A checkbox can be optional procedurally, but the legal requirement is not optional. it could still be a false declaration / misrepresentation risk, even if it is not strictly called “perjury.” A lawyer filing under power of attorney acts on behalf of the applicant, so the applicant is not automatically immune just because the lawyer submitted it or because one online checkbox was optional.
When the application is submitted by the lawyer, the acknowledgement says
Contexto regulamentar
Art.o 6.o, n.o 1 da Lei no. 37/81, de 3 de outubro, na redação em vigor, por ser residente em território português
Pressupostos que se declararam com a submissão deste pedido
• É estrangeiro • É maior, à face da lei portuguesa • Tem residência legal no território português há pelo menos cinco anos • Conhece suficientemente a língua portuguesa • Nunca foi condenado, com trânsito em julgado da sentença, com pena de prisão igual ou superior a 3 anos • Não está, nem nunca esteve, envolvido em atividades relacionadas com a prática do terrorismo.
Basically - that the applicant has legal residence in Portugal for at least five years.
1 Like
I understand that lawyers are adding a rider to the electronic submission, setting out the legal basis for the early application and citing the TC ruling. The view is that this rider negates or qualifies the statement about five years residence.
3 Likes
First time poster with such a detailed and “eloquent” post driving PSD/CH agenda.. 
Guess one of our resident government agents decided to use a new account..
Imagine someone who finished the process in 2022 and moved on with their life, decided to register on the forum 4 years later just to ‘advise’ out of the love for humanity probably. Yeah, happens every day.
17 Likes
I had an account on here back in the day, but as you said, I’ve moved on with my life. God forbid I check an old forum during a large legislative change! Please note, nowhere did I suggest you should or shouldn’t apply early, rather just laid out my experience as someone whos been through the program before. Contrary to belief, not everything has an “agenda”. I will refrain from posting any further since it upset you so much, but also recognize that everything I wrote is objectively true. Instead of criticizing me personally, you’re welcome to rebut any of the points. That is the whole purpose of a discussion community.
1 Like
There is no point rebutting something so blatantly incorrect.
Anyone who is familiar with the current/new Law and its regulations can see for themselves and make the same conclusion I made.
3 Likes
This isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an assertion. If the law clearly shows something different, point to it and I’ll gladly update my assessment. I just looked myself, and there is absolutely no provision allowing for naturalization without 5 years of legal residence. Using a bureaucratic backlog to cure your application date is not a valid strategy, or at least wasn’t one when I was applying. Anyone who submitted GV application prior to May 2021 is eligible under current rules, and not after.
It’s likely best to read the room before posting. Even better, catch up on your reading regarding post-April 2024 citizenship applications. If you don’t have any encouraging feedback, that is fine too; you can just leave it at “stay strong.” In case you have not noticed, emotions are running high in the GV community—many of us feel betrayed and swindled.
10 Likes
Look at me, i did everything right and got the passport hence you must do everything the way i did. Who cares that Since i got my passport, new laws have been implemented, new laws are coming but you must listen to me… come on man, like @servettasman said, read the freaking room before u post
4 Likes
Well since you mention it, I did purchase multiple properties beyond the minimum requirement of the GV, two of which I still hold today. I also bought additional preconstruction units in 2020/21 to rent out so in total, between the cashflow and appreciation, have gotten free citizenship along with healthy recurring profits. So yes, maybe I do know what I’m doing!
2 Likes
Dude.. at this point I’d just smile and wave… smile and wave…
3 Likes
And what about us? we are just losers and sore because Portugal changed the law and we can’t get passport for another 8 years? Get your head out of the… i mean, anyone discussing Golden visa here has done decent in their life. You are embarrassing yourself.
1 Like
Sticking to the theme of the thread. Early Application Submitted for dependent spouse and parent. 5 years complete in Dec 2026. Good luck to all of us.
5 Likes
What’s the earliest applicant you heard?
1 Like
There are some people in the whatsapp group who applied in 2025 I believe - so are 4.5 years off being able to apply for citizenship under current law. They know it’s a longshot but felt it was worth trying.
1 Like
4.5 years too early?? wow Golden Visa?
What about non golden earliest?
1 Like
i know a guy who invested in golden visa and applied next day for citizenship, so basically 5 years minus 1 day before qualifying… He thinks the 1000 Euros Lawyer charging is worth it
6 Likes
Genuinely asking, where’s the line for this sort of thing? Is 5 years minus one day really any less severe than applying at 4 years and 364 days? I mean obviously there’s a difference but both individuals fall short of the legal residence period and thus should be equally ridiculed, no? Again just going off current published legislature, both scenarios seem equally impermissible.
Your language is very offensive, why would anyone be ridiculed?
I think the line is when IRN contacts AIMA to calculate the Contagem de Tempo. That’s about 3-10 months after the initial application. You would, ideally, want to get a 5yr CdT when AIMA calculates it.
I believe you’re trying to make the slippery slope argument: if IRN is so slow that they accept people who hit 5yr in 3-10 months, why can’t they be so slow to accept people who hit 5yr in 4.9yrs?
I think the slowness of CdT is an accident, not per law. The law does not say CdT should be calculated in 3-10 months. But the law also does not say apostille documents must be 90 days. It just says “recent”. IRN interprets “recent” to mean 90 days for apostille documents, and 1yr in the case of apostille birth certificate. Similarly, IRN interprets CdT to mean whenever they contact AIMA to calculate it.
The slippery slope argument doesn’t really apply. Just because “recent” was relaxed to mean 90 days for apostille documents isn’t a slippery slope that it should be 5yrs. Just because CdT takes 3-10 months to calculate isn’t a slippery slope that it should be calculated after 4.9yrs. The 90 days for documents and 3-10 months for CdT are just inventions of IRN to run the bureaucratic machine. The law just says “recent documents” and “calculate CdT and check for 5yrs”. It is left up to IRN to create the details to enforce it.
I agree that Portuguese law dislikes randomness and 2 applicants on the same day with identical situations should be treated identically. I think IRN may soon make CdT less vague/random and codify an exact cut off. I have no idea what that cut off might be. 90 days? 2 years? The TC has given two rules that is difficult for IRN to solve simultaneously:
- The government must not be random. It must treat 2 people with identical scenarios in the same manner.
- The eligibility for naturalization must use the most recent information at the time of decision. (Not the most recent law: the law is frozen at the date of application. “Information” means the latest documents, etc. So if you submit A2 certificate late, they must accept it if they received it before their decision.)
Rule 2 says at the time of decision, so if you hit 5yrs at the time of decision, they should use that new information. But rule 1 says don’t be random, but the date of decision is inherently random, and 2 identical applicants may have their decision on different dates, one with less than 5yrs and one with more than 5yrs at the time of decision.
In the words of Jaime Lannister, “Oathbreaker”, “They call me Kingslayer. They call me Oathbreaker. But what do you do when you take an oath to obey your king and an oath to protect the innocent, and your king orders you to slay the innocent?”. When 2 oaths contradict each other, one will inevitably fall.
2 Likes