Author: Niu Ltd

Opinion of the editor

European politicians, Transparency International, Global Witness, the Guardian, and many other outfits ideologically antipathetic to the granting of citizenship or residence permits on the basis of merit have characterized CIPs as a security threat, a money-laundering mechanism, a corruption risk, and a “backdoor to Europe”.

The same institutions and individuals have concluded that such programs need “phasing out” and devoted a great deal of effort, time, and money to that end. Ignoring these programs’ socio-economic benefits, they have authored reports and press articles focusing on imagined bogeymen and a vanishingly minuscule number of instances of (subsequently corrected) missteps on the part of program authorities.

Their campaign is disingenuous, and demonstrably so.

Here’s why: If the true motives for Europe’s detractors of citizenship by investment were the prevention of security breaches, money-laundering, and corruption, they would not focus their energy on the category of immigration that is the least voluminous and, simultaneously, the most closely controlled.

Can you imagine the World Health Organization prioritizing the curing of myasthenia (an extremely rare but treatable illness) over the prevention of heart disease (the cause of 17% of deaths worldwide)? The analogy is imperfect because the presence of CIP citizens, unlike a disease, actually improve the conditions of those countries “afflicted” by them.

Between 2014 and 2017, according to Eurostat, EU countries naturalized more than 3.5 million new citizens. Of these, 5,021 came through CIPs. That’s 0.14% of the total. Incidentally, that’s about the same number of EU citizens who enlisted in the Islamic State army during the same period. I need not, perhaps, mention that none of those jihadists got EU citizenship via CIPs.

Now, I am not saying that just because CIP citizens are a microscopic fraction of EU naturalizees they should be exempt from scrutiny; God (Allah?) knows that 5,000 determined individuals can cause a lot of damage.

But the irony of the EU/Transparency International focus on the CIP “threat” is that, beyond being the smallest category of naturalization, it is also the most closely watched.

See also:

• 20 State-Officials Arrested in Bulgaria in Massive Bribes-for-Passports Scam
• Con Artists Swindle Thousands in Istanbul for Fake Montenegro Passports

When someone naturalizes in an EU country through a CIP, they must undergo a series of stringent vetting procedures. Under the Malta IIP, for example, a “four-tier” process applies:

• Tier 1
  The first tier is the standard KYC due diligence done by both the IIP Unit and the Agent through databases such as World-Check.

• Tier 2
  The second level is the clearance obtained from the Police Authorities following thorough checks through a number of databases, such as Interpol, Europol and others. Any issues encountered at this stage are reported back to the IIP Unit. It has to be pointed out as well that to be able to visit Malta, Third Country Nationals (TCNs) have to go through the standard Schengen screening procedures.

• Tier 3
  The IIP team takes care of the third tier of due diligence. There are two stages at this level. The first is that of completeness and correctness of the application. This in itself would identify anomalies in the application form that highlight any potential risk. Every kind of accompanying documentation submitted to the IIP Unit is checked to ensure that it has been filled in correctly and that the documents are submitted in the proper format, correctly translated, and apostilled or notarised as the case may require. Where documents are missing or not in the correct format, or errors are identified, a request for submission is made to the agent representing the family applying for Maltese citizenshiup and the application process is paused until everything is in order. The second stage is that of a thorough and in-depth online due diligence check and verification of documents submitted. These checks involve checking with international databases for sanctioned individuals and companies. Searches are conducted on all the members of the family applying for citizenship, their corporate affiliations, any significant one-time transactions, donations, or inheritance, and any significant business partners or very close associates.
• Tier 4
  The fourth level is conducting outsourced due diligence. Two reports are commissioned from international companies on every family to ensure that as much ground as possible is covered and no stone remains unturned. These checks would include verification of all the information submitted, checks with databases, both international and local, in each of the family’s country of residence, and even discreet on the ground interviews with individuals who know the family.

