I will say this. There is a certain other country on this planet where the local equivalent of AIMA did not enforce the exact provisions of the law regarding the physical stay for some time. The lawyers advised their clients to follow the practice and not to worry about visiting as per the actual regulations. Lo and behold, one beautiful morning, their ‘AIMA’ decided to enforce the regulation verbatim. Anyone who did not follow them for the years prior (i.e. did not stay in the country the required number of days) - tough luck, no renewal for those guys. Those who did follow the law precisely even during the ‘relaxed years’ - got their renewals, no problem. You can guess which category I would prefer to be part of.
3 Likes
Remember, it used to be Big Five… 
On a serious point, the legal requirement runs continuously from the first issuance of the first card, and the person remains a full legal resident in-between the cards, hence they’d need to continue to satisfy the legal stay requirements. Whoever in the Big Four gave you the advice, probably did not read the law but delegated it to their intern who in turn delegated it to AI.
1 Like
I would not take ambiguity in the law as a license to disregard the spirit and purpose of the law. There is a clear mandate under the law to maintain a 7 day per year stay requirement. Simply because the physical card has not been issued I don’t think is a legitimate reason to not follow the stay requirements.
I disagree that I am “conflating different legal concepts around ‘lawful residence’ and ‘stay requirements’”
The stay requirement is triggered by issuance of the first card which begins the period of legal residence. Any lawful extension of the card after expiration maintains the period of legal residence so it follows that the stay requirements should also continue by the same terms.
If you choose to not stay 7 days a year, probably you will be fine, but maybe you won’t. I don’t care, as its none of my business.
As far as your advice from a big four firm, I can only say that my multiple lawyers have been wrong about their legal opinions on several occasions.
1 Like
I’m not sure why this has become so contentious! I was simply pointing out that there is another legal interpretation, supported by advice I received, and that people should make their own decision based on their circumstances and risk tolerance. I’m not telling anyone else what to do.
But I can tell you as a lawyer myself (albeit in a common law jurisdiction) ambiguity is exactly why people get legal advice. Lawyers look at things like at wording, structure, actual practice in real situations, and importantly risk, then advise on their best interpretation.
Just pointing to a particular interpretation of the “spirit and purpose” of the law doesn’t answer the legal question. Your argument is essentially that because the period after expiry is treated as lawful residence, the 7 day requirement also has to run on the same terms. It assumes that a legal extension preserving residence status also extends the expired permit, and every condition attached to it, for all purposes. That is, in fact, the point in dispute. It can’t be resolved by a hunch. Maybe your argument seems logically intuitive but it doesn’t simply “follow” in any legal sense. People often get themselves into trouble by assuming the law must follow what seems like common sense.
Of course lawyers can be wrong! They are often right until a court decides otherwise, and sometimes the reverse. There would be no need for courts if every legal question had an obvious answer. But advice from a large law firm that has dealt with this issue in its immigration practice for years is a stronger basis for acting than a personal view about what the law ought to require in spirit.
You’re free to take the more conservative approach, of course. I obtained legal advice, weighed the risks and costs, and made a decision based on my own circumstances. My only point is that the conservative approach should not be presented as though it is clearly required by law when that has not been established.
1 Like
Tommy, your “hence” is not making a legal argument. As for the suggestion that the advice was produced by an intern or AI, that is not a legal argument either. You haven’t seen the advice, do not know who prepared it, and have no basis for making that claim.
Doesn’t apply. We are not talking about AIMA not enforcing ‘exact provisions’ of the law. We are talking about a genuine ambiguity in the law. That is a very different situation.
I can’t see how one is able to remain “full legal resident in between the cards” if he/she with an expired card is denied to board to the airplane to Portugal…And one thing for sure is that more than three quarters of the ARI applicants come from countries which are required to have a Schengen Visa to enter EU.
1 Like
So you think AIMA cannot pick and choose the instances where they can enforce the regulation one way or another depending on the guidance from upstairs? I am not even sure what you guys are trying to argue for. If some of you do not want to spend 7 days per year counting from the very first card, but only spend 14 days within the duration of each card, that’s your choice. I have explained many times here my interpretation of the law and highlighted the fact that AIMA may change their ‘practice’ any time of day and start demanding exactly 7+14+14 etc. as per the law, which will then trip up a lot of folks relying on the Big4. What do you think happens then, Big4 will apologise and process your renewal instead of AIMA? I don’t think so. I sometimes feel like people are arguing with me as if I am AIMA and I make their rules, but I am not, lol
2 Likes
Jack, it seems to me your indignation regarding the big4 and the legal argument is somewhat misdirected. Remember, I am not on the side of big4 or on the side of AIMA, I am actually on your side, and all I do is share my opinion here based on my own knowledge and experience to help you and others navigate this space. You may disagree with me and that’s fine.
