Author
While the asylum application can be presented (‘made’) either to SEF/AIMA or to any other police authority, the responsibility to register asylum claims lies solely with SEF/AIMA.[1] If an asylum application is presented to a different police authority, it must be referred to SEF/AIMA within 48 hours.[2]
The responsibility for organising asylum files (including registration) lies with SEF’s Asylum and Refugees Department (SEF-GAR)/ AIMA’s National Centre for Asylum and Refugees (AIMA-CNAR).[3] SEF-GAR/AIMA-CNAR is required to inform CPR, as an organisation working on UNHCR’s behalf, of the registration of individual asylum applications.
According to the information provided by AIMA, in 2023, the Portuguese authorities registered a total of 2,992 applications for international protection (including 96 made by persons relocated to Portugal). It should be noted that this figure also includes 277 resettled refugees which are not usually counted as applicants for international protection. As such, excluding resettled refugees,[4] a total of 2,715 applications were registered in 2023. CPR received 2,565 communications throughout the year.[5]
In accordance with the law, applications for international protection must be presented to SEF/AIMA or to any other police authority as soon as possible, but the timeframe for doing so is not specified.[6]
While there are no specific time limits for asylum seekers to lodge their application, the law provides for use of the Accelerated Procedure in case the asylum applicant enters or remains irregularly on national territory and fails to apply for asylum as soon as possible without a valid reason.[7] This provision has rarely been applied in practice and, according to the experience of CPR, when applied, it is usually combined with other grounds for the application of accelerated procedures.
Failure to apply for asylum at the earliest possible time, unless the applicant can demonstrate good reason for not having done so, also constitutes a ground for not granting the benefit of the doubt.[8] According to CPR’s observation, this provision has been applied in practice.
Persons refused entry at the border are liable to immediate removal to the point of departure,[9] meaning that, in practice, they are required to present their asylum application immediately.
Upon presentation of the application, the asylum seeker is required to fill out a preliminary form, which includes information on identification, itinerary, grounds of the asylum application, supporting evidence, and witnesses. Until 2023, according to the information available to CPR, the preliminary form was available in Portuguese, English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Lingala, Russian, Ukrainian, and Pashtu. According to CPR’s experience, asylum seekers are not systematically provided with quality interpretation services at this stage of the procedure, which may result in the collection of insufficient and low-quality information.
Since December 2019, following an agreement between SEF and CPR, two CPR liaison officers were deployed to the premises of SEF-GAR/AIMA-CNAR, where the majority of applications are made, inter alia, to facilitate registration, provide information to applicants, and to perform the necessary referrals (e.g. for housing). While according to CPR’s observation, this measure has facilitated communication between the relevant entities and the provision of support to asylum seekers, it came to an end in January 2024 following a decision made by AIMA.
SEF/AIMA is required to register the asylum application within 3 working days of presentation and to issue the applicant with a certificate of asylum application within 3 days of registration.[10]
During SEF’s tenure, despite isolated delays (e.g. related to the registration of asylum applications presented in SEF’s regional branches), CPR has not encountered systemic or serious problems regarding the registration of applications as opposed to occasional delays in the renewal of documents (usually linked to difficulties in making appointments with SEF).[11]
Since the beginning of AIMA’s operation, CPR has observed/received reports of concerning practices pertaining to the registration of asylum applications, namely:
- Applicants being incorrectly informed that applications for international protection could only be made by persons displaced from Ukraine;
- Individuals reporting having to make multiple attempts in order for their application to be registered by the authorities;
- Refusals to register applications due to lack of personnel;
- Introduction of a ticketing system at CNAR’s premises according to which a ticket was required to apply for asylum. Following the distribution of 20 tickets per day no further applications were allowed;
- Late registration of applications made by individuals in administrative detention (up to several days), compounded by the fact that, upon registration, the authorities recorded the date of registration as the date of the application instead of referring to the date when the asylum seeker effectively applied for international protection.
CPR is also aware of instances where asylum seekers were urged by AIMA officials to withdraw their applications for international protection without having access to legal information/assistance and based on wrongful information. This includes incorrect information such as the suggestion/advice that only applications related to political matters or problems with the authorities are accepted; wrongful assumptions regarding the situation in the country of origin; and the provision of incorrect and/or incomplete information regarding other avenues for regular stay and corresponding reception conditions. Importantly, such cases concerned particularly vulnerable applicants. CPR required clarifications regarding this practice and assisted the concerned applicants in requesting reversal of the withdrawal. While no specific feedback was received by the organisation, CPR is aware that the asylum applications concerned were reinstated by the authorities.
A decision from the Central Administrative Court South (TCA South) issued in 2021 considered that applications for international protection presented remotely may not be altogether disregarded by SEF. In the case analysed, the application had been initially filed by a lawyer representing the applicant via fax, and was not taken into account by SEF, which demanded it be made in person in order for the necessary checks to be performed (namely because it was not possible to confirm whether the applicant was indeed in Portugal at the time of application).[12] According to CPR’s observation, this did not lead to changes in practice.
In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee highlighted that Portugal should ‘[e]nsure that all applications for international protection at the border and in reception and detention facilities are promptly received, registered and referred to the asylum authorities’ and ‘[c]ontinue its efforts to maintain and strengthen the quality of its refugee status determination procedures, in order to fairly and efficiently identify and recognise those in need of international protection and to afford sufficient guarantees of respect for the principle of non-refoulement under the Covenant’.[13] The Committee further recommended that Portugal strengthens ‘[…] training for the staff of migration institutions and border personnel on the rights of asylum seekers and refugees under the Covenant and other international standards’.[14]
A study focusing on the situation of asylum-seeking unaccompanied children and ageing out in Portugal published in 2021 revealed that the majority of those questioned stated that they were not aware of the possibility of applying for international protection upon arrival in the country, and that they had been informed of it by the national authorities in light of their situation.[15]
[1] Article 13(1) and (7) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 13(2) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 17 Decree-Law 252/2000.
[4] For purposes of comparison with previous years, this figure should be considered.
[5] As of 3231/01/2024. Please note that statistics included in this report from CPR refer to the total number of applications communicated to the organisation in accordance with the communication duties established in the Asylum Act.
[6] Article 13(1) Asylum Act.
[7] Article 19(1)(d) Asylum Act.
[8] Article 18(4)(d) Asylum Act.
[9] Article 41(1) Immigration Act.
[10] Articles 13(7) and 14(1) Asylum Act.
[11] Appointments are generally made through a phone line that is often quite difficult to reach.
[12] TCA South, Decision 107/21.0BELLE, 18 August 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3qJ1fqo.
[13] Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Portugal, CCPR/C/PRT/CO/5. 28 April 2020, par.35(a) and (b), available at: https://bit.ly/2Q1ftn8.
[14] Ibid, par.35(f).
[15] Sandra Roberto, Carla Moleiro, ed. Observatório das Migrações, De menor a maior: acolhimento e autonomia de vida em menores não acompanhados, April 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3fqMKBK, 50.