Argentina Citizenship by Investment Faces Collapse After Landmark Court Rulings

In June 2026, two Argentine federal courts issued rulings that completely redrew the map of Argentine citizenship by naturalization. First, the Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber declared Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) 366/2025 unconstitutional in the Volosh case. Twelve days later, the National Electoral Chamber went further: it declared the decree absolutely and incurably null in the Yang, Liping case and ordered its decision communicated to the Migration Directorate and to every federal judge with electoral jurisdiction in the country.

The practical result: the power to grant Argentine citizenship returns to the federal judges, as it had been since 1869, and the National Directorate of Migration (DNM) is displaced from the process. The Government has already announced it will appeal to the Supreme Court, so the story is not over — but the current landscape requires anyone with a citizenship application in progress, or about to file one, to rethink their strategy.

In this article we explain what the decree changed, what exactly each court decided, how the two rulings differ, and what you should do today if you are pursuing Argentine citizenship.

What Was DNU 366/2025 and What Did It Change?

Decree of Necessity and Urgency 366/2025, issued on May 28, 2025, introduced a sweeping reform of Argentina's migration and citizenship regimes governed by Laws 25,871 and 346. On nationality, its two central changes were:

The first was the transfer of jurisdiction. Since 1869, Argentine citizenship by naturalization had been processed before the federal judges. The decree replaced Article 6 of Law 346 and handed that power to the National Directorate of Migration (DNM), an administrative agency under the Ministry of Security.

The second was the creation of a citizenship-by-investment route, allowing foreigners to naturalize through a "relevant investment" and waiving the traditional two-year residence requirement.

The decree also tightened the residence requirement for ordinary naturalization (demanding it be continuous, legal, and without departures from the country), and eliminated the publication of official notices, the possibility of third-party objections, and the intervention of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the process.

From the outset, constitutional scholars flagged the problem: Article 75(12) of the National Constitution assigns to Congress the power to enact the laws on naturalization and nationality. Could the Executive overhaul the entire regime by decree?

The Volosh Ruling: The First Crack (Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber, June 18, 2026)

The first forceful answer came in Volosh, Yana s/ solicitud de carta de ciudadanía (case 17978/2025), decided on June 18, 2026 by Chamber III of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, signed by Judges Florencia Nallar and Fernando Alcides Uriarte.

Yana Volosh had filed a declaratory action of unconstitutionality against DNU 366/2025. The first-instance judge rejected it and directed her to pursue her citizenship before the Migration Directorate. The Chamber reversed that decision and declared the decree unconstitutional on three grounds:

1. There was no necessity and no urgency. The decree was issued on May 28, 2025, in the middle of Congress's ordinary session period, and its preamble never explained why the ordinary legislative process was impossible to follow. The Chamber applied the Supreme Court's doctrine in Verrocchi and Consumidores Argentinos: emergency decrees are valid only when Congress genuinely cannot convene, or when the urgency is incompatible with parliamentary timelines. Neither occurred. Worse still, the administration itself took more than four months to activate the online citizenship process and nearly ten months to publish the corresponding instructions — delays impossible to reconcile with any real emergency.

2. The Public Prosecutor's intervention was eliminated. Article 31(g) of Law 27,148 requires the Public Prosecutor's Office to intervene in citizenship proceedings, and that provision was never repealed. The Supreme Court continues to treat it as mandatory, including in decisions issued after the decree entered into force.

3. The safeguards disappeared without replacement. The previous regime provided for public notices, third-party objections, and judicial review. The new scheme scrapped all of them without incorporating equivalent mechanisms of publicity or control, falling short of the standard of full judicial review the Constitution demands over administrative action.

The effect of Volosh was inter partes: the unconstitutionality applied to that specific case, and the lower court was ordered to reassume jurisdiction over the applicant's citizenship petition. One week later, the same Chamber ruled identically in the Michurin case.

The Yang Ruling: Total Nullity (National Electoral Chamber, June 30, 2026)

The decisive blow came on June 30, 2026, when the National Electoral Chamber (CNE) — the highest court of Argentina's electoral jurisdiction — decided the case of Liping Yang, a Chinese merchant who has lived for eleven years in Oro Verde, Entre Ríos, and whose citizenship application had been rejected at first instance because of an expulsion order that was never carried out.

The ruling, signed by Judges Alberto Dalla Vía and Daniel Bejas, did not stop at resolving the individual case: it declared DNU 366/2025 null and void for having been issued in excess of the Executive's constitutional powers.

The CNE's reasoning is different from — and more devastating than — Volosh:

Citizenship is electoral matter, and emergency decrees are barred from regulating it. The Court held that there is an intrinsic link between the granting of citizenship and the acquisition of political rights: whoever naturalizes gains access to the vote and to participation in democratic processes. Changing who grants citizenship therefore alters the regime Congress established for access to those rights. And Article 99(3) of the National Constitution expressly prohibits — "under penalty of absolute and incurable nullity" — the Executive from issuing emergency decrees on electoral matters.

The Government's arguments were about convenience, not urgency. The Executive had justified the decree on grounds of administrative efficiency and relieving the judiciary's workload. For the Chamber, those are reasons of "opportunity, merit or convenience" that belong to Congress — they may support a legislative reform, but they can never activate the President's exceptional legislative powers.

Migratory status and citizenship are distinct legal institutions. On the merits, the CNE recalled the Supreme Court's doctrine distinguishing the two concepts: a migratory irregularity does not automatically defeat a citizenship application. Since Yang's expulsion order was never executed, he continued residing in the country, met the two-year residence requirement of Law 346, demonstrated genuine roots (his own business, tax compliance, family life) and has no criminal record. The Chamber reversed the rejection and granted him citizenship.

