Golden Visa Investors Challenge Portugal Over Residency Timing

(PORTUGAL) Golden Visa investors have begun taking Portugal’s migration agency and lawmakers to court, arguing that long waits and recent nationality-law changes are turning a residency-by-investment promise into an open-ended limbo. At least one collective legal action and related individual suits seek orders forcing Portugal’s Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum, known as AIMA, to decide pending applications after multi-year backlogs, according to public reporting and sector analysts. Many applicants say they invested in good faith and now face years of extra uncertainty.

Constitutional Court review and investor amicus submission

The dispute sharpened in December 2025, when investor representatives filed an amicus curiae brief—an outside submission to assist judges—during the Constitutional Court’s review of reforms to Portugal’s nationality and foreigners laws. The filings put Portuguese authorities under new pressure from thousands of applicants.

The Constitutional Court, led by its president José João Abrantes, delivered a closely watched decision on December 15, 2025. The court:

• Struck down four provisions of amendments to the Nationality Law.
• In principle accepted Parliament’s move toward a longer, ten-year path to citizenship for many applicants.

For Golden Visa investors, the mixed ruling left the most practical question unresolved: when does legal residence start counting toward naturalisation — at application submission or only after AIMA issues a residence permit? The court also left unclear which people in the pipeline would receive transitional protection, a gap likely to spur more litigation.

Investors’ legal arguments and remedies sought

In their December court submission, investors argued that administrative paralysis and shifting rules amount to a “de facto denial of acquired rights” for people who applied under earlier expectations. They urged judges to:

1. Grandfather pending files so applicants are judged under the rules that existed when they applied.
2. Define a clear residence-counting rule that cannot be undermined by slow bureaucracy.

The brief also highlighted statutory deadlines Portuguese authorities have not met, describing a system where applicants can pay and submit documents yet still wait years for biometrics appointments and final approvals. Public reports did not list the investors by name nor publish the brief’s full text, leaving parts of the legal argument partially obscured.

Scale of impact and practical consequences

Reporting cited more than 20,000 applicants who could be affected if residence time begins only when permits are issued rather than when applications are filed. With AIMA’s processing taking years for many files, analysts warn that a nominal ten-year timetable could become 12–14 years in practice.

Practical consequences include:

• Disrupted schooling, business moves, or retirement plans for families.
• Investments, leases, and tax plans structured around an expected timeline becoming unreliable.
• Expiration of travel documents and repeated postponement of appointments.
• Growth of a secondary market for legal services aimed at forcing decisions via court orders (per VisaVerge.com).

Litigation as a strategy to force administrative action

Beyond constitutional arguments, many cases focus on one simple demand: make AIMA decide. Public reporting and sector analysts describe a wave of suits asking judges to compel the agency to deliver final decisions within set deadlines and, in some cases, to hold officials accountable for missed legal time limits.

Applicants generally seek court orders to force a decision rather than to have courts grant residency outright. In prior cases, courts have ordered AIMA to act, and applicants often see movement soon after judicial intervention. However, even a court-accelerated decision may not complete the process because biometrics scheduling and card issuance can still stall.

This stop-start experience reinforces the perception that delays are becoming policy rather than accidents.

“Applicants say they are not asking courts to grant residency outright, but to force an answer so they can plan their lives.”

Agency response and transparency

AIMA has not published a public timetable matching the backlog described in the lawsuits, though applicants can follow official notices and contact channels on the agency’s website at AIMA.

Lawyers involved in these cases warn that even small procedural steps—an email requesting updated records, a biometrics slot, or a fee payment—can reset expectations. Because public summaries do not name plaintiffs or counsel, it is difficult to measure how many Golden Visa investors are coordinating strategy versus acting alone. Portuguese authorities have not released a consolidated list of pending ARI cases.

Timeline of key reform and court events

Broader legal and political context

The investor fight is part of a wider legal storm over Portugal’s immigration overhaul. Earlier in 2025, Parliament approved major revisions to the Foreigners Law and nationality rules; those changes then faced Constitutional Court scrutiny.

While the Golden Visa programme (formally the ARI residence permit) has specific rules, investors say a repeating pattern has emerged:

• New laws are proposed.
• Agencies fall behind in processing.
• Courts become the venue where timelines and practical rules are set.

That dynamic has turned routine administration into strategic litigation for applicants who expected approval.

Key unresolved legal question: when does the clock start?

The unresolved residence-counting question is more than theory. If the clock starts only at permit issuance, an applicant who filed years earlier may lose those prior years for citizenship purposes despite complying with programme requirements and maintaining investments. Investors contend that lawful presence should be counted from the moment a complete application is lodged.

Portuguese authorities have said reforms aim for tighter rules and improved controls after criticism that investment migration can be abused, but reporting summaries do not include detailed government quotes on these specific Golden Visa cases.

For Portugal’s politics, court rulings have become a check on Parliament. For migrants, the situation shows how rights can hinge on whether paperwork moves on time.

Next steps and what applicants can expect

The collective legal action runs alongside many individual cases, and both are likely to grow while backlogs persist. Applicants describe paying for a status they cannot fully use, because travel plans, bank compliance checks, and family reunification depend on a valid residence card.

Administrative courts can move slowly, so investors often file promptly once delay becomes clear. Even when judges order AIMA to decide, subsequent steps (biometrics, card issuance) may still drag on. That stop-start reality is a key reason investor groups took their arguments to the Constitutional Court, seeking a ruling with nationwide effect.

Lawyers expect:

• More requests for clarification from courts.
• More suits aimed at forcing appointments and written decisions, especially if AIMA cannot reduce the backlog.
• Interest in the written judgment and docket materials to see how judges weighed reliance interests and whether guidance was given on when residence begins to count.

Until those documents and any follow-up rules are published, applicants say they are making life plans in pencil, not ink, after investing time and money in Portugal.