Vladimir invested in a qualifying fund and applied for the Portuguese Golden Visa. His documents and investment were in order, yet the case stalled for more than 14 months: the immigration service SEF was abolished and its functions passed to the new agency AIMA.
Local lawyers kept saying the same thing: it is the reform, everyone is waiting, nothing can be done. But a public authority has its own deadlines, and Portuguese law gives applicants a tool against missing them: a legal notice to the administrative court.
We documented the missed deadlines, filed the claim with the court through our partners and made sure the case itself gave no reason for a new delay. The court ordered AIMA to decide, and biometrics were scheduled within 30 days. Below we explain how it worked.
Case at a glance
Situation, solution and outcome in seven lines
Client
Vladimir, approximately 48 years old, commercial sector, Moscow-based; family of 3
Situation
Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months
Root Cause
Administrative reform: dissolution of SEF and transfer of functions to AIMA
Program
Portugal, Golden Visa (Residence Permit via investment fund, pathway to EU citizenship)
Problem
Local counsel inactive, case at standstill
Solution
Administrative court claim (Intimação) for unlawful inaction
Outcome
Court compelled review; biometric appointment scheduled within 30 days
Client story
Client's Background
Where they started
Vladimir did everything correctly: invested in a qualifying fund, applied for the Portuguese Golden Visa, and waited. His documents and investment were in order—the problem was not his. His case simply stalled amid a major reform: the SEF immigration service was dissolved and its functions transferred to the new AIMA agency, and in this transition, processing deadlines slipped for thousands of applicants.
Why the standard route did not work
Over 14 months passed—and silence. Worst of all, the local attorneys handling the case merely repeated: "reform, AIMA is overwhelmed, everyone is waiting, nothing can be done." This stance condemned Vladimir to indefinite waiting, and his family's plans kept falling apart.
What BRIDGES had to solve
The key insight was that the government authority has its own statutory deadlines that it is obligated to meet, and Portuguese law provides applicants with a specific legal instrument against their violation. This is Intimação—an administrative court claim (compulsion) against the unlawful inaction of the authority. Reform does not nullify the obligation to review cases within prescribed timeframes.
Why a standard answer would not do
Vladimir turned to BRIDGES when he realized that passive waiting was getting him nowhere. The task was not to "politely expedite," but to deploy a legal instrument: through administrative court, to compel AIMA to review the stalled case based on breach of statutory deadlines.
My case had been stuck for 14 months. Through partners Irena filed a claim with the administrative court, and 30 days later I had my biometrics.
What Was at Risk
What Was at Risk
When a case stalls amid agency reform, passive waiting yields nothing, and local counsel often merely offers excuses. However, the authority has statutory deadlines it must meet, and the law provides a tool against inaction—an administrative court claim. Reform does not nullify the obligation to process cases within prescribed timeframes.
Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months;
01SEF-to-AIMA reform delayed thousands of applications;
02Local counsel inactive—"everyone is waiting";
03Passive waiting could extend for months further;
04Breach of statutory deadlines went unaddressed.
The logic of the solution
How the matter progressed: from checks to result
The chart is built from the facts of this matter and shows the logic of the work without decorative or unverified data.
01
Stage 1
Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform". Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful.
02
Stage 2
Documented violation of established timeframes. For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".
03
Stage 3
Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação). The key step: we filed an Intimação - a mandate to the administrative court against the unlawful inaction of the authority. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court, which stands above it and can compel it to act.
04
Stage 4
Filed the claim with the administrative court. We filed the Intimação with the administrative court, outlining AIMA's inaction and violation of timeframes. The court is an instance that the authority cannot ignore, unlike informal requests from applicants themselves.
05
Stage 5
Supported the claim with an impeccable case file. We ensured that Vladimir's case itself was in order - investment in a licensed fund, documents - so the authority had no grounds for further delays on the merits. The legal leverage works when there is nothing else to object to.
Takeaway. the authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. When a case stalls, a legal instrument helps - Intimação to the administrative court, which compels the authority to review the case within a shortened timeframe.
How we solved the problem
How we solved the problem
The work was split into verifiable stages so that every conclusion rested on documents.
01
Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"
Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful.
02
Documented violation of established timeframes
For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".
03
Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação)
The key step: we filed an Intimação - a mandate to the administrative court against the unlawful inaction of the authority. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court, which stands above it and can compel it to act.
04
Filed the claim with the administrative court
We filed the Intimação with the administrative court, outlining AIMA's inaction and violation of timeframes. The court is an instance that the authority cannot ignore, unlike informal requests from applicants themselves.
05
Supported the claim with an impeccable case file
We ensured that Vladimir's case itself was in order - investment in a licensed fund, documents - so the authority had no grounds for further delays on the merits. The legal leverage works when there is nothing else to object to.
06
Achieved case review within 30 days
The court ordered AIMA to review the stalled case, and Vladimir was scheduled for biometrics within 30 days instead of endless waiting. The family moved towards status - not through patience, but through a legal instrument.
How the work went
From first contact to the result
01Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"
02Documented violation of established timeframes
03Prepared a judicial claim (Intimação)
04Filed the claim with the administrative court
05Supported the claim with an impeccable case file
06Achieved case review within 30 days
The sequence and timing reflect this specific case and depend on how complete the documents are and on the decisions of the competent authorities.
