Looks like the Nigerian press had it right after all! 
2 Likes
@Hippopotamousse No, that outlet reported Portugal had already unveiled the 10 year plan. They hadnāt. In fact, we still havenāt seen any legislation. And we have no information on the impact on ARI holders.
Until we have more info, itās worth keeping a cool head. Something useful to do in the meantime is write to your lawyer and to your fund manager, get their advice, and see if they have any lines of communication to decision makers in the government to lobby for a grandfathering clause for current visa holders and point out the legal and reputational risks if one is not included.
2 Likes
Another perspectiveļ¼
CHEGA is blocking applicants for family reunification and this is the main reason for the backlog.
Frankly speaking, these people made less contribution to society but consumed more from AIMA.
I know this perspective is controversial, but itās not impossible.
3 Likes
ARI visa holders are not immigrants in the traditional sense ā most of us live outside Portugal. The ARI visa, unlike other visa categories in Portugal, involves investments made by retail investors. In the private sector, when a fund solicits capital from retail investors under specific terms and conditions, any amendments to those terms require the investorsā consent. For the Portuguese government to unilaterally change the terms for retail investors should not be this easy. In a private market context, this would be considered a clear case of fraud.
I havenāt seen any information suggesting that the GV-eligible funds we invested in are planning to remain open or extend their investment period beyond 10 years. Thatās an issue, considering that the waiting time already includes 3 years and 7 months (and counting) āplus the proposed 10-year period, plus the 24ā29 months it takes to finalize the citizenship process and get a passport.
The idea of counting the 10-year period for citizenship eligibility from the date of the first residence card issuance might have been justifiable if SEF had issued the cards within the legal 90-day window after the analysis fee was paid. But that clearly did not happen.
Meanwhile, applicants who submitted under AIMA have already received their cards. Counting the 10-year period from the date of the first residence card issuance would clearly result in unfair treatment of ARI visa applicants from the SEF period.
What can we do about this? I am not sure. I just asked my lawyer and fund managers their insights.
6 Likes
I would like to ask, is this retroactive? For someone applied for citizenship one year ago?
And what is the new language requirement??
My regards
Just reprinting what was in the Jerusalem Post.
Hello all, I am a GV holder via Real Estate and have also been advising clients on the Portugal GV, D7 etc.
My 2-cents which I have always communicated to prospects and clients from day 1. The Golden Visa (ARI) programme and the citizenship laws are completely different, and to the best of my knowledge fall under two different government departments. The promise was NEVER that 5 years of residency would lead to citizenship. If thatās what anyone has said, it was misleading.
The ARI programme grants you a residence permit which one can renew every 2 years provided one has spent at least 15 days in the country. Under a SEPARATE LAW, it so happens that 5 years of legal residency in Portugal (under most kinds of visas) allows one to apply for citizenship. It was never one unified programme of Investment-Residence-Citizenship.
As such, the country has always had the right to amend its citizenship and naturalisation laws independent of any immigration programmes. If these new proposed laws were to indeed pass (shudder!), it actually has no impact on our rights as GV applicants/holders. One can still continue to be a āresidentā as per the existing rules of the programme, if one chooses to.
My point is, Iām not really sure we can cry foul on this issue, distressing and upsetting as it may be. We may at best be entitled to appeal/request.
Anyway, let us keep fingers crossed and hope for at least some grandfatherly protection. 
8 Likes
A big part of the investment decision was citizenship. Even if not explicitly stated, what justifies the high cost just for a residence permit without even tax benefits? Might as well apply for a freelance visa one of the many European countries offer including D7 by Portugal. It was heavily marketed as a pathway for citizenship. I understand the laws are seperate, but there are reasonable expectations
10 Likes
The Portugal government does not seem to care that much about the people who put their life savings into its economy, millions and millions.
If the government can pull the rug out, so can we the investors. Then they will remember why they created the program in the first place
1 Like
AIMA lists, as one of the benefits of the ARI,
āRequest the acquisition of Portuguese nationality, by naturalization, fulfilling the other requirements of the Nationality Law (Law no. 37/81, of 3 October, in its current wording).ā
The linkage is very clear.
https://aima.gov.pt/pt/viver/autorizacao-de-residencia-para-investimento-art-90-o-a
10 Likes
A 5 year pathway to citizenship was explicitly promoted on government websites and in materials from SEF, AICEP and other government-affiliated channels promoting golden visas. Golden visa compliant investment funds were marketed (often with implicit state backing) on the basis of this framework.
The government has legal responsibilities to investors who acted in reliance on that framework and put up large amounts of cash. The fact residency and citizenship are outlined in seperate laws is irrelevant; thatās not how law operates. And they are not even the only areas of law that apply to our case; we can also look at breaches of legitimate expectation, investor protection obligations, the risk classification and disclosure basis of investments, potential state liability under EU law, and investor protection principles in both Portuguese and European financial regulation.
I think we can and should cry foul, and have a reasonable legal basis to do so.
18 Likes
We need to collect these documents and proofs as Chris has shared, to build our case on why retrospectivity is applicable to GV holders on the nationality law.
Maybe we should open a separate thread for this
1 Like
For what it is worth, this is the response I just received from my lawyer when I asked her to comment on the latest proposal:
Regarding the news, (I) itās just a proposal; (ii) will have to be approved at the parliament; (iii) then will have to be promulgate by the president - that already said that consider it unconstitutional!
So we are good! 
Letās keep some hope alive for now.
5 Likes
Forgive my bluntness about free speech, why can a speech violating the Constitution be proposed by a ruling party,as per the answer from this lawyer?
As I understand it, the Portuguese constitution can be changed by a super majority in parliament, so a government can propose something currently unconstitutional and post implementation change the constitution.
This would not override rights acquired elsewhere ie EU or ECHR etc.
Thank you.
If so,how can she say we are good?
1 Like
One interesting piece of news is that the government wants to exclude ARI holders from their newly proposed restrictions on family reunification (the 2-year wait), alongside EU Blue Card holders and some āhighly qualified peopleā (which they are yet to define, I guess itāll be some subset of D2/D3).
Which adds to our pool of evidence to support grandfathering the whole thing, basically none of the new changes should apply to ARI.
5 Likes
Blockquote
Because the last constitutional change was 20 years ago and all it did was add the ability to conduct referenda on treaties to deepen the EU. One is never āgoodā , but she clearly considers it a matter of v low concern.
So Iām literally about to fund my investments within the next week. Now Iām wondering do i hold off on this.
10 years, B1+ language level, no class certification, history of Portugal exam, other courses all possible. This does not seem like a good plan if they want investors. Iām not sure if Iām going to fund my accounts now.
2 Likes
We donāt have a crystal ball, but I think in your situation you have a tough call to make.
I think there are basically three possibilities:
One, the law passes as proposed, in which case ARI applicants are fā ā ā ed. So thereās no point in you applying, because what good is a 15 year citizenship timeline?
Two, the law passes with an amendment to protect existing applications. Is your application considered existing? If it is, then applying before the process finishes might save you. If not, youāre fā ā ā ed.
Three, the law passes with a carve-out to exempt all ARI applications, in which case, full speed head.
So it comes down to your risk tolerance and how likely you think it is that a carve-out might happen. I donāt think any of us really know at this point.
2 Likes