So now, if you want the “legal argument”, here we go once again quoting the Regulations:
“Artigo 65.º-C
Prazos mínimos de permanência
Para efeitos de renovação de autorização de residência, os cidadãos requerentes referidos no artigo 90.º-A da Lei n.º 23/2007,
de 4 de julho, alterada pelas Leis n.os 29/2012, de 9 de agosto, 56/2015, de 23 de junho, e 63/2015, de 30 de junho, devem
cumprir os seguintes prazos mínimos de permanência:
a) 7 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, no 1.º ano;
b) 14 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, nos subsequentes períodos de dois anos.”
Last time this Article was amended back in 2015. Since then, the validity periods of the cards changed at least twice, from one year of the first card to two years, and then from two to three with Mais Habitacao for converted ARI-D2. But this article remained the same. If you read this for yourself and see anything resembling “genuine ambuguity” then you should join Big4 
(just kidding, no offence meant).
1 Like
I am not trying to argue. Instead I am putting facts because I am one of the three quarters that need Schengen Visa all the time. I am questioning myself that how the other ARI could satisfy the physical requirement in between cards even though their expired cards are not valid to board. I was in the same situation before and I was locked up in Portugal for some times and it did cost me a business opportunity in Asia. I could not afford to fly out and then try argueing with the airline that I need to come back to Portugal to meet the physical requirement in between cards.
I do not take any advice of the so called “Big Law Firms”. Instead I am somewhat against using lawyers due to the obvious reason that need not to be repeated again here. I learnt portuguese myself and spent countless hours researching informations of CPLP forum and did everything myself after I set foot on Portugal. I try to put things on the table and consider all facts with a calm head.
The undenied fact is that one loses almost all legal resident right one day after the expiry of card. Many CPLP immigrants even lose their jobs in Portugal because the business owners do not want to take any risk hiring people with expired cards. Good luck for those with expired cards to exchange driving licenses, to book SNS appointment, or to apply for citizenship in IRN. Right now we are all witnessing the worst case scenario i.e. denied boarding (which is detailed on other post by Richard).
Of couse, AIMA - the Mighty GOD, always can find any reason to protect their reason. For example, AIMA could say that ARI applicants must fulfill the physical requirements in between cards. AIMA has power to use this reason/logic to deny renewing permits for a majority of ARI applicants. Or even when all ARI applicants fulfill the requirements, they still have power to stop the program midway. We could sue AIMA and AIMA is never afraid to take up that challenge because it is God - the fearless!
No, I’m not indignant. I’m responding to what I see as a few weak legal arguments mixed with some unnecessarily personal remarks.
At the risk of repeating myself, nobody is disputing the law requires 7 days in the first year and 14 days in subsequent 2 year periods. The question is what happens when one permit has expired and the renewed permit hasn’t been issued. Article 65C doesn’t say that the minimum stay period continues to accrue during that gap. That’s the proposition you keep asserting. You keep saying it “follows”. I keep saying that is an inference, not something the legislation actually states. If there is another provision that bridges that gap, then by all means point to it. But Article 65C doesn’t do that.
So no, I don’t think the ambiguity disappears just because you’ve quoted the regulation. It doesn’t address the specific legal question we’ve been discussing.
And yes, if experienced immigration lawyers can read the same legislation and reach a different conclusion after advising ARI clients for years, that rather suggests there is a genuine legal question here, not that they’ve forgotten how to read a regulation.
I’ve been on this forum for a few years now and seen a lot of well-intentioned but misinformed ideas around what the laws “mean” take root. I’ve always told people to get proper advice. This is exactly the kind of consequential question you don’t want to resolve by reading a bunch of hotheads on an anonymous forum.
2 Likes
Surely folks can just work out the common denominator between the different interpretations.
For example, once one receives their first residence card, say it’s effective for two years from date X to X+2 years, then it’s safer to (1) take a 14-day holiday in Portugal during Year 1, or (2) take a 7-day holiday in Portugal during each of Year 1 and Year 2. This is safer than (3) waiting until Year 2 to take the 14-day holiday.
Then depending on the renewal gap between cards #1 and #2, one can keep calculating the common denominator, as long as the gap is not ridiculously long.
Unless someone has a job/school-age children with really tight number of vacation days each year, instead of getting into a debate, just find the common denominator.