Which due diligence processes did the other 99.9% go through? Precious few. In most cases – although each member state has its own rules – you’ll need documents like birth certificates and police records, but generally there are no World-Check controls, few Interpol/Europol/State Department/CIA checks, no bank statement/tax record requirements, and certainly no third-party outsourced due diligence, which costs thousands of dollars per applicant.

In an opinion piece last year, I pointed out four reasons why citizenship by investment isn’t a security threat to Europe and is, in fact, the least risky category of immigration:

1. No citizen’s background is scrutinized as thoroughly as those participating in a CIP
2. There are many easier and cheaper ways for dangerous people to get into the EU
3. Citizenships can be – and have been – revoked post hoc
4. It is in the interest of CIP-countries themselves to keep out bad people

You can argue against CIPs from an ethical standpoint. You can attempt to argue against it from an economic standpoint. But to argue against CIPs from a security standpoint is preposterous.

In a sane world, CIPs would get (at most) 0.14% of the attention. But they get way more than that. The ostensible reason, the (patently absurd) concerns about a “security threat”, is but a smokescreen. Such concerns are logos-based arguments on the surface but are used to disguise a primarily pathos-driven campaign.

See also: While EU Worries About Handful of CIP Investors, Millions Get Non-CIP Citizenship Without Vetting

The real reason, I suspect, is that CIPs, at their core, deal with rich people and the privileges money can buy. Western Europe, along with Latin-America, harbors a fundamental, limbic system-based and politician-encouraged distaste for anything that smacks of inequality. Eastern Europe, China, and Southeast Asia – having witnessed first-hand what happens when you try to impose equality by decree – seem inoculated against that mentality. For the moment.

Commissioner Jourova, the chief anti-CIP campaigner in the EU, has herself conceded that she does not believe in exchanging citizenship for investment. Her opposition to it, then, is rooted not chiefly in security concerns but in ideology; money shouldn’t be able to buy you citizenship. In other words, Jourova made up her mind about CIPs a priori and then looked around for practical arguments – security threats and money laundering – to justify her position.

But money launderers and terrorists don’t use the “backdoor” to Europe. It has metal detectors, sniffing dogs, and iris scanners. They prefer the front door, where security controls are rudimentary and perfunctory.

If you want the investment migration industry to take your concerns about the backdoor at face value, come back when you’ve got something more than a windscreen on the front door.

Source: imidaily.com
Published: 18 October 2019

This report is the result of a collaborative analytical effort by the Fragomen Knowledge Group, a think tank of experienced immigration professionals and analysts. To analyze the current environment, the Fragomen Knowledge Group examined and evaluated a number of political, economic and cultural factors and scenarios to identify the key drivers for recent and future immigration changes. By leveraging Fragomen’s unparalleled experience in counseling multinational organizations and representing the business immigration community in global advocacy work, we determined that three drivers provide a framework for understanding recent immigration trends and making projections about the future: (1) Access to foreign talent; (2) Process change; and (3) Government enforcement and employer compliance.

The report consists of four parts:

The Regional Immigration Trends Analysis section provides insights and analysis of events that have taken place in 2019 and offer comments on future-state conditions.

The Key Themes section highlights recurring topics drawn from 2019 immigration events and offers projections for 2020.

The Key Emerging Trends section identifies four trends we believe will strongly impact the immigration landscape over the next several years.

The Strategies for Success and Risk Management section offers a ready-made checklist for high-level risk management and strategy planning to tackle key immigration issues. Employers should use this list and consider other factors in their workforce migration and planning decisions beyond those discussed here.

To view the report, click here

Source: fragomen.com
Published: 15 October 2019

The Cypriot Data Protection Commissioner is compelled to appear before Parliament once more to urge lawmakers to place privacy protection above transparency as lawmakers debate whether to publish the names of CIP-applicants.

Perdikis gets back on the horse
Greens MP George Perdikis has tabled a bill that, if passed, would see the names and other personal details of applicants to the country’s citizenship by investment program (CIP) published in an official Gazette. This is the second time in as many years that the center-left lawmaker attempts to compel the publishing of investors’ names. In April last year, he tabled a bill with the same objective, which parliamentarians ultimately rejected.

