[ad_1]
The Administrative and Fiscal Court of Braga notified the defense of a Brazilian citizen residing in Braga -who challenged the expulsion decision of the SEF- Immigration and Borders Service that found her in Residencial Cairense- to “inform the court about the state of the criminal proceeding No. 6689 / 19.0T8BRG, (ongoing in the local Judicial Court), that is, on whether conviction or acquittal has already been handed down ”.
And it adds the notification of the judge: “if so, you must attach a copy of the resolution, with final and unappealable traffic information.”
Speaking to O MINHO, lawyer João Magalhães said that the Administrative Judge’s question “is very demonstrative of the insufficiency of criminal laws on the permanence of foreigners in Portugal: there is a criminal proceeding in the Court against my elector, but that it does not have a specific purpose, since the expulsion decision is an administrative act. Furthermore, if that were not the case, the deadline for the presentation of an accusation against him would have passed, ”he says.
Eight trapped in Cairense
As reported by the MINHO, the immigrant was part of a group of eight Brazilian citizens detained in December 2018 by the SEF at the Residencial Cairense de Braga, supposedly in the practice of alternation.
One of them has already been expelled and two others have appealed to the Administrative Court, where they have been granted a precautionary measure that allows them to remain in the country until the main action is judged.
Despite this, they still have to appear weekly to the PSP, until the case is heard in court, which can take six years to resolve.
In the jurist’s opinion, this situation is not only absurd, but also unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental law regarding rights, freedoms and guarantees: “there is a criminal process that, in practice, does not exist, but that prevents them from leaving. of the country and forces them to go to the police every week, “he laments.
Therefore, the jurist proposes that the laws that regulate the stay of foreigners in Portugal be modified, adapting them to constitutional principles.
“It is unacceptable and inconceivable that the Portuguese State and the Court continue to treat the citizen as a prostitute. When, in effect, he has a ruling from the Braga Administrative Tax Court and a ruling from the North Central Administrative Court, which proves without a doubt that he is not in Portuguese territory to prostitute himself. Yes, finding himself looking for work, trying to stabilize professionally and financially ”, reads an application made by the lawyer.
The prostitution test is a “guess”
It is recalled that the Northern Central Administrative Court dismissed an appeal from the SEF and confirmed the decision of the Administrative Office of Braga to suspend the expulsion of a Brazilian citizen, who did not even leave Portugal, due to the filing of a precautionary measure.
The immigrant had been arrested in December, along with seven other women, in a police operation at the Cairense de Braga Residential.
Now, his defense lawyer, João Magalhães, who also represents another Brazilian citizen detained that same night in Cairense, asked the judge to annul the obligation for the two to appear weekly before the PSP.
In the lawsuit, the lawyer recalls that, as reported by O MINHO, the Administrative Office of Braga had already considered, in his sentence, that it had not been proven that the woman worked in the alternative or in prostitution since she was found drinking coffee in that hotel.
The Northern Court, of second instance, confirmed this version and says that the SEF expelled it based on “mere conjectures, not proven and only with indicative evidence.”
Although the lawyer does not specify it, the truth is that, if the measure of coercion of weekly presentations in the Police is not revoked, the two immigrants will have to travel there for several years, since, as is known and is not planned. that has a change in the short term, a process in the Administrative Court of Braga can take six to ten years to decide, due to lack of judges and chambers.
[ad_2]
