A common assumption in residency planning is that a long-term partner can be “added later,” even without marriage. In practice, this is one of the most misunderstood—and highest-risk—areas of Golden Visa applications.
The issue is not whether a relationship is genuine, long-standing, or financially intertwined. Authorities ask a much narrower question:
Does the legal framework recognise this person as a qualifying family member at the time of application?
That distinction matters. Many otherwise strong cases are delayed or weakened because dependency rules were assumed rather than verified.
The Legal Baseline: No Automatic Equivalence
Across Golden Visa programmes, family reunification rules are generally statutory and applied conservatively.
For a spouse, the position is usually clear. A legally recognised marriage certificate typically satisfies dependency requirements, subject to standard checks.
For an unmarried partner, there is no automatic equivalence. Immigration systems do not evaluate emotional commitment. They assess whether a relationship meets a defined legal standard of recognised partnership or dependency under local law.
Portugal: What “Unmarried Partner” Actually Means
Portuguese residency does allow certain unmarried partners to qualify, but only under specific conditions.
Under Portuguese law, eligibility depends on proving a legally recognised de facto union (união de facto). This is not a casual label. It requires evidence of a stable, marriage-like relationship, generally demonstrated through at least two years of cohabitation.
What matters most is documentation, not explanation. Authorities typically expect a consistent, verifiable record—such as shared residence, joint financial obligations, or official de facto union certificates where available. Even then, approval is not automatic. Cases are assessed on documentary strength, and discretion remains with the authorities.
Where Applications Commonly Fall Down
Many applicants rely on factors that feel persuasive personally but carry little legal weight. Long-term dating without shared residence, engagement without registration, informal cohabitation, or financial support without recognised dependency rarely meet the threshold on their own.
From a regulatory perspective, these situations lack a formal anchor. Immigration frameworks are designed to eliminate ambiguity, not interpret intent.
Why Timing Is Critical
Eligibility is assessed at the point of application, not retroactively.
Relationships formalised after filing are often disregarded. Evidence created post-application carries limited weight. Plans to “register later” are seldom accepted.
For couples considering marriage or formal recognition, timing becomes a strategic decision. The order in which steps are taken can materially affect both risk and outcome.
A Note on Other EU Programs
Rules are not harmonised across Europe.
Spain, for example, often requires registration in an official partners’ registry (pareja de hecho). Other jurisdictions apply different thresholds—or do not recognise unmarried partners at all in initial applications.
Assuming that one country’s approach will translate to another is a common and costly mistake, particularly for globally mobile families keeping multiple options open.
A Practical Illustration
Consider two founders who have lived together for years across several countries, sharing expenses but without formal joint registration.
From a personal perspective, the partnership is unquestionable. From an immigration perspective, the absence of a continuous, documentable cohabitation trail in a single jurisdiction may create exposure.
In such cases, couples usually face a strategic choice: proceed with a single applicant and add the partner later where permitted, or formalise the relationship before filing. Neither option is universally “better.” The right path depends on timing, jurisdiction, and risk tolerance.
Scope and Advice Boundaries
This article is not legal advice and does not offer guarantees. Eligibility assessments depend on individual facts and are ultimately decided by immigration authorities. Where legal interpretation or structuring is required, advice must come from licensed professionals in the relevant jurisdiction.
How Conservative Planning Reduces Risk
At Marlow Bray, cases involving unmarried partners are assessed conservatively. Where eligibility is unclear, that uncertainty is made explicit. In some situations, delaying or restructuring an application is preferable to proceeding on optimistic assumptions.
That selectivity reflects how we have advised over 300 families since 2007, prioritising long-term stability and compliance over speed or speculation.
Final Perspective
Unmarried partners are not excluded by default—but they are never included by assumption.
Golden Visa programs recognise legal relationships, not personal narratives. Understanding that distinction early allows couples to plan deliberately rather than reactively.
In high-stakes applications, clarity is not a luxury. It is the foundation of a sound outcome.