Data Protection Commissioner Irini Loizidou told MPs she opposed the bill on the grounds that it was a “disproportionate” measure that, when weighed against equally valid privacy considerations, must take a back seat to data protection.

“There may be some extreme cases [of applicants] which may not be ultimately approved, but it is possible that revealing those names could damage the public interest, the defense, the economy or the Republic’s international relations,” said Loizidou, according to the Cyprus Mail.

Perdikis’ draft bill is a result of long-standing pressure from European institutions – the European Commission, in particular – to increase transparency among the Union’s CIPs. In response, Cyprus has enacted wide-ranging reforms for its program, while Malta has gone so far as to publish the names of its new citizens.

It’s not the first time Ms. Loizidou has had to fend off attempts at divulging the data of investor migrants; in March last year, the Guardian illegally published a leaked list of names of participants in the program. Commissioner Loizidis acted without delay, ordering the original media report deleted and warned that she would respond to any further publication of the list by exercising her “authority provided by the law against media outlets that do so”.

Hoisted by its own petard
While the European Commission has been primus motor in the drive for CIP-transparency, it has been even more vehement in its demand for increased protection of individual data; Commissioner for Justice, Vera Jourova, played an instrumental role in bringing about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The same institution is now pushing for the flagrant disregard for data protection in the particular case of citizenship investors.

Loizidis, on Monday, argued that Cyprus was obliged to follow the guidelines of the GDPR when it comes to the disclosure of personal data, citing the regulation’s Article 5, which states that the collection and processing of personal data must be “adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed.”

Two politically tectonic plates are colliding; data protection and transparency. Which of the two will yield remains uncertain, but the irony of an EU member state now warding off one Brusselian decree with another is surely not lost on the European Commission.

Source: imidaily.com
Published: 15 October 2019

The “it” is citizenship of a particular country, and it is a more fluid concept than ever before. Go back 50 years, and it was uncommon for countries to allow dual citizenship, but it is now almost universal.

More than half of the world’s nations now have citizenship-through-investment programmes. According to one expert, Swiss lawyer Christian Kalin, it is now a global industry worth $25bn (£20bn) a year.

Mr Kalin, who has been dubbed “Mr Passport”, is the chairman of Henley & Partners, one of the world’s biggest players in this rapidly growing market. His global business helps wealthy individuals and their families acquire residency or citizenship in other countries.

He says that our traditional notions of citizenship are “outdated”. “This is one of the few things left in the world that is tied to blood lines, or where you are born,” he says. He argues that a rethink is very much due.

“It’s super unfair,” he says, explaining that where we are born is by no means down to our own skill or talent, but instead “pure luck”. “What is wrong with regarding citizenship like a membership,” he adds. “And what is wrong with admitting talented people who will contribute?”

There are those who support his argument. But for many, the idea that passports, so tied to identity, are in some way a commodity, doesn’t sit well.

We followed the citizenship trail to the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu. Since the country introduced its new citizenship scheme four years ago, it’s seen an explosion of interest. Passports now provide the biggest source of its government’s revenues.

For many aspiring Vanuatu passport holders, the biggest draw is visa-free travel throughout Europe.

Most foreign recipients of Vanuatu passports never even step foot in the country. Instead they apply for their citizenship in offices overseas, like the licensed Vanuatu citizenship broker PRG Consulting, based in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is one of the world’s biggest citizenship marketplaces. In a cafe at Hong Kong airport, we met the citizenship agent MJ, a private businessman who helps an increasing number of mainland Chinese obtain a second or even third passport.

“They don’t feel safe [in China],” he says of his clients. “They want access to Europe to open a bank account, to buy property or to start businesses.”

Citizenship is a competitive global market, and for many small and island nations, notably in the Caribbean – the price for a passport is around $150,000. The cost of a Vanuatu passport is said to be around the same level.

