During the past decade both Spain and Portugal have amended their legislation to add an inadmissibility phase to their asylum procedures. These inadmissibility proceedings follow an accelerated pace and include a broad array of grounds for rejecting applications. Asylum seekers deemed inadmissible under these procedures never receive a hearing on the substance of their claims for protection. The expansive inadmissibility grounds in Spain and Portugal prevent an applicant from entering the

more »

... e status determination proceeding if an inadmissibility examiner concludes that the application contains false, implausible, or outdated information or deems the application unfounded. Additionally, an examiner can declare inadmissible an asylum seeker with a well founded fear of persecution if the examiner concludes that the asylum seeker engaged in conduct that precludes refugee status. Despite the complex evidentiary issues raised, the inadmissibility examiners make their decisions on an expedited timetable in circumstances that exacerbate cultural and class biases that undercut reliable decision making. This approach to inadmissibility proceedings thwarts the humanitarian purpose of asylum policy and increases the likelihood of refoulement to persecution, torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment. It deters asylum seekers and violates international obligations to protect refugees. Moreover, it conflicts with the proposed EU Procedures Directive, which limits inadmissibility grounds to ascertaining the state with the responsibility for hearing an asylum request and to repetitive petitions. Consequently, the great majority of contemporary justifications for inadmissibility decisions will be impermissible under the Procedures Directive, rendering much of the current Spanish and Portuguese inadmissibility proceedings unlawful.