Jenis, please learn how to quote properly, it is easy.
Doctor Rubilar, there is no need to be condescending. This was my first post in this forum and I made a mistake quoting. Your rudeness is not appreciated.
1) i do not understand you. Are you a lawyer?
If you read my post, it says "As a lawyer who has done my own citizenship" so yes Dr. Rubilar, I am indeed a lawyer. J.D. and LL.L. with Masters studies from Austral.
2) your comment about the intention of residence shows that you do not understand what are you talking about. Do not worry, most of the judges neither.
As I have found with many of your past responses, arrogance seems to be your hallmark. I do not understand why so many people put up with it, but you are in fact the one who does not understand the nuances of residency and the intent component.
Of note and as you correctly stated, many judges are not in agreement so what makes you think that you know what the criteria are ? Having read a great deal of the caselaw over the past 3 years, and with the new CC from 2015, it is obvious that the grey area in the law/cases and legal commentary is the exact reason why judges differ greatly in their decisions on this issue.
FYI the time you are abroad counts as you are here if your lawyer know how to explain it, i suggest you read the new CC that enacted the SC doctrine that states that to live here means a) to be here B ) or to come back here where your home is. it is the same concept that was use for the last 3000 years regarding ownership of sheeps. If the sheeps come back to the shepherds house every night, he owns them, otherwise they are wild.
No comment because it has nothing to do with my comments on the post.
However, there is a lot of debate and it is a fight. It is not that simple.
On Dezember 30th I was granted on 2 appeals before Supreme Court where I am debating about to apply with a few months in Argentina.So, Supreme Court is going to enact a decision on that topic.
Days before another chamber of appeals acepted a case with 3 months here while the leading case was from a member of this forum on a case in a Federal country side Court where it was accepted with 1 year.
Cases are normally acepted by first instance judges but, if rejected, the chamber confirms it.
So, it is not that simple but here in CABA you have 40% chances that you case is on if you apply before the 2nd year.
3) The requirements at the law are for getting the citizenship. The decree has requirements to apply but decrees cannot go further than the law (in theory).
4) Discretion at Court... They are normally arbitrary, sure. The work of your lawyer is to enforce your rights, the law and the bill of rights. The main issue in citizenship is that judges enforce the abolished bill of rights of 1949 that was very alike the nazi one.
5) You mentioned the immigration law regarding citizenship. There is no relationship.
I did not mention the Immigration law regarding citizenship. Read carefully Dr. Rubilar. I stated that citizenship cases are decided on the basis of caselaw, the immigration law (which at present is Ley 25.871 for the most part) and the Constitution.
6) Hard and fast rules? Explain it please.
This exp<b></b>ression in a legal context refers to a set of legal rules and/or criteria that are established by courts and/or legislation and/or (as in Argentina) a civil code and/or a nation's constitution and must be adhered to by judges until such time as a change occurs, either in a judicial decision, a law/legislation, article in a code or a constitutional amendment.
7) if you do not qualify for a residency at immigration, you probably qualify at Court for citizenship.
This is the most misleading statement you have made to date.
The factors for not qualifying for residency are unlimited and depend on the category, but not qualifying for residency does not mean "you probably qualify for citizenship".
Some factors that can disqualify a residency approval are : having a criminal record in another country, lack of or no credible documents to prove nationality, not having sufficient proof of financial resources for a pension, lack of or insufficient documents to prove property rental income, etc. and the list goes on.
I have read more than enough citizenship case decisions over the past 3 years, at all levels from first instance all the way to the Supreme Court, to be more than convinced that there is no way any lawyer can say that "if you don't qualify for residency then you probably quality for citizenship"without putting his client's interests at serious risk.
Part of our job as lawyers is to be honest with clients about their prospects for success and not to line our own pockets at their expense, especially when we know they don't have a snow ball's chance in hell of succeeding.
You quote the issues in your cases all the time but fail to mention the caratula (name) of the cases AND just so all of the posters are aware, none of these cases are protected by privacy rights here in Argentina. In fact, because this process is one that does not require a lawyer, the courts have an unwritten policy to help applicants as much as they can. I do not however endorse following the advice of court clerks as they are not lawyers and often lead you on wild goose chases.
As such, I strongly recommend NOT trying to do this process without a lawyer because procedural law here in Argentina is quite complicated and courts are often very inefficient so having a lawyer is almost a necessity if you want to have a chance at success.
Dr. Rubilar, if you wish to exchange opinions, I would ask that you do it in a way that is not insulting or condescending.
I would also respectfully request that you refrain from posting potentially misleading statements such as this one because this does a great disservice to foreigners who are looking for ways to remain here by obtaining their DNI's through the residency process or by obtaining their citizenship.
