Please excuse my ignorance: my nationality application was submitted in July this year (ie after June 19). So my question is the following: is the Constitutional Court ruling on both the start date to work out when residency began as well as the constitutionality as to whether existing GV/ARI holders can be denied grandfathering on the 5 years as opposed to 10 years new requirement for nationality? I feel like there are so many issues going on here.
For context, I was approved in November 2019 but as a result of Covid, I only got biometrics taken in 2022 and my card was issued in Jan 2023. So, I am wondering if I am still falling into the 5 year requirement and whether that starts from Dec 2019? I am so confused as to where I am with this.
Am I protected by the “old” rules because my application is in? Or
Am I waiting for the Constitutional court decision on Start Date as well as 5 years/10 years
If anyone can shed any light, I would be most grateful.
AFAIK the June 19th thing no longer applies. They dropped that part - the part that said the law would start from June 19th. So your application is alright under the old rules.
Even if the way they count time changes, it wouldn’t apply to you. If you managed to actually submit your application (surprised that they accepted it because as I heard they had changed the counting law but in practice were still counting from the date of first residence card).
So if you managed to get the actual application in, it should be pretty much legit under the law in force - even today.
In fact, yours is a classic case of why they should count from the date of application.
You are welcome. (And welcome back!) I’m glad I could contribute. It was a big team effort to get it done. I am not sure if I’m allowed to disclose the law firm names, but you can probably figure it out from the press articles. Our next step is to form something like a non-profit (as best I can tell, that’s the analog) so we have resources and can move quickly whatever the next stage is. I don’t know how long that takes or what the cost will be. But in the meantime, we built a network that we can activate as needed. I will report back when I have more info.
Thank-you so much, I was most concerned about the June 19 date. I do have a tracking number for my nationality application so I assume it is in the system. This whole process has indeed been stressful especially in the beginning with the Covid delays and not knowing when we would be allowed to travel.
We keep going round and round on this. The law was changed on counting the necessary time, aimed at the MI crowd and incidentally including GV< but there still was a landing requirement and the need for regulation. So the view of the constitutional court on the elimination of the counting change is still really important. The concern is that an invalid application will be rejected in a few years, and the process will have to be restarted.
Parliament has accepted the petition created by lawyer Priscila Nazareth Ferreira to discuss the inclusion of waiting time in the calculation foreseen by the Nationality Law . This week, the lawyer received an email from the Committee on Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees informing her of the decision.
Here’s Natasha at 19:40, discussing her article on the Amicus Curiae brief. I’m afraid she seems blissfully unburdened by the facts in your letter – or by any facts at all. It manages to be both garbled and offensive at the same time.
The worst thing is that she is trying to spread the idea that this is an astroturf effort by lawyers rather than a grassroots effort by real ARI investors. She says she has been on NomadGate, but clearly didn’t pay close attention.
We were never sure where that 14 December date came from in whichever publication that appeared (Observador, I think). Our lawyers always thought it was 15 December. And so it will be.
From the discussion, they don’t seem to have good information regarding the nationality law, GV, and the letter to TC. Really surprised she can talk like that being a news editor without doing a very good research on the topic. Amicus Curiae brief is not an American thing, is a GV Nomadgate members thing. We voted for it one week ago and need about 20 members (500€ each) to raise 10,000 euros to fund the letter through the laywers. Unfortunately, I don’t have the fund although I voted yes. Some members paid and I believe they are not only Americas, although good numbers might be. I don’t understand what that lady is talking about on that podcast. In Nomadgate we have Chinese, Brazilians, Africans, Americans, Europeans and Asias so Amicus Curiae is not an only American thing as I understand except I’m wrong as I’m not part of the whatapp group created for this purpose. Maybe only Amerucan paid for the €500 to raise the fund.
100% agree. @piquant_bugs.07 has shared a possible reason for The Resident’s slanted reporting: “They’ve had a lot of sponsored content from fund managers lately.”
At the same time, @watsonhal2016 has taken the brilliant initiative of writing to their fund managers and asking for more content that shows the benefits of GV investments for Portugal - with positive effects.
If our individual fund managers are advertising here, it would be worth flagging to them that they are advertising in a forum whose content is inaccurate and counterproductive to the aims of their own clients.
I have looked at the back issues and only see Blevins Franks advertised - however I don’t have the print edition. If anyone is aware of other GV fund managers who support this publication, please advise.