How much does it cost to buy a passport?

• Antigua and Barbuda; from $100,000
• St Kitt’s and Nevis; from $150,000
• Montenegro; from $274,000
• Portugal; from $384,000
• Spain; from $550,000
• Bulgaria; from $560,000
• Malta; from $1m
• US; between $500,000 and $1m invested in a business creating 10 jobs
• UK; from $2.5m

A Vanuatu passport, MJ explains, is “so fast” to arrange (you can get one in just 30 days), and that helps make it a popular choice. But Mr Kalin and others caution that Vanuatu has a reputation for corruption. As a result, Henley & Partners and others do not deal with the Vanuatu citizenship programme.

However, this doesn’t stop the interest from China. A few years ago Hong Kong television channels aired catchy TV advertisements promoting Vanuatu citizenship, aimed at the territory’s steady flow of visitors from the mainland.

So how many Chinese clients actually visit Vanuatu, after receiving citizenship? Maybe one in 10, guesses MJ.

Port Vila is the capital of Vanuatu, and a city of contrasts. The roads are often flooded and scarred with potholes. There’s not a single set of traffic lights, but congestion is worsening thanks to the growing number of shiny four-wheel drives.

It’s a tax haven, and recently rejoined the EU’s “blacklist” of countries, over transparency and corruption issues.

The country’s people – known as Ni Vanuatu – were only officially recognised as citizens themselves in 1980, when the country achieved independence. Previously it was an Anglo-French condominium called the New Hebrides, and the people are scattered over a daisy chain of more than 80 islands.

Less than 40 years ago, they were stateless. A fact not lost on former Prime Minister Barak Sope.

“I didn’t have a passport until 1980,” he says, sitting in a hotel and casino on Port Vila’s main road. “I had to travel with a piece of paper the British and the French gave to me. It was humiliating.”

Mr Sope says it is a “betrayal” for Vanuatu to sell its citizenship, and points to the flood of Chinese investment in the region. “The Chinese have so much more money than us,” he says exasperated.

The Chinese investment is criticised by locals such as Mr Sope, who complain that the Chinese companies keep all the money, and only employ Chinese labour.

Vanuatu’s all male government, one of only three countries in the world where women are entirely excluded from politics, was not keen to speak to us about its citizenship scheme. But we tracked down a government appointed citizenship agent, Bill Bani, who explains his take on the initiative.

“We have to look at Vanuatu on a global scale,” he says. “Other countries sell passports to make their living, we don’t have a lot of natural resources. It’s bringing in a lot of money to Vanuatu.”

But for the mainly rural population the policy has been highly controversial since its inception in 2015.

Anne Pakoa, a community leader, shows us around a typical village made up of corrugated iron shacks. It’s just 10 minutes’ drive down a dirt road from the shops and restaurants of the capital but feels a world away.

Anne says that local communities aren’t seeing the money from the passport sales, despite promises that the scheme would rebuild infrastructure and homes after the devastating Cyclone Pam in 2015.

“Our ancestors died for our freedom. Now people are carrying the same green passport I carry? For $150,000? Where is the money? I think this has to stop,” she says.

Susan, another woman from the same village, shows us a dirty well. “I want the government to provide a running tap, so that the children can have a shower, and drink clean and safe water,” she says.

ith demand from the Chinese market booming, Dan McGarry, who runs the local newspaper, says it will be hard to imagine a change in policy anytime soon.

Passport sales now account for more than 30% of the country’s revenue, according to Dan. “For a tiny country like ours this is a big deal. But we have to ask ourselves, is this what we fought for? Is this right? Is it right to sell our hard won sovereignty to the highest bidder?”

It’s a question that many countries, not just Vanuatu, will have to grapple with in an increasingly globalised world. But as Mr Kalin, from Henley & Partners, says: “Citizenship through investment, and investment migration programmes, are nothing but a reflection of a world where everything has become more fluid.”