1 Like
Most of ARI applicants come from countries that need Schengen Visa to enter EU. Therefore, if they apply for the Schengen Visa and use it to enter Portugal, will they be seen as a tourist? Or will they be seen as die-hard investors who try to satisfy the physical requirement? 
How do you contact AIMA? Do they ever respond?
I don’t think it matters what visa you enter portugal on, in order to meet the stay requirements…
1 Like
Do seek individual legal advice, but I don’t think the gaps between cards matter. Under old rules you can apply for citizenship 5 years from initial application. Under new rules it’s 10 years from first card. If card renewal processing delays mean you have gaps between an expired card and a new card, I don’t think this matters for calculating legal residence for a citizenship application.
However you WILL need to prove that you met the stay requirements at each card renewal. My lawyer’s advice was ‘keep visiting Portugal’! This was in response to the recent retroactive law change (5 to 10 years legal residence for citizenship), so she was saying you can’t be sure there may not be further retroactive changes bringing in even more stringent requirements, so keep visiting Portugal if your intention is to stick with the programme.
We did 14 days in Year 1 AND 14 days in Year 2, to be on the safe side. Going forward we will do around 15/16 days every year. You never know what unforeseen circumstance could arise such that one year you just can’t go to Portugal. Then at least there’d be ‘something in the bank’ from the previous year as cover.
Having said that, we are now applying for new cards after our 1st 2 years with the initial card. My lawyer only asked for proof of 14 days stay at any time within the first two years, nothing about proof of (7 days or otherwise) stay during the first year.
Also, regarding ….
"Artigo 65º-C
Prazos mínimos de permanência
Para efeitos de renovação de autorização de residência, os cidadãos requerentes referidos no artigo 90º-A da Lei n.°
23/2007,
de 4 de julho, alterada pelas Leis n.os 29/2012, de 9 de agosto, 56/2015, de 23 de junho, e 63/2015, de 30 de junho, devem cumprir os seguintes prazos mínimos de permanência:
- 7 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, no 1º ano;
- 14 dias, seguidos ou interpolados, nos subsequentes períodos de dois anos."
… a literal reading would imply that for card renewal you will need 14 days in EVERY subsequent 2 year period. Nothing here says that this requirement is suspended if you have gaps between cards …. don’t know if that’s stated somewhere else …. so presumably the intention is that this requirement must be met regardless of whether or not you had gaps between cards.
1 Like
Don’t try injecting “common sense” as you will get flamed. Trust the lawyers!!
3 Likes
Has anyone received approval for their online ARI renewal recently? If so, could you share your timeline? (Application date, document submission, and final approval date?)
The moment you say “presumably the intention is”, you’ve moved beyond the text and are drawing an inference about legislative intent. That’s perfectly legitimate, but it isn’t a literal reading.
A literal reading tells us the requirement is 7 days in the 1st year and 14 days in subsequent 2 year periods. It doesn’t tell us what happens where one permit has expired and the renewed permit has not yet been issued.
The legislative framework has a LOT of moving parts like permit validity, continuing residence rights after expiry and the stay requirements for renewal. We can’t just pluck out one provision and assume it answers how they all interact. The legislation doesn’t expressly resolve that question.
Reasonable lawyers can draw different inferences from the same framework. Mine reached a different conclusion.
None of this is personal. The laws are written by politicians, interpreted by judges and lawyers, and applied by AIMA. Whether we like it or not, what seems like the obvious or common sense interpretation to a lay person is not necessarily how a legal question will ultimately be resolved.
And gentle disagreement about the interpretation of legislation is hardly “getting flamed”, unless you’ve led a particularly blessed life!
I am simply pointing out that, from a legal standpoint, this is not as clear cut as some would like it to be (myself included).
2 Likes
I really disagree that the law could be anything other than it plainly says, ie 14 days in every subsequent 2 year period, unless you can point to a contradicting or clarifying law elsewhere. Sure the law doesn’t say what if this and what if that, what if I lost my job, what if I had a personal crisis and couldn’t make it one year, what if the sky fell in or the sun doesn’t rise one. We’d be here all day trying to draft a law that catered to every eventuality. 14 days in every subsequent 2 year period to my mind doesn’t need much further clarification, although I’m sure lawyers can drum up all sorts of opposing arguments. I suppose one could argue it means 14 days in every subsequent 2 year period OF CARD VALIDITY. If such a reading were permitted, nevertheless since we have no definitive means of knowing whether it would or not, I still say safest is to do a minimum of 14 days in every 2 years, whether your card is expired or not.