I was issued with an AIMA Voluntary Departure Order. Can I challenge It?

Receiving a notice from the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum, I.P. (Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo, I.P. – “AIMA”) requiring a foreign national to leave Portugal voluntarily is a particularly sensitive matter.

In many cases, such a notice is issued after the individual has already spent a significant period of time in Portugal, during which they may have built meaningful professional, family and social ties. They may have an employment contract, have made social security contributions, have children enrolled in school, or have a legitimate expectation that their immigration status will be regularised.

When faced with this type of notice, the first question is often simple: do I really have to leave Portugal?

The answer will always depend on the circumstances of the individual case. However, one point should be made clear from the outset: a decision issued by AIMA is not, by its nature, immune from judicial scrutiny.

Portuguese law allows individuals to challenge administrative acts that affect legally protected rights or interests, including decisions concerning residence, removal or voluntary departure from Portuguese territory.

The Portuguese Constitution guarantees access to law and to the courts, as well as effective judicial protection against acts of the Public Administration. These guarantees are particularly important in the field of immigration, where an administrative decision may have a direct impact on family life, professional stability, continuity of education, access to healthcare, social integration and, in certain cases, other fundamental rights protected under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The central issue, therefore, is not merely whether AIMA has issued a decision. The real question is whether that decision is lawful, proportionate, properly reasoned and appropriate in light of the specific circumstances of the person concerned.

Portuguese public authorities are bound by the principles of legality, proportionality, impartiality, good administration, the right to be heard and the duty to give reasons. Even where there is an issue of documentary irregularity, the administrative decision must take into account the relevant facts of the case and cannot be based on an automatic or purely formal assessment.

In practical terms, a voluntary departure notice may be challenged where there are legal grounds to do so. Those grounds may arise, for example, from the existence of a pending procedure, a failure properly to assess the individual’s family circumstances, the disregard of relevant documents, procedural defects, insufficient reasoning, breach of the right to be heard, or a disproportionate application of the law.

The judicial challenge is brought before the Portuguese administrative courts. Through this route, the court may be asked to review the legality of the act adopted by AIMA and, where appropriate, to annul it.

It is important to understand that bringing judicial proceedings does not necessarily suspend the effects of AIMA's decision.

In many cases, commencing judicial review proceedings will not automatically prevent the voluntary departure order from taking effect. As a result, where there is a real risk that the decision may be enforced before the court has had an opportunity to determine the substantive claim, it may also be necessary to apply for interim measures.

Interim measure serves a fundamental purpose within the Portuguese administrative justice system. It enables the court to preserve the existing legal position pending a final determination of the lawfulness of the administrative decision. In immigration matters, such measures may prove decisive in preventing serious or irreparable harm, particularly where the decision may jeopardise family unity, children's education, access to healthcare or the position of particularly vulnerable individuals.

Each case must therefore be assessed carefully on its own facts. It is not sufficient merely to argue that the decision is unfair. The applicant must demonstrate, through documentary evidence and legal argument, that there are serious grounds for challenging AIMA's decision and that its immediate enforcement is capable of causing significant prejudice before the court has ruled on the merits.

This approach has now been expressly endorsed by recent Portuguese administrative case law.

In two significant judgments delivered in November and December 2025, the Central Administrative Court South (Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul) clarified that an AIMA decision refusing an application for a residence permit whilst simultaneously ordering the applicant to leave Portugal voluntarily cannot be regarded as a purely "negative" administrative act, as parts of the earlier case law had suggested.

Instead, the Court recognised that such decisions produce immediate and substantial legal consequences for the individual concerned, fundamentally altering their legal position.

In the cases before the Court, the applicants had remained lawfully in Portugal while their former Manifestação de Interesse (Expression of Interest) residence procedures were pending under the legal framework then in force. Once their applications were refused and they were notified to leave Portugal voluntarily, that legal position changed dramatically. They ceased to benefit from the legal framework that had permitted their stay, lost the ability to continue living and working lawfully in Portugal and became exposed to the possibility of coercive removal proceedings should they fail to leave the country voluntarily.

It was precisely this material alteration of the applicants' legal position that led the Court to conclude that interim measures may constitute an appropriate procedural remedy.

According to the Court, the purpose of interim measures is to preserve the status quo ante, preventing the administrative decision from producing potentially irreversible consequences before its lawfulness has been fully examined in the substantive proceedings. The voluntary departure order and any subsequent coercive removal proceedings are not legally autonomous measures; rather, they are direct legal consequences of the refusal of the residence permit itself. Accordingly, where the statutory requirements are met, those consequences may also be suspended pending the court's final determination of the legality of the administrative decision.

These judgments represent an important evolution in Portuguese administrative case law.

Rather than adopting a strictly formalistic approach based solely on whether the administrative act is technically "positive" or "negative", the Central Administrative Court South focused on the practical legal consequences produced by the decision.

The Court recognised that what truly matters is the decision's real impact on the individual's legal position: the loss of previously recognised lawful stay, the inability to continue working legally, the prospect of removal from Portugal, the possible separation of family members and the risk of detention pending enforced removal.

It is precisely because of these potentially far-reaching consequences that interim judicial protection becomes essential. Without effective interim measures, the time required for the courts to determine the substantive proceedings could deprive judicial protection of much of its practical value.

These judgments also reflect a broader trend within Portuguese administrative law towards strengthening effective judicial protection in immigration matters. 

By recognising that administrative decisions must be assessed according to their practical legal effects rather than their formal classification alone, the Portuguese courts have aligned their approach with the constitutional guarantee of effective judicial protection enshrined in Articles 20 and 268 of the Portuguese Constitution, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Collectively, these instruments require that access to an effective remedy should be capable of preventing, in good time, irreversible consequences capable of affecting fundamental rights.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.