Source: bbc.com
Published: 10 October 2019

As protests in Hong Kong intensified this summer, Mr Bernard Wolfsdorf, a Los Angeles immigration lawyer, anticipated “a new wave of immigration” to the United States. So he travelled to China and met regional immigration advisers.

They told him not to get excited.

“What I heard is, while many are leaving Hong Kong, the US isn’t the number one destination,” Mr Wolfsdorf said.

“The US is simply not seen as the most desirable option presently.”

When things go sideways around the globe, the US has traditionally served as an island of safety and security, particularly for the world’s wealthy.

The US is already home to more Hong Kongers than any country outside of mainland China, and recent data suggests more are looking to leave the city. Applications for a key emigration document, the “good citizenship card”, are up 54 per cent in the past year, according to official data.

But anti-immigrant political rhetoric, high-profile incidences of gun violence and impending changes to the “investor visa” programme have encouraged Hong Kong’s would-be emigres to consider alternatives such as Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Taiwan.

The street demonstrations, which raise fundamental questions about the future of Hong Kong, escalated this month with the shootings of two teenage protesters by police.

But even before the protest movement began, the US was losing lustre.

In a December survey by Chinese University of Hong Kong, one-third of the city’s citizens said they would consider leaving. Among them, the most popular destinations were Canada and Australia, with at least 18 per cent of respondents each, followed by Taiwan, at 11 per cent, and Singapore at 5 per cent. The US was the top choice for 2.9 per cent.

Australia is a favourite for clients of Mr John Hu, founder and principal consultant at John Hu Migration Consulting in Hong Kong. Advantages include a small time difference with China and mild climate.

Canada is also popular, Mr Hu said, especially for clients who want to follow family members who previously emigrated there.

Canada last year recorded its biggest influx of immigrants since 1913. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the country has aggressively wooed immigrants. Its Global Skills Strategy programme, for example, offering temporary work permits to applicants in as little as two weeks, has lured about 40,000 workers and their family members over the past two years.

Family ties make the US attractive. So does the EB-5 investor visa programme, which offers residency to anyone able and willing to make a US$500,000 (S$691,000) investment in a business or other project that creates jobs.

Applications from Hong Kong citizens are processed separately from investors from the mainland, which means that once an application is considered, it can often be approved with little, if any, wait.

The price of those visas is about to surge, however. Starting on Nov 21, the minimum investment rises to US$900,000, part of a reform of the EB-5 programme.

Even for those currently in the queue, a bureaucratic backlog means it can take years to get a visa. The US Department of Homeland Security has slowed its handling of paperwork to a crawl, making applicants wait years for an answer to their petitions.

The department was buried in 930,311 pending cases of all types at the end of June, government data show, double the number of pending cases from 2015.

The estimated wait for processing investor visas is at least 28.5 months, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service.

“EB-5 is not likely an answer to people in Hong Kong who say they need a quick exit strategy,” said Mr H. Ronald Klasko of Klasko Immigration Law Partners in Philadelphia.

“It will probably be at least three years before that’s going to get them to the US.”

People who don’t want to wait often find other ways to enter and stay in the US, including student and visitor visas.

“During these troubles, my clients have been in the US and Canada visiting,” said Ms Carolyn Lee, an immigration attorney based in Ithaca, New York.

A less-formal immigration status can also overcome another barrier daunting wealthy people who want to move to America: its unique and costly tax rules. For example, new immigrants must disclose all foreign holdings to the Internal Revenue Service, a level of scrutiny that many aren’t prepared for.

“Many of my Hong Kong-based are considering alternatives to the US,” said Mr K. Eli Akhavan, a partner at CKR Law in New York. “The tax bite can be quite heavy.”

Mr Hu, the immigration consultant, said American tax rules often take a backseat to quality-of-life issues for families considering the US.

“Hong Kong media’s frequent coverage of school shootings in the US has also made people worry about safety,” he said.

Another concern for some, he added, is that “racial discrimination is relatively serious in certain areas”.

