Author
While this was not an official practice, CPR has observed that AIMA systematically deems applications lodged by Venezuelans as unfounded within accelerated procedures (notably on grounds of irrelevance).[1] JRS also observed this stance. This had already been SEF’s practice,[2] which subsequently referred the cases to regularisation procedures through the humanitarian clause of the exceptional regularisation regime of the Immigration Act.[3] In the decisions analysed by CPR, AIMA does not refer the cases to this regime however.
While statistical data is not available, CPR has observed that persons relocated to Portugal following rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea whose applications for international protection were rejected were also (at least at times) referred by SEF to regularisation procedures through the humanitarian clause of the exceptional regularisation regime of the Immigration Act.[4] This was due, according with at least some decisions analysed, to the commitment made by Portugal following the disembarkation. AIMA’s practice in this regard was not yet clear at the end of 2024.
According to CPR’s observation, and to the information provided by UNICEF[5] in 2022, this has also happened in the case of relocated unaccompanied children and young adults whose asylum applications were rejected.
In the context of providing legal assistance, CPR has observed that access to this regime may be hampered by the lack of documents issued by the country of origin (e.g., passports and criminal record certificates). This has also been noticed by UNICEF with regard to unaccompanied children and young adults in particular.
CPR has received reports of applicants that described being told by AIMA officials that no positive decisions are issued to applicants from certain nationalities, notably Gambia and Senegal. Within the context of the right of reply of the authorities to the 2023 draft AIDA report, AIMA denied that this occurred.[6] Nonetheless, according to data collected by CPR based on the communications made by the authorities in line with the Asylum Act and contacts from asylum applicants, these countries were repeatedly considered safe countries of origin by the authorities in 2024.
Following the fall of Bashar Al Assad’s regime and the stance of some EU Member States, in December 2024 the Government guaranteed that no change would occur in the international protection status of the Syrian population in Portugal, nor any change would be introduced to the processing of asylum applications for the time being. It further stated that it would continue to monitor the situation and that any future decision would be in line with the EU.[7]
[1] Article 19(1)(e) Asylum Act.
[2] For further information regarding this practice, please see previous AIDA reports available here.
[3] Article 123 Immigration Act. Note that this practice was confirmed in the Statistical Report of Asylum (2020): Observatory for Migration, Entrada, Acolhimento e Integração de Requerentes e Beneficiários de Protecção Internacional em Portugal – Relatório Estatístico do Asilo 2020, May 2020, available in Portuguese here, 62.
[4] Article 123 Immigration Act.
[5] Information provided by UNICEF to the 2022 AIDA update.
[6] Information provided by AIMA on 25 June 2024.
[7] Público, Governo não mexe no estatuto de protecção dos 1500 sírios que estão em Portugal, 12 December 2024, available here.