For international clients, entrepreneurs, and high-value asset owners, residence and visa planning affects mobility, business continuity, family security, asset structuring, and in some cases crisis management.

Speed, cost, and feasibility must be assessed together

Residence and visa routes are often assessed by reference to minimum thresholds, processing timelines, physical presence requirements, eligible dependants, and the legal basis on which the client can apply. These parameters are important but they are only the starting point.

Investment routes are only one part of the analysis. In many cases, the better solution may be a business visa, a self-employed route, a passive income residence permit, executive relocation, a family-based route, digital nomad status, or another category better suited to the client’s profile.

The real question is whether a given route will actually perform in practice. A permit that looks efficient on paper may be functionally weak for a client managing significant asset structures or operating across several jurisdictions. A more demanding route may, in contrast, provide the credibility, stability, and substance that the client’s profile requires. 

Portugal provides a useful example: long considered one of the most attractive residence-by-investment frameworks, it has in practice been affected by significant processing delays, with backlogs extending well beyond 18 months in certain cases.

Spain presents a different type of constraint. While residence can be obtained relatively efficiently, maintaining the status and progressing toward permanence may require substantial physical presence. This can trigger tax residency, which may conflict with the client’s broader structuring objectives.

Greece may be appropriate where Schengen mobility, family inclusion, and limited physical presence are the priority, provided that the applicable investment thresholds and property-use conditions are workable for the client. 

Italy may suit a genuine corporate, startup, government bond, or philanthropic investment strategy, subject to the applicant’s nationality and the availability of the relevant route. 

Austria is a more selective and substance-based framework, not a standard golden visa product, but it may be relevant where the client seeks a high-quality European base supported by a credible economic rationale.

Residence and visa strategy cannot rely on static comparison tables. It requires current legal analysis, practical testing, and a clear understanding of what the client needs to achieve, by when, and with what level of cost and commitment.

Different nationalities, different strategies

The feasibility analysis becomes significantly more complex for clients from jurisdictions subject to enhanced scrutiny, including Russia, Belarus, Iran, and other higher-risk profiles.

In these cases, the question is not simply whether the immigration framework permits an application. The route must be tested against sanctions exposure, enhanced due diligence, source-of-funds documentation, fund-transfer mechanics, banking acceptance, and reputational risk.

A Russian client, for example, may face legal restrictions or practical obstacles in a programme that remains fully accessible to other nationalities. Italy’s investor visa framework, for instance, records the suspension of the programme for Russian and Belarusian citizens, including certain dual-nationality situations.

Standard immigration analysis is not enough in these cases. The applicant must be able to support a credible personal, financial, or commercial rationale, and the route must be strong enough to withstand the scrutiny it is likely to face.

The legal work is route-mapping

In complex residence and visa planning exercises, the work is closer to route-mapping than form-filling.

The analysis begins with the client’s overall position: nationality, residence history, family structure, business activity, source of funds, banking position, travel requirements, timing constraints, budget, and long-term objectives.

Possible jurisdictions and visa categories must then be compared against the factors that determine whether the route can actually work: eligibility, timing, cost, physical presence, renewal conditions, dependants, documentation, banking feasibility, nationality restrictions, and local practice.

This often means reviewing a broad set of jurisdictions before identifying a suitable route. Some countries may be ruled out because the timeline is too long. Others may be unsuitable because the cost is disproportionate, the physical presence requirements are too restrictive, banking is unrealistic, the success prospects are uncertain for the client’s nationality, or the programme no longer operates as advertised.

The value of this exercise is not the production of a long list of theoretical options. It lies in narrowing the field, explaining why certain routes should be rejected, identifying the strongest available path, and structuring a clear procedural roadmap.

That roadmap will include the legal basis for the application, required documentation, investment or business structuring (where applicable), coordination with local counsel, filing strategy, authority engagement, banking steps and realistic timelines. The objective is to front-load document collection and objection-handling, in order to best position the client before submission.

Moving forward after route selection 

The strongest and most suitable route is rarely the fastest or the cheapest. It is the route that balances speed, cost, legal eligibility, physical presence, banking feasibility, family needs, and commercial usability for each specific client, in each specific situation, at that specific moment.

Strategic residence planning should therefore move beyond generic jurisdiction comparisons. It should save the client time and cost by excluding weak or unrealistic options early, focusing resources on the route most likely to work and preparing the application before problems arise.

Our firm supports clients through this process by translating complex international fact patterns into clear, executable residence and visa strategies aligned with their personal, financial, and commercial objectives. 

Sources: 

European Commission, EU Immigration Portal.

European Commission, Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes in the European Union, COM(2019) 12 final. 

FATF/OECD, Misuse of Citizenship and Residency by Investment Programmes. 

Official national immigration, investor visa and residency portals for Italy, Spain, Austria, Greece, Portugal and the UAE/Dubai.

Disclaimer: This publication is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration, residence, and visa requirements are jurisdiction-specific and subject to change.