adequate reception will, in principle, be of one year.[23] This period can be extended if the unaccompanied minor does not cooperate with the research.[24] In 2025, the policy in the Aliens Circular was still not adjusted in accordance with the TQ judgment. However, the new policy was introduced in a letter to the Parliament.[25] The duration of the permit is set at three years, but cannot continue after the applicant reaches the age of 18. The permit will primarily serve as a temporary safety net and may be revoked if adequate reception in the country of return becomes available. Only after three years of lawful residence based on this permit, will an applicant be eligible for a permit on non-temporary humanitarian grounds. Therefore, the prospect of non-temporary residence in the Netherlands is only when the unaccompanied minor will still be a minor after three full years of having the permit. If the permit expires because the unaccompanied minor reaches the age of 18 years old, a return decision will be imposed. When imposing a return decision, it will be necessary to assess the possibility of a permit based on the right to private or family life under Article 8 ECHR.
To the knowledge of the Dutch Council for Refugees (VWN), no unaccompanied minors have received a permit on national grounds due to the fact that there was no adequate reception in their country of origin before the new policy was introduced. After the introduction of the policy, there have been a handful of cases in which the unaccompanied minor received a permit with retroactive effect. There have also been some cases before the introduction of the new policy in which unaccompanied minors did receive a permit, but the decisions were based on the right to private life under Article 8 ECHR.
One of the most pressing issues at the moment of writing this report is the Minister’s decision that the one-year period to perform further research into the adequate reception will only start after the final decision on the asylum application. Due to the long waiting time in the asylum procedure, this can take more than a year and a half. This means that minors will remain for years in uncertainty about their residence status. There have been some judgements in first instance concerning this matter, however no final ruling by the Council of State has been issued yet.[26] The Council of State did however confirm that, with reference to the CJEU judgment of TQ, a period of three years to perform further research starting from the date of the asylum application is too long.[27] Another important issue is that the Minister may in some cases decide there is adequate reception in the country of origin based on general information about the availability of adequate reception in certain shelters. There are, however, a number of conditions that must be met before a facility can be considered adequate, such as that it provides the unaccompanied minor with accommodation, food, education and medical care in accordance with local standards.[28] The Council of State has ruled that, unlike what the Minister states, the general existence of adequate reception facilities is insufficient for assuming that there is adequate reception in the country of return.[29] According to the Council of State, the ruling of TQ requires individual research.
[1] Articles 1.233 and 1.253ha, Dutch Civil Code.
[2] Section C1/2.11 Aliens Circular.
[3] Practice based observation of the Dutch Council for Refugees, January 2024.
[4] Article 1.302 (2) Dutch Civil Code.
[5] Article 1.245 Dutch Civil Code.
[6] Article 1.256 (1) Civil Code.
[7] NOS, ‘Situatie alleenstaande kinderen verslechterd’, 10 October 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3ZeiwaU.
[8] Kinderombudsman, ‘Nog steeds sprake van kinderrechtenschendingen Ter Apel’, 7 November 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Za7bZg.
[9] Inspection Health Care and Youth, ‘Inspecties: Situatie in Ter Apel is uiterst kritisch’ 31 October 2023; AD, ‘Trauma’s, uitzichtloosheid en tussendoor een balletje trappen: een kijkje bij de minderjarigen in Ter Apel’, 4 April 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WnkJAR.
[10] Trouw, ‘Binnen bij de opvang voor minderjarige asielzoekers in Ter Apel: ‘Het zijn gewoon pubers, met puberstreken’’, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40BrhOE.
[11] KST 27 062, nr. 13, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Wo3f7A; KST 19637, nr. 3320, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3CiXYHm.
[12] Ministry of Asylum and Migration, ‘Stand van zaken over de verbetering van de situatie van
kinderen en amv in de asielopvang, nr. 3089’, 23 April 2025, available in Dutch at: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ecb519ef-b64d-44f3-99c4-ec3da05f477d/file.
[13] Ministry of Asylum and Migration, ‘Kinderen in de asielopvang’, 19 September 2025, available in Dutch at: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/c5112949-d036-4db1-813a-1f4beceb6827/file.
[14] KST 19637, nr. 3495, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/45vZe5n
[15] Work Instruction 2018/19, 13 December 2018, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3T1OpAW.
[16] Regional Court Den Bosch, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:11809, 4 November 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HVjIbw.
[17] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2011, 15 May 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4gQdz0g.
[18] CJEU, TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C-441/19, 14 January 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3HPP8jL.
[19] However, this permit is rarely granted. The Council for Refugees approximates that the permit has been granted in less than 10 cases since the introduction of the permit in 2012. Conditions are laid down in Section B8/6 Aliens Circular.
[20] Regional Court Den Bosch, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:5967, 12 June 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3wiG4B7; CJEU, TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C-441/19, 14 January 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3HPP8jL.
[21] Regional Court Den Bosch, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:2376, 15 March 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/493Upjw.
[22] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1530, 8 June 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/496pDXb.
[23] Internal information messages are the lowest type of policy documents. These messages are directed at IND officers who carry out interviews and decide on asylum applications. However, it is possible to use these information messages in court, as the officers are obliged to follow the rules laid down in these messages.
[24] IND, IB 2025/13, 10 April 2025, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3YqOT6V.
[25] KST 27062 nr. 141, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3YWCtDZ.
[26] Regional Court Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21386, 4 July 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bWhRRw.
[27] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2267, 3 June 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4fKtJH3.
[28] Section B8/6.1 Aliens Circular.
[29] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:3033, 4 July 2025, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3LnPlzN.