Still, the US remains a popular place to do business, educate children, and park money. And even in the most stable times, the global super rich often see spreading assets around the world as an important way to protect their fortunes, said Ms Kathryn von Matthiessen, partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in New York.

“Most families I work with are looking to create dynastic wealth,” she said. “That means they have to manage political volatility and geographic volatility.”

Source: straitstimes.com
Published: 9 October 2019

In June this year, the Investment Migration Council premiered an industry first: a certification program for industry practitioners – current and prospective – aimed at instilling high ethical standards and subject matter competence among professionals.

Scandals and instances of malpractice in the industry surface at regular intervals, and practitioners who take a cavalier approach to business harm the entire market’s public perception. Even in instances where no tangible malfeasance is documented, investigative reporters tend to frame RCBI-businesses in unflattering ways by making the most out of initially meager raw material. The IMC hopes the promulgation of best practices through its course will serve to reduce such cases in the future.

Some 50 students are currently enrolled in the course – officially, IMCET – of whom three have already completed the coursework and passed their exams to obtain “professional” status memberships with the IMC. Feedback so far, according to the organization itself, has been largely positive.

“The students are enjoying the course material and they believe that it will help them in the way they do business within this industry,” says Marie Lou Cutajar, the IMC’s Education and Training Administrator, who describes the course as “a ground-breaking initiative designed to prepare participants for work in a new and vibrant industry where high professional standards, values, and enhanced competencies are required.”

Jusztina Rebeka Juhasz, who has completed the course and obtained her certification, highlights the program’s focus on due diligence and EU regulations as integral to its usefulness. “It includes the key learning elements that people simply are not picking up anywhere else,” she comments.

Roleece Brooks, another graduate, believes IMCET should be mandatory for residence and citizenship by investment professionals.

“The use of examples and case studies were very helpful in grasping the material,” she says, and describes IMCET as “quite detailed, especially given the addition of essential and further reading”.

The coursework, which consists of five modules, generally takes 25-30 hours to complete, upon the completion of which students are assessed by a two-hour exam of 100 multiple-choice questions.

“The course is designed in a way that enables you to study at a time and in a format that works for your lifestyle, as it can be accessed through an application on mobile phone or tablet,” explains the IMC’s administrator. “There is no specific start date for the course, as whoever enrolls in the course will have access to their unique user account where all course material will be available for them at any time,” she adds, also pointing out that government agencies are now enrolling their staff.

Source: imidaily.com
Published: 5 October 2019

Wealthy Hong Kong citizens are increasingly on the hunt for new passports as protests drag on and cast a cloud over the territory’s future.

Many countries run visa schemes that offer resident or citizenship rights in exchange for sizeable investments.

Several migration firms have reported a spike in interest from Hong Kong for these visas since the unrest began.

They say with no resolution in sight, residents are seeking “insurance”.

Protests in the territory began in June, sparked by a proposed law that would have allowed extradition from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland.

Despite the bill being withdrawn, demonstrations have continue to rock the city for months and show no immediate sign of abating.

• Hong Kong’s protests explained
• How business is navigating Hong Kong’s new reality

Against that backdrop, various immigration agencies told the BBC they have seen a sharp rise in interest from Hong Kong residents in investor visa programmes.

These programmes exist all over the world, with Europe and the Caribbean particular hubs. Typically, countries require the purchase of property, government bonds or a set donation to secure a visa.

The minimum investment varies greatly – from a $100,000 (£81,200) donation in Antigua & Barbuda, to around €2m (£1.8m) in real estate investment for Cyprus.

Buying ‘insurance’

Hong Kong-based John Hu Migration Consulting has seen a four-fold increase in sales and inquiries from locals about visa programmes since June.

Founder John Hu said recent unrest in the former British colony had been the “catalyst” for the rush.

“As the protests become more violent and it seems that the government is not doing much to resolve the current situation, they have the urgency to buy insurance,” he said.

