Portugal’s minister said investors were “misled” over citizenship expectations—lawyers respond

António Leitão Amaro, Portugal’s Minister for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, accused investment-migration consultants of misleading clients about the real prospects of obtaining Portuguese citizenship. The remarks were made at a press conference following a meeting of the National Council for Migration on 24 May.

According to the minister, any consultant who told a client they were “buying a Portuguese passport” through a golden visa effectively lied to them. The comments triggered a strong reaction from lawyers, who argue that responsibility does not rest with intermediaries, but with the state—because of delays, rule changes, and failure to meet the expectations it helped create.

The minister’s statement: “If they promised a passport, that’s deception”

António Leitão Amaro stressed that there were no guarantees of automatic citizenship. He said that if a consultant claimed the client would receive “guaranteed citizenship” and described the process as “buying a passport” when applying for a residence permit by investment, then the client was misled.

The minister also suggested that, in such a case, “responsibility may lie precisely there”—meaning with those who shaped investors’ expectations that did not match the legal reality.

Background: changes to naturalisation law and new timelines

He made his comments less than a week after the entry into force of Lei Orgânica n.º 1/2026 (from 19 May). The act doubled the naturalisation period for most foreign nationals—from 5 to 10 years of residence. For EU citizens and citizens of Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) states, the required time is 7 years.

Against this backdrop, more than 500 golden-visa holders are preparing a collective lawsuit against the state. A legal consortium of four companies intends to challenge the changes in several jurisdictions.

Lawyers respond: “The minister must answer one simple question”

André Miranda, Managing Partner at Fieldfisher Portugal and a representative of the consortium, firmly rejected the minister’s position. He said no one promised investors automatic or guaranteed citizenship.

Miranda emphasised that the “golden visa” programme was originally a Residence by Investment (RBI) scheme—i.e., providing a residence permit through investment, not “buying a passport.” In his view, the minister is trying to “rewrite history” after the fact.

He then turned to the minister directly: before blaming consultants, the minister should explain what happened to his own promise that, by 2026, all investors would receive residence cards.

That promise was made in October 2025, when the minister told parliament that AIMA (the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum) would “clear the backlog” of golden-visa applications in 2026 and deliver €85 million in revenue.

The lawyer also noted that the central issue is not advisers’ actions, but state delays and rule changes “mid-game.” In his view, it is time to hold politicians accountable for public promises.

“A state failure” instead of blaming consultants

A similar position was voiced by Paxlegal, the third firm in the consortium. Bárbara Pestana said the real breach is the multi-year backlog (the queue for processing applications).

In her view, the state invited investors to put in millions, but then forced them to wait 4–5 years for residence authorisation.

Emelin Oliveira went even further, arguing that trust is not broken by consultants, but by a situation in which the state itself fails to implement the system it created.

Creating “legitimate expectations”—the lawyers’ argument

Raquel de Matos Esteves, founder of RME Legal, took a more measured but equally principled stance. She recalled that the ability to apply for citizenship as a lawful resident—regardless of the basis on which the status was obtained—remains available under Portuguese law.

At the same time, lawyers say the dispute is not about whether citizenship rules can be changed. The question is whether applicants were given legitimate expectations about how many years of residence would be required for naturalisation. They argue that such expectations were created by the state itself and point to documentary evidence.

It is also noted that Portugal does not have a “citizenship by investment” regime in the strict sense. However, lawyers say this does not justify refusing to protect the interests of those who followed, in good faith, a route that was possible in the country through lawful residence.

They additionally highlight the legal concept of tutela da confiança—the protection of legitimate reliance. The argument echoes points raised in an amicus curiae submission (a third-party brief) that golden-visa investors filed with the Constitutional Court in December 2025.

The document described how the former SEF website explicitly referred to the possibility of obtaining Portuguese citizenship through a golden-visa residence pathway, and how the naturalisation period was first reduced from 6 to 5 years and then increased to 10.

A shift in rules and a “confrontational” scenario

Lawyers believe the attempt by Leitão Amaro to shift the focus onto consultants reflects a long-standing pattern of conflict. In October 2025, the minister acknowledged that the government deliberately prioritised more vulnerable migrant categories over golden-visa holders due to AIMA’s backlog, calling it “social justice.” Lawyers interpreted this as intentional discrimination against investors who put in more money.

The citizenship law changes were approved by parliament on 1 April (152 to 64)—the outcome of an agreement between the ruling Social Democratic Party (PSD) and Chega. President António José Seguro signed the decree on 3 May.

In December 2025, the Constitutional Court struck down four of the seven contested provisions but upheld the 10-year period. Lawmakers then re-confirmed the remaining rules, securing a super-qualified majority (157 votes).

The law includes a transitional rule: applications submitted before 18 May 2026 are protected. Golden-visa holders who have not yet submitted documents do not receive this protection.

Under the requirements, the government is given 90 days after publication to update the implementing regulation (Regulamento da Nacionalidade Portuguesa). However, at the time of the discussions, AIMA and the Institute of Registries and Notaries (IRN) had not yet published procedural clarifications.

If you’re considering Portugal’s Golden Visa and want to understand the real timelines and paths to citizenship, it’s crucial to rely on up-to-date legal reality—not on promises of “a passport through investment.” When regulations change and investor expectations become the focus of disputes, Digital Nomad supports you with a clear, compliant strategy: document planning, eligibility checks, and risk-aware guidance.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr