What's the potential impact of the 2025 Portuguese election on the Golden Visa program and pathway to citizenship?

Just throwing this musing out there for the AIMA/IRN watchers. The reason that the GV was suspended in 2014 was because of corruption in SEF that went all the way to the top. 11 officials were arrested in what was called Operation Labyrinth. This 2017 article references it, along with other allegations of corruption in the GV.

We know that there’s plenty of corruption in many walks of Portuguese life that seems to be generally tolerated. Any sense out there of corruption in AIMA/IRN? I haven’t seen it myself but someone once told me that when things involving government agencies don’t make sense it’s a good place to start scratching.

1 Like

I guess Roman Abramovich may answer this question for you, if he is on this forum? :slightly_smiling_face: :money_bag:

3 Likes

I don’t think the folks on this forum belong to that particular club!

Was there not the recent sting in Madeira with a bunch of arrests? I thought I read something about an investigation into the… shall we say exchange… for certain expedited services in the AIMA offices there? Unfortunately I don’t recall the source.

1 Like

Açores, not Madeira :innocent:

3 Likes

That’s what it was! Thank you!

1 Like

I have a random question. I have been looking to no avail for a screencap of both pt’s gov’t website blatantly advertising not only the GV but GV as a direct path to citizenship. There was something similar on SEF’s site too. I cannot find it and got kicked out of the old WhatsApp group, and I’m trying to find this for a potential future suit. I feel my eyes glazing over lol

1 Like

Here is another webinar that seems to suggest that many legal battles are brewing on the horizon for Portugal. Interestingly these fellows seem to think that a collective lawsuit (i.e. class-action lawsuit à la portugaise) will not be effective, but the individual claims might be.

1 Like

Not a direct advertisement, but a link to SEF site in 2021 which referenced then-current legislation. The argument could be that at the time of your application, these were the laws “em vigor com suas atuais redações”

And here is a link to the Golden Visa page of the Portuguese Consulate in San Francisco, USA, from around early 2021.

4 Likes

Thank you! Appreciate it:)

1 Like

Watched the webinar last evening - few of my notes below. They might publish a recording but I haven’t seen a link for that yet.

  • “Fieldfisher, Liberty Legal, Pax Legal and RME Legal are joining forces…”
  • Handful of other law firms (e.g. SBPS) have offered to join these 4. So don’t necessarily need to engage the original 4.
  • Currently collecting applicants’ scenarios to find commonality (see examples below)… for potential group action? (not sure)
  • Note Arbitration only works for Nationals of countries that have a bilateral investment treaty w/PT… e.g. the USA might not (at least I think that’s what they said). The other 3 routes are applicable to everyone.
  • ECHR route is only reasonable after other avenues are exhausted.
  • Can defo find violation of law in the thousands of AIMA delays = base of most arguments.
  • TC ruling last December seemed to think that AIMA’s backlog was ‘resolved’ (or nearly so), due to Gov’t spin. Need to educate TC that AIMA continues to be very broken for those of us “left until the last.”

8 Likes

Thanks! This is very helpful. It sounds there are several avenues open to mount legal challenges against the State. Certainly not my idea of “happy ending” to be engaged in another legal pursuit, but at least all is not lost either…

1 Like

I would include in my prior assumptions the possibility that further processing on a pending application by a plaintiff would be paused until the outcome of the suit.

I don’t think this is the case. Two of the four firms have already done some pro-bono work with the intention of benefitting the whole community. Other firms have joined with them in an effort to join forces and seek clarification of the law. So far these are smaller, independent firms. Contrast this with another larger firm that is currently in the US trying to get people to sign up for ARI. I’ve talked to a number of lawyers about the issues involved with ARI and applying for PT citizenship, and have experienced the quality of work provided by four different PT legal firms. This webinar was informative, and I would be happy having any of the people that presented it do legal work for me. As ever, it’s best to do your own research before hiring a lawyer or agreeing fees.

4 Likes

The lawyers in charge of the collective actions consortium have started a group chat to share updates. If you would like to join for updates or just to find out some info for a potential legal strategy that works for you, here’s the link!

2 Likes

So the argument is basically: the state offered residency, the market sold citizenship, and now the state disclaims responsibility for the very narrative that made the program commercially successful? That is a very convenient separation. Portugal benefited from the marketing machine around the Golden Visa for years, but now says the citizenship expectation was never guaranteed and was merely “constructed by the market.”