Enticed by the freedom of movement within the EU and minimal residency requirements, Mr Hu said most are drawn to European programmes including Ireland, Portugal and Malta.

The firm has carried out more than 30 new visa applications for Ireland since the protests began, requiring a minimum donation of €500,000 or €1m euros invested into an Irish enterprise.

Another immigration consultancy, Arton Capital, says inquiries from the territory have “more than doubled since the protests started”.

“Portugal is very much in favour in Hong Kong because of the relatively cheap real estate… real estate prices in Hong Kong are sky high,” according to Philippe May, head of Asia Pacific for Arton Capital.

Mr May said that while clients do not share their reasons for interest in the programmes, “it is very obvious that it is the most recent developments in Hong Kong which caused them to look again at their Plan B”.

• Are visas losing their sparkle?

Overall take-up of visa programmes remains small – Arton Capital processes up to 1,000 applications each year – as they target only the wealthy.

Still, Hong Kong has plenty of eligible candidates. The Asian financial hub is a hotbed for the rich, and was home to 179,000 millionaires in 2018 according to Credit Suisse.

Hong Kong ranked 15th in the investment bank’s latest list of countries with the most ultra-high net worth individuals.

Protests in Hong Kong are not the only factor luring residents to  visa programmes.

Advisory firm Henley & Partners has also seen a jump in Hong Kong-based inquiries into investor visa programmes since the outbreak of unrest in June.

The firm’s public relations director, Paddy Blewer, said the spike comes “as the protests in the city escalate, and as uncertainty about the future persists”.

“Compared to last quarter… there has been a 260% rise in interest from Chinese nationals or investors resident in Hong Kong.”

But, he adds, domestic issues are only part of the story.

Many Hong Kong clients seek out residency or citizenship programmes for the same reasons any other applicant would, Mr Blewer said, such as opportunities to travel, invest in another country or study abroad.

“They are looking to access finance, they’re looking to invest wherever they want, live wherever they want.

“They want their children to go to other universities… to access the rest of the world.”

Source: bbc.com
Published: 4 October 2019

With Brexit currently scheduled to take place on October 31st and no deal agreed, here’s a look at the different ways British citizens in Sweden could be affected, depending on their different situations.

Sweden has guaranteed a one-year ‘grace period’ following any no-deal exit, during which all Brits already living in the country would retain their rights to live, work, and obtain healthcare and any other benefits in Sweden without needing a residence permit. If nothing changes they will be treated as third-country nationals after these 12 months, but the government has said work is under way to review the rules, including “the legal possibilities for continuing to live and work in Sweden even after the exception has ceased to apply”.

In the meantime, there are two key things that most Brits in Sweden need to be aware of.

Firstly, during the grace period, the exemption from the need for a residence permit would apply automatically, but British citizens planning travel within that year are advised to apply for a passport stamp to ensure they can return to Sweden without problems. This will be provided free by the Swedish Migration Agency if and when it becomes clear that the UK will leave the EU without a deal, and the Migration Agency has previously said it hopes to process applications for stamps within one week.

Secondly, Brits are advised to apply for a residence permit during the one-year grace period, since after this time they will be subject to the current requirements for third-country citizens.

Here are the details on exactly what that means for you, depending on your specific situation.

Brits with Swedish citizenship

British citizens in this group are the most secure in terms of their rights to continue their lives in Sweden.

Even in the event of a no-deal Brexit, Swedish citizenship means they will retain their rights to live and work not just in Sweden indefinitely, but also to exercise freedom of movement as an EU citizen.

That means, for example, that moving elsewhere within the EU for work or other reasons would not require a visa or permit, and it also means there is no need to apply for the passport stamp mentioned above or for any residence permit after the grace period.

Brits with a Swedish partner

If a no-deal Brexit occurs, the current guidance is that British citizens will need to apply for residency as third-country nationals. These applications should be made during the one-year ‘grace period’.