Expert comment
Waiting while a case drowns in state bureaucracy is the worst strategy, and Portugal's SEF to AIMA reform created mountains of such stalled cases. Vladimir's case had been pending for over 14 months, and local lawyers insist: reform, AIMA is overloaded, wait. But I proceed from law: the authority has established timeframes that it is OBLIGED to observe, and the reform does not cancel them. And there is a specific instrument against inaction - Intimação, a judicial claim to the administrative court. This is not a complaint to the agency itself, but an application to the court above it. I documented the violation of timeframes, filed an Intimação, and the court ordered AIMA to review the case - biometrics were scheduled within 30 days. The case file itself must be impeccable, otherwise they will object on the merits. The system can be legally forced to comply with its own rules, even in the midst of reform.
Outcome
What the client received
What was required
How we did it · Result
Move a stalled case
Legal instrument instead of waiting · Court ordered the authority
Base it on fact
Documentation of timeframe violations · Clear grounds
Compel the authority
Intimação to the administrative court · Obligation to review
Achieve progress
Vetted case file + claim · Biometrics within 30 days
Achieve progress
Vetted case file + claim · Biometrics within 30 days
What happened: a Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months due to the SEF to AIMA reform, and local lawyers took no action. What we did: rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform"; documented violation of established timeframes; prepared a judicial claim Intimação; filed it with the administrative court against the authority's inaction; supported it with a thoroughly vetted case file. What the client received: the court ordered AIMA to review the case, biometrics within 30 days.
Conclusion: the authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. When a case stalls, a legal instrument helps - Intimação to the administrative court, which compels the authority to review the case within a shortened timeframe.
Vladimir moved a case that had been stalled for over a year, not through patience, but through judicial compulsion - the court ordered AIMA to act, and biometrics were scheduled within a month.
A court claim over the migration service’s inaction is a lawful way to compel the authority to review the application. We will check the status of your case.
Share this article
FAQ
Questions people ask in a similar situation
01What to do if a Portuguese Golden Visa case is stalled?
Do not wait passively. The authority has established timeframes, and the reform does not cancel them. Against inaction, a judicial claim Intimação is used - a mandate to the administrative court to review the case.
02What is an Intimação?
This is an administrative claim (mandamus) filed with an administrative court against unlawful inaction by a state authority. Unlike a complaint submitted directly to the agency, it is directed to the court, which stands above the authority and can compel it to act.
03Does the SEF reform at AIMA justify the delay?
No. The reform does not cancel the obligation to review cases within the statutory timeframe. A case that has exceeded the deadline can be legally moved forward through court without violating any rules.
04Why do local attorneys often remain inactive?
Many adopt a passive position of "wait and see during the reform." However, this does not solve the problem. It is more effective to use the judicial instrument against inaction rather than wait for months.
05Is it necessary for the case itself to be in order?
Yes, absolutely. The judicial leverage on deadlines works when the case itself cannot be faulted on the merits. Therefore, in parallel, the case must be impeccable—investment in a licensed fund, documents.
06Which documents were key in this case?
Rejected the position of "we must wait for the reform". Local lawyers convinced Vladimir that during the reform there is only waiting. We immediately disagreed: inaction beyond the established timeframe is a violation, not a norm, and the reform does not justify it. This changed the strategy from passive to active and lawful. Documented violation of established timeframes. For the court to compel the authority, you must rely on fact: we established that the case exceeded the timeframe that AIMA is obliged to observe. The difficulty was translating the vague "stuck due to reform" into the precise "specific review timeframes violated".
07Why did the standard route not suit the client?
Over 14 months passed—and silence. Worst of all, the local attorneys handling the case merely repeated: "reform, AIMA is overwhelmed, everyone is waiting, nothing can be done." This stance condemned Vladimir to indefinite waiting, and his family's plans kept falling apart.
08What risk had to be closed before filing?
When a case stalls amid agency reform, passive waiting yields nothing, and local counsel often merely offers excuses. However, the authority has statutory deadlines it must meet, and the law provides a tool against inaction—an administrative court claim. Reform does not nullify the obligation to process cases within prescribed timeframes. Golden Visa case stalled for over 14 months;
I have worked with citizenship and residency matters in European countries for 12 years. Programme requirements and application practices change, so I assess each matter against the current rules, the applicant's immigration history, family composition and the documents supporting the legal basis for the application.
I lead matters from the preliminary assessment through to the grant of status. In complex situations, I identify the circumstances that may affect the review, establish the legal logic of the application and oversee the consistency of the supporting documents at every stage.
During the consultation, you will receive an assessment of the available legal grounds, a clear understanding of the chosen route and a list of issues that should be resolved before filing. Once the engagement begins, I oversee the application and the key decisions of the BRIDGES team.
Prepared on the basis of BRIDGES practice and reviewed by a subject-matter expert.
We will explain the requirements, amounts and timelines that apply now, and what is checked in a situation similar to yours.
We will review your situation and propose a solution
Describe your task in a few words. We will study your situation, assess the legal and practical options and propose the next step based on your goals, documents and country.
Confidential · no obligations · answered by the relevant specialist
Names and certain details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. The result described reflects one specific situation and is neither a public offer nor a guarantee of a similar outcome. Programme terms are stated as of 2026 and may change - please confirm current parameters with a BRIDGES consultant.
