This happened to some American neighbors of mine last night, and fortunately, everything eventually ended well. Her husband suddenly collapsed and she called 112.

The biggest problem was that the 112 operator did not speak any English at all. She couldn't communicate effectively with the operator and was even having difficulty providing their address. Obviously, when your husband has just collapsed in front of you, trying to communicate an emergency and explain your address in a language you don't speak is an incredibly difficult situation.

He was eventually taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital, and fortunately, everything ended well.

I'm not posting this to criticize the emergency services. But it made me realize how important it is for expats who don't speak Portuguese to have a Plan B.

If you don't speak Portuguese, don't assume that you will be able to communicate in English when calling 112. In a genuine emergency, that language barrier could become a serious problem.

If you live in Portugal and don't speak Portuguese, consider preparing for this in advance.

I honestly thought the nightmare was finally over.

My wife went to her family reunification interview and had her biometrics collected. On the very same day, the AIMA website showed her application as “approved”. About two weeks later, the status changed back to “under analysis”. Then, less than a month after the biometrics appointment, her residence card arrived in the mail out of the blue where the status remains stuck as under analysis.

At that point, I thought: finally, it’s done. We have the card. We can move on.

Apparently not.

Yesterday, just out of curiosity, I checked the AIMA website again and discovered that the process now shows that a prior hearing (“audiência prévia”) has been opened, meaning we are apparently being contacted to provide additional documents.

What the hell is going on?

The application was approved. The biometrics were completed. The residence card was issued and delivered. Yet, according to the website, the process is apparently still under analysis and now there is a prior hearing requesting additional documentation.

I genuinely don’t understand how a process can apparently be approved, result in a residence card being issued and delivered, and then somehow go backwards into another stage.

The whole thing is completely insane. You can’t even relax after physically receiving the residence card because you have no idea what is happening inside AIMA.

Now I’m actually worried that they could somehow cancel or revoke a residence card that has already been issued and delivered.

Has anyone experienced something similar? Is it actually possible for AIMA to open an “audiência prévia” after the residence card has already been issued? And can they cancel the card because of something that comes up at this stage?

https://preview.redd.it/jjv57vk7nimh1.jpg?width=1100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b63229dd869dadb6c5b83cb64f5bbf97e9a52a42

For years, thousands of immigrants in Portugal have been forced to turn to the courts to obtain something that should, in principle, have been handled by the public administration itself: an appointment, a decision on a residence application, or simply a document confirming an immigration status that should already have been regularized.

The judicial strategy initially focused almost entirely on one objective: forcing AIMA to do its job.

In 2026, however, a new phase appears to be emerging. Instead of merely asking the courts to order AIMA to process an application, lawyers are increasingly exploring a different question: should the Portuguese state compensate immigrants for the financial, professional, family and personal damage caused by years of administrative delays and failures?

This represents a significant shift. The issue is no longer simply how long AIMA can take to process an application. It is whether an administration that repeatedly fails to comply with legally established deadlines can be held financially responsible for the consequences.

From forcing AIMA to act to demanding compensation

The first major wave of lawsuits against AIMA was primarily aimed at forcing the agency to act: process an application, schedule an appointment or issue a decision.

By 2026, however, lawyers are beginning to pursue a second avenue: civil liability and compensation for damages caused by administrative inaction.

In June 2026, for example, a Portuguese law firm published material explicitly asking whether “AIMA failures give rise to a right to compensation,” arguing that delays and administrative failures can, under certain circumstances, justify compensation claims against the State. Law firm publication on AIMA compensation claims

Other lawyers have similarly begun discussing compensation for losses resulting from excessive delays by AIMA.

The issue is therefore moving beyond academic legal discussion. Lawyers are beginning to present compensation claims as a potential second stage of litigation against the agency and the Portuguese State.

What has changed?

For a long time, the damage caused by administrative delays was treated almost as an unavoidable consequence of Portugal's immigration crisis.

An immigrant could spend months or even years waiting for a residence permit. During that period, they might face difficulties travelling, changing jobs, signing contracts, obtaining credit, starting a business or bringing family members to Portugal.

The judicial solution was essentially straightforward: go to court and force the administration to make a decision.

The emerging strategy asks a different question:

If the administration unlawfully failed to comply with its legal obligations and that failure caused demonstrable damage, why should the immigrant be the one who bears the entire cost?

That is the legal territory some lawyers are now beginning to explore more aggressively in 2026.

Actual cases are already asking for money

One of the clearest examples involves a Brazilian citizen who sued the Portuguese State and AIMA.

The case, initiated in 2025, sought compensation for the consequences of the prolonged failure to regularize her immigration status. Among the claims were compensation for material losses and €50,000 for non-material damages, in addition to other costs. Report on the Brazilian citizen's lawsuit against the Portuguese State and AIMA

The case is particularly significant because it demonstrates that the argument is not limited to direct financial losses.

The claim also concerns non-material damage, recognizing that prolonged administrative inaction can affect a person's family life, personal circumstances and psychological well-being.

Compensation claims are now reaching the courts

There are also 2026 court decisions showing that compensation claims are being brought alongside immigration proceedings.

In one decision of Portugal's Northern Central Administrative Court, concerning a residence application submitted in August 2023, the applicant sought €5,000 in compensation for damages allegedly caused by the administration's failure to act. 2026 TCA Norte decision

Importantly, the existence of such a claim does not mean that compensation was awarded. In that particular case, there is no indication that the €5,000 claim was successful.

That distinction is crucial.

There are now immigrants asking the courts for compensation, but Portuguese courts have not yet established a simple rule under which every AIMA delay automatically generates a payment.

The damage has to be demonstrated

This is likely to be the most important legal hurdle.

It is not enough to establish that AIMA was late.

The claimant must generally demonstrate an actual loss and establish a causal connection between the administration's failure and that loss.

For example, an immigrant who lost a job because they could not provide valid residence documentation would need evidence of the employment opportunity, the documentation requirement and the connection between the missing documentation and the lost opportunity.

The same applies to business opportunities, contracts, travel, family reunification or other financial consequences.

This is why lawyers promoting this type of litigation emphasize the importance of documenting the losses suffered. 

The scale of the administrative crisis

The background is important.

When AIMA replaced the former SEF, it inherited an enormous backlog of immigration cases. In 2026, the Portuguese Bar Association referred to approximately 400,000 pending cases accumulated following the abolition of SEF. Portuguese Bar Association report on AIMA's backlog

The situation became so serious that the government and AIMA turned to lawyers and solicitors to help process the backlog.

The Portuguese Bar Association reported in April 2026 that AIMA owed approximately €244,000 to lawyers involved in this effort. 

The scale of the problem helps explain why litigation has become such an important part of Portugal's immigration system.

The question is now who pays for the consequences

For years, the administration could point to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the creation of AIMA, the inherited SEF backlog and the enormous number of pending applications.

But those explanations do not necessarily eliminate the consequences suffered by immigrants.

Someone who spent two or three years waiting for a residence permit still had to pay rent, work, support a family and organize their life while waiting for the State to perform its legal duties.

If the absence of valid documentation prevented a person from accepting employment, travelling, signing a contract, bringing a spouse or child to Portugal or conducting a business transaction, the delay may have produced consequences that go far beyond administrative inconvenience.

That is precisely the argument now being tested through compensation claims.

This is not yet an automatic right to compensation

It is important not to overstate the current situation.

As of August 2026, I have not found a definitive 2026 judgment establishing a formula such as:

>

Nor has a settled body of case law emerged establishing that every immigrant subjected to an excessive delay is automatically entitled to compensation.

What appears to be emerging instead is a new phase of litigation.

After years of taking AIMA to court simply to force it to comply with its legal obligations, lawyers are increasingly asking the courts to consider the consequences of those failures.

The first wave of litigation was essentially:

“AIMA, process my application.”

The emerging second wave is:

“AIMA and the Portuguese State, you failed to comply with the law, and that failure caused me demonstrable harm. Now compensate me for it.”

The question that could increasingly reach Portuguese courts is therefore no longer simply when will an immigrant finally receive their residence permit?

It is also:

How much did the State's failure to comply with the law cost that immigrant, and who should be responsible for paying for it?

Portugal Immigration Monitor, “From Residence Delays to Compensation Claims: Lawyers Turn Their Attention to AIMA Damages,” August 2026.