Brits with a Swedish partner would be eligible for a so-called family permit, and these permits can be granted to people whether they are married or simply cohabiting (or plan to cohabit) with their Swedish partner. These applications typically include a questionnaire for both the Swedish partner and the third-country partner, as well as an interview about the relationship.

It’s also worth knowing that Brits who are married to or sambos with a Swedish citizen can apply for Swedish citizenship after just three years living in the country, as opposed to the usual time limit of five years.

Brits with an EU partner

If your partner is from an EU country other than the UK or Sweden, you would also be eligible to apply for a family permit under current migration laws.

The EU partner would not need to do anything to ensure their own right to remain in Sweden, but in order for a non-EU family member to be granted a residence permit, the EU citizen would need to show that they meet the requirements for right of residence in Sweden through work, studies or private income/capital.

If the EU partner does not meet these requirements, the British partner would need to apply for another kind of residence permit, for example a work permit.

Brits with a third-country partner

In families in which one partner is a third-country national and the other is British, and the couple moved to Sweden using the British partner’s freedom of movement as a European citizen, both partners will be affected by Brexit.

Both British citizens and any non-EU family members are advised to apply for the passport stamp during the one-year grace period in order to ensure they can return to Sweden after travelling overseas.

After a no-deal Brexit, both partners would need to apply for a residency permit in order to remain in Sweden following the one-year grace period. If neither partner will have been in Sweden for five years at this point, this will likely mean one or both partners getting a work permit. Non-EU family members of people with work permits in Sweden are eligible for a permit as their family member.

Brits who have moved recently

People in this category face the most precarious situation in the event of a no-deal, particularly if they don’t have a Swedish or EU partner.

During the one-year grace period, Brits have been advised to apply for any residency permit they are eligible for, which would most likely be a work permit unless special legislation is passed.

Brits who have lived here more than five years

Most Brits who moved to Sweden over five years ago will be eligible for either citizenship or permanent residency. Almost everyone who has been legally resident in Sweden for five years is eligible for permanent residency, while there are a few more conditions for citizenship. It is highly recommended to apply for whichever of these you are eligible for.

British students

Like others, British students will be able to use the one-year grace period to apply for a student permit.

Usually, non-EU students pay tuition fees in Sweden, but the Swedish government has prepared legislation which would exempt UK nationals from paying student fees until 2022, if the student was either admitted to that course before the date of a no-deal Brexit, or already had residence in Sweden by that date. This legislation would come into force after a no-deal Brexit.

Retired Brits

British pensioners living in Sweden who do not fall into any of the above categories face two main concerns: right of residency and pensions.

At the time of writing, it is unclear which options would be open for self-supporting Brits, including pensioners, in terms of residence permits.

As for pensions themselves, UK state pensions rise with the cost of living, and the current pension agreement between EU countries means these rises apply to people drawing British pensions in other EU countries too. In order for this to continue in the case of a no-deal Brexit, the UK would need to introduce a new pension agreement with Sweden.

Source: thelocal.se
Published: 1 October 2019

The number of foreign investors who were naturalized since the new regulation easing the conditions to get citizenship last year has hit 2,611, according to the Interior Ministry.

With the family members, a total of 9,962 foreign nationals acquired Turkish citizenship through investment since Sept. 19, 2018.

Foreigners who invest $500,000 in Turkey, deposit $500,000 in Turkish banks or buy real estate worth $250,000 can acquire lifetime residency or citizenship. The minimum level of necessary investment for a citizenship application was $2 million prior to the new regulation.

Iraqi investors topped the list of naturalization with 327 people. They were followed by 250 Afghan investors. 170 Palestinians, 110 Egyptians, 66 Libyans, 44 Lebanese, 29 Saint Kitts and Nevis nationals, 29 Saudis, 28 Azerbaijanis, 26 Pakistanis, 24 Sudanese, 22 Russians, 21 Algerians and 19 U.S. nationals who were also naturalized through the investment program.

Source: hurriyetdailynews.com
Published: 27 September 2019