Spain's Supreme Court has upheld key parts of the 2024 immigration regulation. Denied asylum seekers cannot count their waiting years toward residency. The decision affects thousands navigating Spain's complex regularization process.
Spain's Supreme Court has ruled that time spent waiting for an asylum decision cannot be used to qualify for ordinary residency and work permits. This decision, which upholds a controversial section of the 2024 immigration regulation, means that foreigners whose asylum applications are denied must start their residency clock from zero, regardless of how long they have already lived in Spain under international protection status.
The ruling comes after several migrant rights organizations, including Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España (Apdhe), Extranjeristas en Red, and Coordinadora de Barrios, challenged the regulation. They argued that the rule leaves asylum seekers in a precarious position, forcing them back into irregular status if their protection is denied. Previously, those awaiting asylum decisions could work after six months and, if ultimately rejected, use their years in Spain to apply for regularization, provided they had stayed at least two years. The new regulation eliminates this pathway, requiring denied applicants to wait another two years before seeking legal residency.
According to government data, by the June 30 deadline for the extraordinary regularization process, 1,174,968 applications had been submitted, with 24.4% coming from asylum seekers. Many have chosen to withdraw their asylum requests to join this new process, even if they fled war or persecution. However, official figures on how many have formally renounced asylum are not yet available, as this can only be done once a final decision is issued in the extraordinary process—a procedure that remains slow. As of June 2, only 11,000 of the 1.17 million applications had been resolved, all positively.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it is unfair to allow irregular migrants to count their time in Spain toward regularization, but not asylum seekers. The court stated that irregular stay and asylum-seeking are not comparable situations under Spanish and EU law. While irregular migrants lack legal recognition, asylum seekers are governed by specific statutes, such as Directive 2013/32/EU and Spain's Law 12/2009, which do not equate their status with general residency authorization.
Some aspects of the extraordinary regularization decree were upheld by the court as beneficial for migrants. For example, parents of immigrants can now obtain residency while already in Spain, whereas reunification previously required them to remain in their country of origin. The same applies to descendants, who can now regularize their status in Spain even if married—a change from the previous rule that limited this to single children. The court found that requiring children to be single did not effectively prevent forced or child marriages and could actually increase vulnerability by pushing minors into irregularity.
However, Extranjeristas en Red expressed concern over the Supreme Court's support for a rule requiring immigrant children to apply for regularization within six months of birth. Previously, there was no age limit. The group notes that passport delays in some consulates made it difficult for families to meet this deadline, complicating the process for many children.
This decision highlights the ongoing tension between Spain's efforts to manage migration and the realities faced by those seeking protection or regularization. The backlog of unresolved asylum cases remains significant, and the new rules may discourage some from applying for asylum in the first place. The situation echoes broader debates about migration policy and legal pathways, which have also surfaced in other contexts, such as the challenges faced by public figures navigating personal and legal obstacles, as seen in the recent story about Adriana Torrebejano's experience with recognition and bureaucracy in Castellbisbal.
Spain's approach to migration continues to evolve, shaped by court decisions, government policy, and the lived experiences of migrants. The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies the legal framework but also underscores the complexity and human impact of immigration law in the country. As the extraordinary regularization process unfolds, many will be watching to see how these changes affect both individuals and the broader system.