If that is the position, then were the real estate agents, lawyers, advisers, and consultants who sold this expectation regulated, supervised, or authorized by the state — or were they just allowed to make inflated promises while the state quietly benefited? Either way, it looks deeply dodgy for the state to wash its hands now and pretend the market narrative had nothing to do with the public program it created.

They could have intervened against, sanctioned, or forced corrections from the websites, lawyers, real estate agents, consultants, and everyone else involved in promoting misleading claims.

12 Likes

If you’ve been around the PT ARI for a while, “unregulated” and “deeply dodgy” are par for the course :confused:

4 Likes

It’s such a laughable argument, since the state itself did promote the program as a path to citizenship.

If the whole program was just about residency, where is my card? Why would you even bother offering a limited presence if the expectation was that people move to Portugal? If permanent residency is legitimately the intended outcome, why hasn’t the state even offered appointments for it? Even the change in the law that started residency at application was a tacit acknowledgement that citizenship was the only reason anyone was in the program in the first place. These are all bald faced lies.

8 Likes

I don’t think people realize the extent to which the billion dollar industry relied on the state to play fair.

Even until the very last moment, almost all the lawyers, agents and consultants were making the claim “apply now before the laws change to preserve your grandfathering into the old laws”.

I don’t think any of the people in the GV industry ever questioned or considered that this change in the law could be a possibility and that it could be retroactive, so people felt pretty safe advertising citizenship because even if the laws change, we can change our advertising when they do without being put in a difficult situation because our old clients are already under the old law.

Even the state itself advertised across multiple channels citizenship as part of the program, as has been documented by several people, because if things change, who cares, we can change our advertising if they do.

Nobody expected this to apply retroactively, it’s an unprecedented situation, and so now the industry must take unprecedented steps. Imagine you are a lawyer, advising your client about Portugal your home country, building a relationship with them over years, guiding them through setting up a business in the country, connecting them with other folks when required, and then this change happens. You would personally feel a bit ashamed, I know I would, I would be ashamed that my client has been put in such a difficult position. I don’t think this is just a “money grab” to pursue legal action I think it’s also a matter of principle.

People like to characterize folks in the industry as these profit seeking homing missiles, I sometimes also make snide comments about it, but ultimately I think people have a good sense of when injustice is being done. And while there is a profit driven motive, I think there is also a sense of injustice, which in my opinion is what is driving this collective response.

For every story you read, or article you hear about someone being put into some awful situation because of these changes, such as having their 19 year old kid being unable to go abroad for their university without jeopardizing their ability to return home, after you moved your family to a country on the basic principle of protection from retroactive action and now it’s all a mess. Or perhaps the family of four who got four different biometric appointment dates and have their cards running on completely different renewal dates across a multi year timeline. Or the investor who traveled halfway across the world for a renewal appointment which could have been done online, only for there to be a system failure and get a rescheduled appointment which conflicts with their life. Or many many far worse and horrible stories than these tame ones which are not public… for every one of these stories you hear, your lawyers have probably heard 10 more, personally, from clients who they care about because that’s who they have a duty to protect.

I think solidarity here is good, whether lawsuits work or they don’t, people don’t exist in a vacuum, and the emotional damage, the stress of this situation will ripple through the industry and in some way the country and make an already stressed out population even more stressed out and anxious.

You know what strikes me as the most egregious of all? It isn’t the retroactive aspect of the law, it isn’t the change in citizenship timelines, it isn’t even the broken administrative system. It’s the purposeful removal of the clause protecting people from delays of the state. That is what really got to me. The removal of AIMA delays from counting towards your time contributing to the country, after you invested money, not in some house but an actual business that employs local workers and provides value to the country, for them to toss away all of that… there’s no reason, why? You could have stopped at retro-activity, why go even further?

You cannot punish people into leaving, most of the people you want to leave have no choice but to stay, and most of the people you want to stay, have every option in the world to leave. So now you’re stuck with stressed out immigrants whose lives have been tossed into turmoil, investors who feel they’ve been cheated, and lawyers who die a little more inside every time they walk into a room with a smiling new client and are forced to make eye contact.

31 Likes

It is deeply disappointing that even the Constitutional Court concluded that removing the previous time-counting clause was not unconstitutional.

7 Likes