Belgium: failing to appear can cancel the application, while appearing can lead to detention in a closed centre

Since the beginning of 2026, 68 people have been taken to a closed centre after appearing for an interview at the Immigration Office. This is almost as many as during the whole of 2025, when 71 such placements were recorded, according to figures published by Le Soir and reported by BX1 on the basis of a Belga news dispatch.

One of the cases concerns a Palestinian man arrested on 21 May 2026, after an interview to which the Belgian administration had summoned him. The Immigration Office justified his deprivation of liberty by the failure to comply with several previous orders to leave the territory and by the existence of a flight risk.

His lawyer disputes this assessment. He points out that his client lives in Belgium with his partner, that the couple is expecting a child and that the man had until then attended the appointments set by the administration.

The Office’s decisions can nevertheless be challenged separately. In another case, the Belgian courts thus annulled a refusal of residence and the accompanying order to leave the territory.

On Bladi.net : article 122260

The Palestinian national’s case was brought before the Court of Cassation. The defence argued that the man had been lured to the Office’s premises without knowing that his summons could end in an arrest.

A summons with no obligation to give a warning

The Court did not find that deception had occurred. It noted that no legal provision requires the Immigration Office to warn a person that they risk being deprived of their liberty during their appointment. Nor is the administration required to specify precisely, in the summons, the reason for the interview.

The scope of the decision nevertheless remains limited. The Court does not declare that every arrest following a summons is automatically lawful. It merely considers that the absence of a warning is not sufficient to establish that an entrapment had occurred.

Placement in a closed centre must always be based on grounds specific to the person’s situation, such as an unexecuted departure order or a flight risk. The administration must also take into account the personal ties invoked, an examination whose inadequacy has already led a judge to annul a refusal of residence presented as a mere formality after seventeen years of residence in Belgium.

For specialised lawyers and CIRÉ, which defends the rights of foreign nationals, the problem remains unresolved. When an applicant for protection fails to respond to a summons, their absence may be interpreted as an abandonment and lead to the closure of their case. But if they appear, they may be arrested and transferred to a closed centre.

On Bladi.net : Belgium Ramps Up Deportations of Moroccan Migrants

The Immigration Office rejects the accusation of “deception”. It states that it acts within the law and is considering no changes to its summonses or methods.

The Court of Cassation’s decision therefore legally reinforces the possibility of an arrest following an interview, without prior warning. It does not resolve the paradox denounced by associations: responding to the administration can lead to detention, while failing to respond can jeopardise the procedure initiated.