ah, i didn’t know there was it’s own PR for GV, so yeh, just get that then I guess
Artigo 65.º-K
Concessão de autorização de residência permanente a titulares de autorização de residência para atividade de investimento
Aos cidadãos titulares de autorização de residência para atividade de investimento prevista na alínea d) do n.º 1 do artigo 3.º da Lei n.º 23/2007, de 4 de julho, na sua redação atual, e seus familiares, que cumpram os requisitos previstos no artigo 80.º da Lei n.º 23/2007, de 4 de julho, na sua redação atual, e requeiram a concessão de autorização de residência permanente, será emitida uma autorização de residência para atividade de investimento permanente, excecionando a este regime o previsto na alínea b) do n.º 2 e nos n.os 3 e 4 do artigo 85.º do mesmo diploma.
The fees are even higher than the normal GV card but it lasts 5 years.
But I heard in practice it’s impossible to get appointments to apply for it.
1 Like
its crazy, pay 10s of thousands of dollars and still not even get an appointment. i dont understand what aima are doing tbh
My objection to this petition is that it leaves out the many thousands of ARI applicants who have been waiting multiple years for SEF/AIMA to issue our first residency card. The grandfathering should in all fairness include people whose applications were accepted and whose visa applications are taking years to be processed.
4 Likes
Not sure fairness gets into it. But citizenship for people who don’t pay taxes in PT, don’t live much in PT, and don’t work or spend much in PT starts off being somewhat anomalous. With the end of NHR, it also means most GV folks won’t ever convert to being residents.
I think you are mistaken "paying taxes in Portugal " to “tax resident of Portugal”.
All GV holders via real estate and Fund pay taxes in Portugal. If they have rental income from property in Portugal, they obviously pay rental income’s tax. A same thing applies to the fund investors, if their Fund yields a dividend, they pay dividend’s taxes in Portugal.
If you want GV investors to be tax resident of Portugal when applying for citizenship, then GV is no longer suitable to be called a GV. Who would apply for GV if “tax resident” was one of the mandatory conditions? D7 is always there with minimum cost for those who want to engage into “tax resident”.
Actually, I would like the PT Govt to insert this requirement immediately to the GV program. Then very likely a number of new GV’s application drops 90% and Aima has more resources to handle and take care of current GV applicants. Therefore, for the benefit of my future renewal, I do wish that a new requirement will be added into GV’s program so that there will be zero or almost zero new GV’s application. 
6 Likes
They were basically promised citizenship though, after 5 years and PT agreed to this deal. It’s pretty shitty to take it back after people have already paid a lot.
5 Likes
Promised by the promoters, not the government.
As far as I am concerned, it was promised by the government agency: Autorização de Residência para Investimento – Art. 90.º-A - Viver | Living - AIMA
- Solicitar a aquisição da nacionalidade portuguesa, por naturalização, cumprindo os demais requisitos exigidos na Lei da Nacionalidade (Lei n.º 37/81, de 3 outubro, na sua atual redação).
6 Likes
Well, that’s an interesting catch:
na sua atual redação
Is anyone familiar enough with Portuguese legalese to say whether this above should be interpreted as “at time of writing”, or “in the latest revision”?
It’s ambiguous to me whether the law is trying to say that the requirements at the time the ARI law was passed should apply, or rather that, the nationality laws in their most current revision, at time of application should apply.
In casual conversation I would expect this phrasing to mean the latter, but not sure in this context.
1 Like
People should run innovative theories of statute interpretation by their own Portuguese lawyers. We’ve had at least one round of this discussion on “as amended” on this forum already.
I failed to convince the chap who believed he had a “bulletproof” legal case based on his statute interpretation, and many will undoubtedly continue to believe in this wishful thinking. But beware.
1 Like
In practice it’s obviously the latter. When the ARI law was passed, naturalization time was 6 years. This was later reduced to 5 years. Plenty of GV holders have applied at 5 years. So clearly it’s the latest version that applies, not the version at the time the GV law was passed.
4 Likes
But the wording is very clear:
Request the acquisition of Portuguese nationality, by naturalization, fulfilling the other requirements demanded in the Nationality Law (Law No. 37/81, of 3 October, in its current wording).
The word “atual” means “current” or “present”.
I don’t see how that clause would mean that the law would apply in the wording as it will be at the moment of the naturalization application. It would definitely not be “in the current wording”, but “in the wording at the time of application” or so on. How otherwise should’ve they expressed that the old law wording applies?
I have no concerns with how it’s written, and I strongly disagree it is a wishful thinking, more of a common sense.
My main concern it’s just on AIMA’s website, and I couldnt trace this clause to an actual law.
1 Like
Favorable retroactivity is more reasonable at this time.
2 Likes
In nearly every case that I have read about, both in Portugal and in the United States, the courts have treated such entitlements like a ratchet: they can be granted or improved, but not diminished.
My worst-case scenario is a six year wait for naturalization to commence, but I am comfortably secure in the expectation that I can apply after five years. Whether that is five years from application or five years from first card issuance is up in the air. I suspect that is also a winnable case, but by the time I secured a hearing, it wouldn’t matter. Perhaps others will litigate a flood of such cases and establish an informal precedent that saves me the trouble.
5 Likes
The problem with relying on the courts is that they, too, are backlogged. Let’s presume for the sake of argument that they’ll rule in your favour - but it takes 2-3 years for your case to be ruled upon. You’re still looking at a pretty extended timeline.
2 Likes
“Na sua atual redação” or “as amended” means whatever version that is atual, or current, or latest, when the law is applied (in this case, when you avail yourself of the Nationality Law and apply for naturalisation). It is commonly used when one statute refers to another. This is statute interpretation 101 stuff, and is not controversial at all.
What might seem like common sense to you (and other laymen on this forum) does not reflect legislative intent or how statutes are read by lawyers and judges.
Ask your own lawyer is all I’m trying to say. Don’t trust random laymen who agree with your “common sense” approach.
2 Likes
Could be, pinged my lawyer, will revert back on what he says. Thanks for the comment.
Not just backlogged, but also random and capricious in my experience 
Aside from living there or having a real estate, what ties can you start developing?
Does taking Portugese classes help? What about traveling tot eh country often?
Urgency is another matter altogether,
1 Like