LAW 346

The court route, still in force

An important clarification on jurisdiction and the current framework

Regarding cases already under way, every application for Argentine citizenship filed up to 27 May 2025 continues to be heard by the Federal Courts of First Instance. Those proceedings are not affected by the change of jurisdiction introduced by Decree 366/2025 and will run their course under the court regime in force when they were filed, until a final decision is reached.

New applications under Law 346

Even after Decree 366/2025 came into force, citizenship under Law 346 remains a legally available route in certain situations, including where the applicant cannot show two uninterrupted years of residence in the country before the application, for example because of trips abroad during that period.

In such cases, starting the court process calls for a more demanding approach, because it involves raising a constitutional challenge to Decree 366/2025 in order to avoid the stricter administrative immigration regime, which requires proof of uninterrupted residence and processing before the National Directorate of Migration.

This kind of application is neither automatic nor available across the board: it requires an individual legal assessment, properly grounded constitutional argument and a litigation strategy suited to the particular facts of the case.Situations covered by the constitutional challenge

The constitutional challenge to Decree 366/2025 also covers the situations traditionally provided for in Law 346: the spouse of an Argentine citizen and the parent of an Argentine citizen.

In these cases the court route seeks to preserve the legal regime of Law 346, avoiding requirements that the statute itself does not impose, such as two years of uninterrupted residence, and maintaining the distinct treatment these applicants have historically received.

Why the court route may be preferable

Moving the process into the hands of the National Directorate of Migration under Decree 366/2025 left several questions open that directly affect anyone who needs to settle their situation. The administrative procedure still has no complete implementing regulations, no fixed time limits for a decision, and its design removed safeguards that belong to court proceedings: it made no provision for the involvement of the Public Prosecutor's Office, and it did not keep the publication of edicts, without putting anything in their place.

Against that background of uncertainty, a constitutional challenge to Decree 366/2025 makes it possible to ask that the case be heard by the federal courts, under the regime of Law 346, with judicial oversight of the process and enforceable procedural deadlines.

Case law so far

During 2026 two appellate courts ruled in favour of this position. On 18 June 2026 the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber III, declared unconstitutional the provisions of Decree 366/2025 that removed federal judges from the granting of citizenship certificates, and ordered the trial court to resume jurisdiction (in re "Volosh, Yana s/ Solicitud de Carta de Ciudadania"). Among its grounds, it noted that the decree was issued while Congress was in ordinary session, without exceptional circumstances to justify it, and that it removed both the involvement of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the publication of edicts.

A few days later, on 30 June 2026, the National Electoral Court of Appeals ruled to the same effect in re "Yang, Liping s/ nacionalidad y ciudadania", on the ground that citizenship is intrinsically connected to political rights and is therefore not a matter that can be governed by a decree of necessity and urgency.

What these rulings mean, realistically

It is important to be precise on this point. Under the Argentine system of diffuse constitutional review, a declaration of unconstitutionality takes effect only between the parties to the proceedings in which it is issued. It does not repeal the rule and has no general effect. Decree 366/2025 therefore remains in force, and anyone who wishes to avoid its application must raise their own challenge in their own case.

What these precedents do provide is a settled line of reasoning in two separate courts of appeal, which offers significant support when framing the argument. Even so, there is no guarantee of outcome: each application depends on the court that hears it, on the particular circumstances of the case and on how soundly the litigation strategy is put together.

For that reason, before starting a case on this basis we assess each situation individually and explain frankly which route is the more suitable one given the applicant's actual circumstances.

Documents you will need