Denied Digital Nomad Visa - My Experience

This is not the US and British common law. Legal precedents here (as in Europe) are not only nonebinding, but can easily be replaced by another precedent either by a judge at the same level, or at a higher level. The only way this would constitute a constitutional precedent is if the decision was taken by the constitutional court. Obviously, in this instance, this is not the case.
Perhaps the lawyer who represented the pregnant women can expain his use of the expression "constitutional precedent" (if I remember correcty, in at least one of his post about the incident).
 
Perhaps the lawyer who represented the pregnant women can expain his use of the expression "constitutional precedent" (if I remember correcty, in at least one of his post about the incident).
A court decision in an earlier case with facts and legal issues similar to a dispute currently before a court.
 
I am not a lawyer and I am only "quoting" the lawyer who used the word "precendent" in at least one other thread.

Perhaps he did not actually use the words constitutional" and "precedecent" together as an expression.

I apologize for my error If he did not. If that's the case, perhaps waht happened in the case of the pregnant Rusian women may have set a "precdent" for the "right" to enter or live in Argentina regardless of status with migracione, not the right to start the citizenship process.

If I understand, correctly, according to the Constitution, once here, everyone has the right to seek Argentine citizenship.
 
Last edited:
If what happend in the case of the pregnant women somehow set any kind of "precedent" that denies the power of migraciones to deny entry for other that "humanitarian" reasons, such as a foreigner's claim that they "already live here," it would be interesting to know.
 
If what happend in the case of the pregnant women somehow set any kind of "precedent" that denies the power of migraciones to deny entry for other that "humanitarian" reasons, such as a foreigner's claim that they "already live here," it would be interesting to know.

Supposedly the claim is that the moment you apply for citizenship, you are already a citizen of Argentina. Just without proof of being a citizen since your case is not yet resolved. The situation is supposed to be the equivalent of a newborn baby who hasn't received a birth certificate yet. Of course they are a citizen, just without any documents.

Since you are already a "citizen" of this country, you cannot be refused entry. At least in theory. I am hesitant to leave Argentina while my case is still in progress, I don't want to be the guinea pig haha
 
Supposedly the claim is that the moment you apply for citizenship, you are already a citizen of Argentina. Just without proof of being a citizen since your case is not yet resolved. The situation is supposed to be the equivalent of a newborn baby who hasn't received a birth certificate yet. Of course they are a citizen, just without any documents.

Yes, I am aware of that, thanks to the aforementioned lawer.


Since you are already a "citizen" of this country, you cannot be refused entry. At least in theory. I am hesitant to leave Argentina while my case is still in progress, I don't want to be the guinea pig haha
.

Is it now that case that you can get a print out of the details of your case or that migracines could check it on line if and when when you try to renter (before the judge pronounces the sentence)?
 
Yes, I am aware of that, thanks to the aforementioned lawer.



.

Is it now that case that you can get a print out of the details of your case or that migracines could check it on line if and when when you try to renter (before the judge pronounces the sentence)?

My case can be looked up on the court case website, not sure if that's sufficient for migraciones. Anyone have any experience leaving and reentering after an overstay and saying that you have a case in progress to be allowed entry?
 
My case can be looked up on the court case website, not sure if that's sufficient for migraciones.

I suggest that you print a copy and have it with you when you return...and be sure your lawyer knows when you are returning...just in case.there is a problem with migraciones.

Anyone have any experience leaving and reentering after an overstay and saying that you have a case in progress to be allowed entry?


PS:Even if you can demonstrate that you have applied for citizenship, in a "lockdown" situation, migracio0nes may only let you back in if the borders are open to residents and citizens...

..and even if the borders are open, that doesn't mean planes will be able to fly during an "emergency" (crated by natural or humans).
 
Last edited:
The aforementioned lawyer has financial interests in these cases. I would take everything he says, with a huge grain of salt while he may be right sometimes, the conflict of interest should make you pause, and think twice.

Also, the constitution is a living document. You cannot interpret everything that's written in it literally. This is the case with the US Constitution, or any other constitution for that matter. It is up to the executive power to interpret and ultimately up to the judiciary to agree or disagree with that interpretation.
 
My case can be looked up on the court case website, not sure if that's sufficient for migraciones. Anyone have any experience leaving and reentering after an overstay and saying that you have a case in progress to be allowed entry?
How many times and for how long have you overstated? The print out from the court case system has no value for immigrations. If you get denied entry you can always have a lawyer on standby to submit a stay on the decision of immigrations and ultimately have a judge decide if you're admissible or not.
 
Back
Top