Author
The Asylum Act does not contain specific restrictions on the freedom of movement or grounds for residence assignment but provides for the duty of asylum applicants to keep AIMA informed of their place of residence.[1] Furthermore, the authorities may decide to transfer the asylum applicants from housing facilities when needed for an adequate decision-making process regarding the asylum application or to improve housing conditions.[2]
Since 2012, the operational framework for the reception of asylum applicants in Portugal provides for a dispersal mechanism (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions).
Following admission to the regular procedure, or if the application is deemed inadmissible or rejected in an accelerated procedure, the asylum applicant is generally referred by frontline service providers such as CPR to the social monitoring subgroup, which meets bilaterally at least twice a month to discuss individual cases and decides on the provision of material reception conditions in the regular procedure or at appeal stage. This is done on the basis of an individual monitoring report and in accordance with existing reception capacity countrywide.
According to ISS, since October 2024, the criteria for determining the entity responsible for the provision of material conditions is based on the location of the applicant’s residence at the time of referral: SCML is responsible for applicants residing in the municipality (not district) of Lisbon, while ISS is responsible for the remainder. Previously, the determining criterion was the stage of the procedure: ISS was responsible for applicants admitted to the regular procedure and SCML for those at appeal stage following inadmissibility or rejection.
When an asylum applicant needs to move to a different part of the country within this context, the trip (public transportation) is organised, and the cost covered, by ISS. According to ISS, AIMA and frontline service providers such as CPR provide logistical support to the applicant. In CPR, applicants are informed about the travel arrangements in a language they understand, and it is standard practice for a member of ISS staff to be present on arrival.
According to the statistics shared by ISS, as of December 2025, a total of 2,776 applicants and beneficiaries of international protection benefited from ISS material support across the country.
| Dispersal of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection receiving ISS support – 5 main districts: 2025 | |
| Area / District | Number |
| Lisbon | 784 |
| Setúbal | 350 |
| Braga | 287 |
| Porto | 232 |
| Coimbra | 226 |
Source: Information provided by ISS (April 2026).
Most asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection receiving material reception conditions from ISS in 2025 resided in Lisbon. Additionally, SCML supported a total of 712 individuals in 2025, the majority of whom resided in Lisbon (see Types of Accommodation).
There is some flexibility in the implementation of the dispersal policy, and, according to CPR’s experience, the entities involved make an effort to take personal preferences into account. CPR and ISS have also developed efforts to conduct joint videocalls with the applicants to promote a smooth transition process. However, in the last months of 2025, increasing pressure to expedite transfers was observed, with vacancy management appearing to take precedence over applicants’ individual circumstances and preferences.
According to ISS, asylum applicants may request a review of their dispersal decision and their accommodation in a particular area where accommodation, education, employment and/or health related grounds justify an exception (e.g., regarding unaccompanied children enrolled in schools, asylum applicants who are employed at the time of the decision or particularly vulnerable asylum applicants who benefit from specialised medical care in Lisbon, see Responsibility for Reception).
Otherwise, refusal to accept the dispersal decision by failing to report to the local Social Security service or abandoning its support following the dispersal decision will generally result in the withdrawal of material reception conditions. ISS noted, however, that if the reinstatement of support is subsequently requested, the services do evaluate the individual situation, though it covers financial support only and does not ensure accommodation..
According to the information available to CPR, once the dispersal decision is made by the social monitoring subgroup, asylum applicants are not subjected to onward dispersal decisions resulting in their move from the initial district of assignment.[3]
Within ISS’s reception framework, specialised Integration Support Teams (Equipas de Apoio à Integração – ApIn) provide multidimensional support to applicants, including social, psychological, health, legal and integration-related assistance, for up to 18 months or until dispersal to another district. According to ISS, at the end of 2025 three such teams were operational, with a total of 334 places available, managed by CPR in the Lisbon district and by Associação VITAE in the Lisbon and Braga districts under MoUs with ISS.
Until the end of the first semester of 2024, CPR received consistent reports of frequent and often unannounced changes of place of accommodation by AIMA, without apparent justification. This practice appears to have improved with the stabilisation of host entities in the second half of 2024. According to AIMA, transfers to another host entity are a measure of last resort, only taking place in specific circumstances such as violent behaviour between applicants or towards staff, mental health needs requiring a more appropriate setting, or where relocation improves access to specific public services.
Even though no official evaluation has been conducted to date to assess the impact of the dispersal policy, according to the information collected by CPR, the main concerns raised by asylum applicants include lack of specialised support and tailor-made integration services such as language training and vocational training, isolation, lack of interpreters and specialised mental health care, difficulties in accessing specialised legal assistance (including that provided by CPR due to the geographical distance), inequalities in access to public services and lack of homogenisation of information provided by such services, and the absence of culturally relevant facilities/services in certain parts of the country. CPR has also received reports of applicants stating that the delays in the implementation of the dispersal decision led them to initiate their integration process in the Lisbon area, making them later reluctant to accept to move and restart.
According to the Statistical Report of Asylum 2022, the dispersal mechanism is generally considered an example of good practice despite the implementation challenges. Among the challenges identified by the Report are: (i) the reluctance of applicants in moving from the Lisbon area to other parts of the country; (ii) the need to finetune the distribution criteria; and (iii) discrepancies in the response capacity of local Social Security services.[4] These are persisting implementation challenges, also mentioned in prior reports.
[1] Article 15(1)(f) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 59(2) Asylum Act.
[3] It should be noted that in accordance with Article 59(2) Asylum Act, decisions ordering the transfer of asylum applicants from housing facilities can only occur when needed for an adequate decision-making process regarding the asylum application or to improve housing conditions.
[4] Migration Observatory, Requerentes e Beneficiários de Proteção Internacional – Relatório Estatístico do Asilo 2022, June 2022, p.138, available in Portuguese here.