The expulsion or exit orders issued by Spain do not automatically translate into a migrant being sent to their country of origin. Between the administrative decision and the effective return, it is necessary to identify the person, determine their nationality, ensure that the destination country admits them, and respect the procedures and guarantees provided in the legislation. If any of those steps fail, the expulsion may remain unexecuted.
The problem is not exclusively Spanish. In 2025, the countries of the European Union issued 491,950 exit orders to citizens of third countries, but 135,460 people were effectively returned to countries outside the EU during that same year, according to Eurostat. The two figures do not form a direct execution rate, because a return made during one fiscal year may correspond to an order issued earlier. Nevertheless, they show the existing difference between both processes.
Spain usually ranks among the countries that issue the most orders. In 2024, there were 51,025, 11.3% of all those recorded in the EU.
The Interior Ministry, using its own administrative categories, counted that year 3,394 returns: 3,031 expulsions and 363 repatriations. The European Migration Network, using Eurostat methodology, recorded 8,730 exits of nationals from third countries in 2024, of which 4,815 were voluntary and 3,915 were forced. The statistics measure different concepts and, therefore, should not be compared as if they were a single execution rate.
An order is not enough to put someone on a plane
The first difficulty is practical: Spain needs to know who the person is and which State it can return them to.
When a foreigner lacks a passport or valid documentation, the authorities must determine their identity and nationality. To execute the return, the intervention of the diplomatic representation of the supposed country of origin and the issuance of the necessary travel documentation may be required.
Here appears one of the great constraints of any return policy: Spain cannot unilaterally decide that a person is a national of another State and send them there. The receiving country must recognize them and admit their entry.
That is why cooperation with third countries and readmission agreements are an essential piece of the system.
The clock is ticking: the CIE has a maximum of 60 days
There is another important limit.
When an expulsion cannot be executed immediately, the Police can judicially request the admission of the foreigner to a Center for the Internment of Foreigners (CIE). It is not an automatic decision: it must be authorized by a judge and can only be maintained for the necessary time.
The Immigration Law establishes a maximum of 60 days of internment and prohibits re-interning that person for the same reasons within the same file.
If during that period the documentation is not obtained, the transfer is not organized, or it is confirmed that the expulsion cannot be executed, the person must be released. This does not necessarily mean that the order disappears, but rather that they cannot remain interned indefinitely waiting for it to be fulfilled.
Requesting asylum can halt the return
The execution cannot be carried out ignoring the right to international protection.
If there are circumstances that legally prevent the return, the authorities must respect them. Spain is bound, among other principles, by the prohibition of returning a person to a place where they may face persecution or certain serious risks.
Spanish legislation itself contemplates cases in which the execution can be postponed or suspended, and requires taking into account issues such as family unity, healthcare, or the situation of minors. The asylum regulations also incorporate their own guarantees.
That is why an administrative order for departure does not equate to an authorization for immediate return under any circumstances.
Not all orders imply a forced expulsion
There is another difference that explains part of the apparent distance between the statistics.
An order for departure can establish a voluntary compliance period of between seven and thirty days in ordinary procedures. The foreigner can leave Spain by their own means within that timeframe.
Only when that period ends without the departure taking place does the possibility arise to proceed with the detention and transport to the place from which the expulsion will be effectively carried out.
That is why Eurostat differentiates between voluntary returns and forced returns. In Spain, of the 8,730 departures recorded in its statistics for 2024, 4,815 were voluntary and 3,915 were forced.
It is a problem for all of Europe
The difficulty in converting orders into effective returns is one of the major problems of European migration policy.
Between July 2024 and June 2025, the Member States issued about 478,000 removal orders, while 115,000 irregular third-country nationals were effectively returned to countries outside the Union. The European Commission itself acknowledges that the return rate remains low and that this creates a pool of people with removal orders who remain within the community territory.
The problem explains why European migration policy has stopped focusing solely on issuing resolutions and has increasingly paid attention to identification, cooperation with countries of origin, readmission, and joint organization of returns.
What the new European system aims to change
It is precisely at this point that the reform announced by the Government after the Ceuta crisis connects.
The Executive wants to accelerate identification from arrival, incorporate the new border triage procedure, and resolve certain cases earlier. The sooner it can be established who has the right to apply for protection and who does not have the title to remain, the sooner the return procedure can begin, if applicable.
But accelerating the case does not eliminate all subsequent obstacles.
Even with a faster resolution, Spain will still need to correctly identify the affected person, have travel documentation, find a country obligated or willing to receive them, materially organize the transfer, and respect the guarantees that may prevent or suspend the return.
The Ceuta crisis may accelerate the administrative procedure. The final execution will also depend on whether there is a destination to which the return can be legally and materially carried out.