Most significant of all is the scope the CNE gave its decision: it ordered the ruling communicated to the Ministry of National Security so that it instructs the Migration Directorate accordingly, and notified every federal judge with electoral jurisdiction in the country, exercising its role as the unifying authority of the electoral courts. In practice, this means the Migration Directorate cannot continue processing citizenship applications under the annulled regime.

Volosh vs. Yang: Two Paths, One Conclusion

	Volosh (June 18, 2026)	Yang, Liping (June 30, 2026)
Court	Federal Civil and Commercial Chamber, Sala III	National Electoral Chamber
Core reasoning	No necessity or urgency; elimination of the Public Prosecutor; lack of judicial review	Citizenship is electoral matter, barred from emergency decrees
Sanction	Unconstitutionality for the specific case	Absolute and incurable nullity
Scope	Inter partes	General reach in practice: instruction to the Migration Directorate and notice to all electoral federal judges
Outcome for the applicant	Lower court must reassume jurisdiction	Citizenship granted directly

Both rulings converge on the essential point: the Executive could not reform the citizenship regime by decree. But they arrive by different routes. Volosh attacks the missing preconditions for an emergency decree — a defect Congress could theoretically cure by passing the same reform as a statute. Yang holds that the subject matter itself is off-limits to decrees — a defect that cannot be cured by that route at all.

The Government Appeals to the Supreme Court: What Happens Next?

The Executive has announced it will appeal the National Electoral Chamber's ruling before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in an attempt to keep the granting of citizenship in the hands of the Migration Directorate.

This means the final word has not been spoken. Until the Supreme Court rules, two realities coexist in practice: a consolidated judicial position (returning the process to the federal judges) and a formally issued decree whose application has been gravely compromised. It is a transitional scenario that demands case-by-case legal strategy.

It is also worth noting that Congress's Permanent Bicameral Committee — the parliamentary body charged with reviewing emergency decrees — never ruled on Decree 366/2025, leaving the entire question in the hands of the courts.

What About Citizenship by Investment?

DNU 366/2025 was also the legal foundation of Argentina's citizenship-by-investment (CBI) program, which allowed naturalization through a "relevant investment" with no prior residence. Neither ruling analyzed the investment route specifically — no investor case was before the courts — but both lines of reasoning reach its legal foundation squarely:

• If the decree is null for regulating electoral matter (Yang), the investment route created by that same decree shares the defect.

• The Volosh reasoning — that citizenship presupposes years of residence by constitutional design — is hard to reconcile with a scheme that dispenses with time in the country altogether.

Add to this that the program was never fully implemented: the Ministry of Economy never defined what qualifies as a "relevant investment," and the minimum amount announced at the launch was never written into any regulation.

For those seeking an investment-based path to Argentina, the solid alternative remains residency by investment under Article 23(d) of the Immigration Law — a statute passed by Congress, insulated from the constitutional vulnerabilities of the decree — which can lead to citizenship through the ordinary naturalization route after two years of residence.

What to Do If You Have a Citizenship Application in Progress (or Plan to File One)

If you filed before the Migration Directorate (DNM): your file is now in a zone of uncertainty. After Yang, the DNM cannot continue processing applications under the annulled regime, and pending cases will likely need to be re-channeled before the competent federal judge. It is essential to determine what stage your application reached and define a relocation strategy for the file.

If you are about to apply: the path today is judicial — filing before the federal judge, proving two years of residence, lawful means of living, and a clean criminal record, under Law 346. It is the historical route, the one the courts have just reaffirmed, and the one offering the greatest legal certainty right now.

If your application was rejected because of your migratory status: the Yang ruling confirms a key Supreme Court doctrine: migratory status and citizenship are distinct institutions. A migratory irregularity — even an unexecuted expulsion order — does not by itself prevent the analysis of whether you meet the legal requirements for naturalization. Your case may be worth revisiting.

If your plan was citizenship by investment: the program is on hold in practice and its legal basis is under challenge. Stronger alternatives exist — residency by investment under the Immigration Law, or residence structures in other jurisdictions in the region — and they should be evaluated as part of a comprehensive mobility strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who grants Argentine citizenship today? After the National Electoral Chamber's ruling of June 30, 2026, jurisdiction returns to the federal judges, as it had been since 1869. The Government's appeal to the Supreme Court keeps the question open, but the current judicial position is clear.

Is DNU 366/2025 still in force? The CNE declared it null and ordered the Migration Directorate instructed on the ruling's scope. The Government is appealing to the Supreme Court. In practice, the citizenship process before the Migration Directorate has stalled, and the operative route is the judicial one.

What are the requirements for Argentine citizenship by naturalization? Under Law 346: two years of continuous residence in the country, lawful means of living, and no criminal record. Residence remains the central prerequisite of naturalization.

Does an expulsion order prevent obtaining citizenship? Not automatically. Case law distinguishes between migratory status and citizenship. If the expulsion was never executed and the applicant meets the legal requirements, the petition must still be analyzed — which is precisely what the CNE decided in Yang.

Does Argentine citizenship by investment still exist? Its legal basis (DNU 366/2025) was declared null and the program was never fully regulated. Today the solid alternative is residency by investment under the Immigration Law, which can lead to citizenship through the ordinary route.

How long does Argentine citizenship take through the courts? Timelines vary by federal court and jurisdiction, but judicial naturalization cases typically move within months once the residence and background requirements are properly documented. A well-prepared file is the single biggest factor.

At Creimerman Law we advise clients from more than 40 countries on Argentine residency and citizenship, including judicial citizenship cases under the new post-DNU 366/2025 landscape. If you have a pending application before the Migration Directorate, a prior rejection, or want to begin your naturalization, contact us for an assessment of your case.