“Management and operational difficulties in most areas”. This is the assessment of the Association for the Future Memory of SEF, the extinct Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF). DN had access to the entity’s second report, which marks the two-year anniversary of the end of the SEF.
The association is made up of employees who continue to work with migration and professionals who decided to no longer work in this area with the extinction of the SEF. The document reiterates the concerns presented in the first report, published in 2024. “With the post-SEF model, ultra-divided and disjointed, the integrated and holistic vision of the SEF was lost”but
Despite seeing the creation of the Action Plan for Migration, presented by the Government of Luís Montenegro in June 2024, as an advance, they consider that the measures are “vague” and “lack precision regarding the mode, capabilities and calendar of implementation”. At the time, the Government reiterated that the plan was to be developed over four years, that is, during one legislature.
Some measures were immediate, as the end of expressions of interest and others advanced in the last 18 months, such as creation of the Mission Structure to resolve the thousands of delayed regularization processes, the revision of the Foreigners Law ea creation of the Foreigners and Borders Unit (UNEF) in the Public Security Police (PSP). For 2026, Secretary of State Rui Armindo de Freitas has already confirmed that it will be the year to improve AIMA and integration measures.
According to the association, this ongoing plan needs to be framed “in a true global national migration management strategy, starting with the definition of a well-defined and consolidated coordination and monitoring model, which is still far from being achieved”. A series of problems identified in these two years are listed.
The first difficulty highlighted directly affects immigrants: documentation. It welcomes that the renewal of residence permits has been transferred from the Institute of Registries and Notaries (IRN) to AIMA, but that “it does not overcome the difficulties created by the separation, into different entities, of the areas of documentation, border control and inspection, with the dispersion of knowledge and skills in very specific areas that require specialization”.
It also points out that the transfer of this competence overloaded the IRN“the ability to issue, practically on the spot and at any time of the day or night, the emergency passport in the passport stores at Lisbon and Porto airports was lost, with the loss of an emergency and last-minute solution that many national passengers resorted to”.
Another problem that also harms immigrants is mentioned: the lack of uniform application of rules. “It remains urgent to restore knowledgeable, consistent and operational national contact points, which have since been lost, to continue to guarantee the uniform application, in accordance with the rules set out there, of all EU legislation.” How the DN revealed in a report about the two years of AIMAthe agency is trying to overcome this problem with “training” and the creation of a single guidance document for employees, in addition to a virtual assistant.
This problem is also related to the fragmentation of databases, whether at borders or at AIMA. “It is alerted to the need to assess the impact of the greater difficulty in the development, management and access to databases, particularly in police and operational activities and in the documentary area, as well as training those who feed the databases”.
Regarding the Mission Structure, the assessment is of “doubts as to whether the methods will be appropriate and, if they were, whether they would not require so many means, which are constantly being created”. Remember that this task force was responsible for practically ending pending expressions of interest, being focused on exchanging Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) titles for a standard card and renewing residence permits that have been expired for years (transfer to IRN failed in this matter).
Security
Concerns are expressed about “the weakened and less qualified staff to respond to the challenges it faces, aggravated by the exponential increase in the immigrant community in Portugal”, with the departure of investigation and inspection professionals to the Judiciary Police (PJ).
It is reiterated that AIMA is an “entity of a purely administrative nature”. Therefore, he claims that he “does not have the competence” to “interconnections with matters of a police nature and inspection needs prior to taking a decision on requests for document regularization”.
More security concerns are highlighted, such as “the necessary interconnection and coordination between consulates and immigration authorities and consultations of a police and other nature, with the consequent risk analysis to be ensured”. How the DN highlighted in a report in the summer of 2024, With the extinction of the SEF, the positions of so-called “immigration liaison officers” in Portuguese embassies in countries of origin of the main migratory flows were no longer occupied by inspectors from this former foreign police specializing in criminal networks to assist illegal immigration.
Regarding border control, the association believes that “in accordance with EU rules and good practices, would be to attribute this competence to a single entity, capable of guaranteeing the qualification and training of all national border guards, the uniform treatment of situations”. With the extinction of the SEF, they point out that “the integrated vision of border management has been lost and there is a risk of a lack of uniformity in control rules, procedures, decisions and risk assessment criteria”.
The option of transferring “operational functions of great technicality to entities with different natures, historically formed to maintain public order and security”, is criticized. in a reference to the PSP, even without citing it.
It highlights “a humanitarian approach” in document control at border crossings, which does not compromise “the screening capacity” of economic migrants and “those truly in need of international protection or in a situation of special vulnerability”. Cases of “rigid decision-making at the border or promotion of removal are also cited as examples of the difficulties arising from the current model”.
Regarding the recent decision of the Government to extend the stay of former SEF inspectors at airports until April 2026sees with reservations when it comes to the management of the human resources already trained for the function, totaling, for the aerial aspect alone, almost double the number of inspectors who, in the now extinct SEF, guaranteed all its areas of activity. At the same time, they recognize the praise given in the decree-law to these employees. “They represent national added value in terms of experience and knowledge, at a stage that presents security risks already identified by the European Union”he- if not decree-lei.
Concern is raised about airport security, due to the increase in passenger flow, the “saturation of control points” and the “increase in waiting times and, above all, a decrease in operational efficiency”. Regarding UNEF, he understands that “it only reinforces the gap created with the extinction of SEF”.
Finally, the report cites an anticipated statement by DN in a report about the years since the end of the SEF. “We are convinced that, sooner or later, the political power will assume the need to create a new SEF, with characteristics similar to the extinct service. The creation of the National Unit for Foreigners and Borders (UNEF) in the PSP is already an indication of the recognition of this need”.
The document points out that these assessments are carried out “from an essentially technical perspective and as a vision of employees of an immigration service whose professional career has provided them with in-depth knowledge on these matters and who continue to monitor the migratory phenomenon with attention and permanent updating”.
amanda.lima@dn.pt