Visa overstay panic.

[Jerbo]

616/2010.
Simple. The National Constitution allows you to enter the country in anyway. The immigration law and the decree is unconstitutional.

It appears there are two discrepancies. First, Dr. Rubilar is saying Decree 616/2010 is contrary to the Constitution. In other words, if Cristina wanted to alter the immigration law in accordance with Decree 616/2010, she needed to change the National Constitution.

Second, Articulo 24(a) says nothing about leaving the country and receiving a 90-day extension. If I understand Dr. Rubilar correctly, the 90-day extension is simply a practice - it has no base in law. Therefore, travelers who depart Argentina in order to receive another 90 days in Argentina are out of compliance with both the National Constitution and Decree 616/2010.

Would someone corroborate this?

 

[toongeorges]

There are no rules, besides it is illegal, it is up to the immigration agent who has wide freedom.

Which law says it is illegal to go out of the country and return to get a new 90-day visa?

 

[steveinbsas]

Articulo 24(a) says nothing about leaving the country and receiving a 90-day extension. If I understand Dr. Rubilar correctly, the 90-day extension is simply a practice - it has no base in law. Therefore, travelers who depart Argentina in order to receive another 90 days in Argentina are out of compliance with both the National Constitution and Decree 616/2010.

No one ever got a 90 day extension when leaving the country and they didn't get a 90 day extension when they returned.

They got a new 90 day visa. That's what you get when you enter Argentina as a tourist.

Extensions (aka the prorroga de permanencia) can only be granted at an office of migraciones in Argentina.

Perhaps that's why Articulo 24a says nothing about leaving the country and receiving a 90 day extension.

The border officers have no power to grant extensions.

 

[steveinbsas]

Which law says it is illegal to go out of the country and return to get a new 90-day visa?

As far as I know, the "law" (at least in the past) says that tourists may granted a 90 day visa upon entry and that may be extended once for ninety days at the office of migraciones.

It appears the "visa runs" exploited a "loophole" as there was (also as far as I know) no exact number of days a tourist could be in Argentina during any three hundred and sixty-five day period.

If what "the lady" at migraciones recently said about going leaving the country to get a new 90 day visa and then getting a prorroga is true, that "loophole" may still exist, but that doesn't mean it's the official policy of migraciones.

PS: Based on what Dr. Rubilar has said several times (there are no rules) it seems pointless to try to find what is legal and what is not until there is a "final" resolution of the issue in the Supreme Court, if that is actually possible.

Until then all there is to go on is what happens to others...until it happens to you.

 

[ben]

Don't know the specifics of Argentine law but I can say this.

If your travel history gives reasonable grounds for assuming that you are abusing your tourist status and are actually a de facto resident, many if not most countries will deny you entry. And "a protracted stay, followed by day trip to a neighboring country followed by another protracted stay" kinda fits the bill.

Any person who spends several months in the US at a time, exits to Canada then comes back, can expect problems (unless actually resident in Canada, and can overdo it even then). Working with a US immigration attorney, I can tell you lots of stories.

Hell, I can tell you stories even from people who flew back here rather than go to Canada (but still visited the US too often, in the opinion of CBP), from warnings to visa revocations.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The decree 616/2010 says that the abuse of i-94 is illegal. It means that it makes no sense to go to Uruguay because you are not Ok doing that, you just jeopardy your re entry and you are as illegal as the one who overstay, but then you pay the fine and clean your record.
Nowadays it is a lot worse. So, it makes no sense.

 

[steveinbsas]

The decree 616/2010 says that the abuse of i-94 is illegal. It means that it makes no sense to go to Uruguay because you are not Ok doing that, you just jeopardy your re entry and you are as illegal as the one who overstay, but then you pay the fine and clean your record.

For the few expats who may be confused by this:

If I understand correctly, expats who have been making the visa run to Uruguay before their 90 visa (aka the I-94) do not pay a fine. Only those who overstay are subject to paying the fine.

The question this post raises is if those who overstay and pay the fine actually "clean" their record?

In other words, is(are) their prior overstay(s) visible to border agents if and when they reenter in the future?

Isn't that the only time(by definition) they could be denied reentry?

If that's the case, how would they have cleaned their record?

Perspiring minds want to know.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

If you overstay, you show your willing of becoming an argentine while if you do the Colonia Run you show your willing of cheating the law.

 

[Jerbo]

If you overstay, you show your willing of becoming an argentine while if you do the Colonia Run you show your willing of cheating the law.

Exactly as Dr. Rubilar said. He just said it more articulately than me.

Nowhere in Decree 616/2010 does it say that by leaving Argentina you get a new 90 day visa. Perhaps Argentina is doing this in practice, but such practice is not codified in the law. Decree 616/2010 says that tourists get one 90-day visa when they enter the country. Period. It is silent on all other details (assuming my reading of it is correct). This is why Dr. Rubilar is telling us that if you go to Uruguay to procure another 90 days in Argentina, it may "work," but it is not in compliance with the law.

 

[toongeorges]

What is still not clear to me is after which time you can get a new tourist visa without being illegal. It looks implausible to me that you would only be able to get a tourist visa once in a life time. Can you reenter after a year, is it after 180 days? All I get out of this conversation is that this is nowhere specified.

I assume that being here almost all the time and doing every 90 days a visa run would be illegal. In my case, I am staying 100 days in Buenos Aires, I go out at around day 85 and come back within the valid period of the first visa, I get a new visa and return home within 2 weeks. Since nothing prevents me from getting a new tourist visa and since I am clearly a tourist with no intention to stay here, this seems perfectly legal to me.

I am not a lawyer, but I know that as long as something is not illegal, it is legal. Since no one seems to be able to demonstrate that being in Buenos Aires 100 days a year with 2 tourist visa is illegal, I assume it is legal. If I would know it were illegal, I would not be here 100 days, but adjust my plans to only come for 90 days.