The whole point of the GV is for PT to make money, letâs not forget that. It is very hard to imagine them intentionally doing anything that reduces how much they make.
We are their captives, after all. We have zero leverage. They can do whatever they want to us, so why would they choose to save us (and cost them) money?
Feels like I am smoking copium when I start to think âmaybe my first three years of waiting will countâ.
Also given that you resubmit all your paperwork at biometrics (right?) it is logical that the initial application is merely an expression of interest and your real application is filed at biometrics.
And yet, your EOI receives âpre-approvalâ, indicating you have applied for something with itâŠ
This is quite an absurd statement given what we witnessed in the last 72 hours from parliament. All the voices (some anonymous posters) trying to undermine what otherwise seems to be a positive development wonât affect my opinion of the situation. While it seems true that no one cares about ARI applicants , there is a general supportive tailwind for immigrants in general and ARI can get caught up in the general positive momentum from time to time.
I think weâre in a situation where the exact, final interpretation of the law as it has been drafted has some ambiguity as far as its application to GV is concerned. The law wasnât specifically drafted to address the long waits that GV applicants are facing, so this isnât surprising. We might end up being beneficiaries - letâs wait and see.
When the PT government published their intent in early February 2023 to end the programme, some posters on NG (some of whom were at times very negative) were sure the law would be applied retrospectively (it wasnât). Think of it this way - at the very minimum, the new law doesnât adversely harm anyoneâs progress to date - it only has the potential to reduce the wait to citizenship if the application date on the SEF/AIMA platform turns out to be the date that is considered as the residency start time.
Being cautiously realistic isnât âtrying to undermineâ anything. I 100% hope youâre right. But assuming this is totally great for ARI is far more dangerous IMO. False hope is worse than realistic pessimism, even if the latter eventually proves incorrect.
I love that PT gives us so many opportunities to speculate wildly (but only the theories matching the desired outcome are welcome.)
âWhat if we never have to renew before citizenshipâ is a fun but unlikely thought experiment.
My 2 cents
RESIDENCY BY INVESTMENT
The whole deal is about WE invest money and PT grants us RP.
Given that WE have spent the money BEFORE the very initial online application, it is only fair that the time T0 starts at the online application. Otherwise I donât see how this amendment will actually mitigate the delays, and entierly missing the point of the amendment.
I agree with this interpretation, just with a small clarifying point that it would most likely be the date of the initial DUC payment for the âanalysisâ of the application. Prime Legal provide some more detailed rationale for the same interpretation, and I have cross-checked this with my own DUC receipt paper, which indeed quotes âResidence titleâ i.e. exactly the wording used in the new law.
I would agree with this too, as we in fact have yet another supporting evidence here in the form of the famous Despacho n.Âș 12870-C/2021 allowing legal presence in PT for anyone who âappliedâ before 1/1/2022. And the Despacho further clarifies what is considered âappliedâ, including online applications.
UPD: Oops, I did not see that @igor.queensu already posted the same comment about the Despacho! Great minds think alike I guess
I had understood that the granting of citizenship after five years was not automaticâthat in addition to the language test you needed to demonstrate some connection to PT. So while the running of the five year period is up for a change, even beyond the 7/14 day requirement for renewal you would need to some permanent relationship. Some years ago our lawyer had said that it would be appropriate in the run-up to the application for citizenship we should have a long term lease, long term presence, records with the health system, tax residency, atestado and what not. Maybe even going to church.
So successfully getting citizenship without spending time in PT would be a stretch.
I agree with this also. But whether the relevant date is the initial application or DUC payment for analysis is largely irrelevant to most people because the spread is only a few weeks at most.
This may be another bump as well that is not applicable to the ânormalâ visas. Ideally, we would have had five years of the Golden Visa cards + our investment to prove ties to Portugal. Now, if they do count based on application date, do they count that as sufficient ties to Portugal? The counterpoint is, of course, that they still have had our investment for five years, even without the cards, which hopefully represents the same level of ties to the country.
I think what we have seen is that with all of the criticism of Portugalâs changes (Abrupt end of NHR, Long Processing times), they do eventually try to make it right (NHR transition scheme, this law change). Itâs just that the GV is such a unique beast any specifics to clarify its position are overlooked in the law and subject to ambiguity which makes us nervous when decisions are made at a Judge/Bureaucrat level.
Itâs a chicken and egg problem, because without the residence cards you could not really have those longer term ties â you could not spend more than 90 days there, could not (I assume) get a longer term lease, etc.
I think everyone needs to separate the VISA process from the CITIZENSHIP process. Obviously those are interrelated but the counting of the 5 years for citizenship (which is at question with this change and shaves 20 months off the timeline for me! WIN!) now starts probably when you paid your initial fee (for me, Dec 2020) instead of when your card was issued (for me July 2022). The residency requirement is not an issue here. All that matters is the time that you were legally considered a resident - and that clock now starts with the payment (probably). The visa residency requirement is a separate issue and is and likely will still be 14 days in 2 years starting from when your card was ISSUED. We will see what the lawyers formally say but thatâs how I would interpret it.
This is true. I always forget that it is a different organization that processes citizenship and they are only interested in the sheet that AIMI provides that says âYes they have been a resident for 5 years.â They may also look at other ties (not sure on the details here), but that 5 year residency requirement AIMI provides should now be satisfied due to this law change regardless of if we have had the cards for those 5 years or not.
