Jump to content

rpiercy

ARCR Managment
  • Content count

    1,451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rpiercy

  • Rank
    General Manager - ARCR
  • Birthday 05/03/1969

Recent Profile Visitors

4,392 profile views
  1. Greetings all, It appears that the CCSS, in the face of various Constitutional Actions, has decided to re-evaluate their position, and no longer discriminate against foreigners who should have the benefit of the Caja as a family. We will be issuing more details later here as well as by special email to ARCR members. Those who were obligated to affiliate separately will still have to undergo processes in order to request the family affiliation, and after cancel their individual affiliations. Procedures to do so will be available in the ARCR once made clear by the CCSS. Ryan
  2. Greetings to all, The moderators have informed me that you are interested in having me post directly here regarding the CCSS issue that has arisen regarding separate affiliation for the spouse. To be clear, we obviously feel that this is an unconstitutional action by the CCSS, and are taking the appropriate steps in order to fight it. To do so requires an actual case, which then must follow bureaucratic procedure before we can file in the Court. We have to have clear information of how the CCSS is handling this officially, and have it in writing regarding a specific couple. This was begun just a few weeks ago, and we are working alongside them. Once the case is made the decision it affects everyone, and it must be done carefully. This process will take a few months, and unfortunately this has come at probably the worst time of year with everything due to process regarding taxes, marchamos, aguinaldos, and so forth, combined with the closure of the government. This will again delay things further. Like EVERYTHING at the CCSS different people are going to have different experience when talking to them as that has always been the case due to the knowledge levels of different employees of the Caja. We are facing the Head office, which is where the decisions and practices are actually decided and enforced more accurately. I can only hope we are able to get through this as soon as possible, and maybe even convince someone in the government how damaging this is for the attraction of foreigners and new investment. Sincerely yours Ryan Piercy
  3. After a wait of over two years we finally have received the newly published regulations for Residency. The ARCR is in the process of studying them in order to update all our info pages. Please be patient as there are over two hundred pages to digest and interpret. These followed shortly after the new regulations for Tourist Visas published on May 9th. It appears clear to us on a short review that there seem to be many benefits, such as only a two year deposit for Rentista, as well as many options that may work for those who could not apply previously. We hope that the general application method will be made easier and more accessible to a broader group from what we can see. More details to come...
  4. Just a word of advice. The previous regs also state nothing about needing to redeposit, BUT those who made it to 5 years as Rentista before always had to show a new letter for another 5 years in order to renew. I don't expect this new regulation will be any different in that aspect. ARCR will recommend you make a new deposit after 2 years. Nothing will be known for certain until the first person reaches the 2 year mark. Anyone willing to to can go to renew without a new deposit, and see what reply they get. If the deposit is needed as I suspect, they can then do so and continue the renewal. Obviously this will cause a delay.
  5. Document Legalization (ARCR El Residente 2012 01) For those who are going to start their residency, or need to complete other legal processes, legalization of foreign documents has now become simpler. As of December 14th, 2011, documents that originate from participating countries can now be Apostilled for use in Costa Rica. The benefit is that these documents no longer need to pass through the Costa Rican Consulate nor Relaciones Exteriores in Costa Rica. Costa Rica signed to adhere to the Hague Convention on Apostilles last March and was awaiting approval by the other member countries, which has now been completed. This process will not only save time and inconvenience, but will also save the $40 fee that was charged by the consul in order to authenticate each document. The previous method of obtaining a Certificate of Authority, then the consular authentication, will still have to be done in those countries not party to the Hague Convention.
  6. Hi Paul... this is incorrect. you still need to send docs to the Secretary of State, who will then put the Apostille on the document. It is then the Conslate that is no longer needed. In the case of your country (ie Canada) not having Apostille available, the old method still applies. Ryan The following is from the new edition of El Residente: Document Legalization For those who are going to start their residency, or need to complete other legal processes, legalization of foreign documents has now become simpler. As of December 14th, 2011, documents that originate from partcipatng countries can now be Apostilled for use in Costa Rica. The benefit is that these documents no longer need to pass through the Costa Rican Consulate nor Relaciones Exteriores in Costa Rica. Costa Rica signed to adhere to the Hague Convention on Apostilles last March and was awaiting approval by the other member countries, which has now been completed. This process will not only save time and inconvenience, but will also save the $40 fee that was charged by the consul in order to authenticate each document. The previous method of obtaining a Certificate of Authority, then the consular authentication, will still have to be done in those countries not party to the Hague Convention.
  7. Hi Paul, et All ARCR's current take on this is that another misinterpretation may lead to widespread panic. At this point I believe that DIMEX, which stands for "Documento de Identificación Migratorio para Extranjeros" (Document of Migratory Identification for Foreigners) is the actual name for the Residency Cedula, which I believe is the same as the one currently being issued, and has been in effect since 2008. If we do find different, we will certaily advise the public... Ryan Piercy ARCR
  8. I am actually surprised this has come up as a topic, but according to the US Embassy (some years ago) obtaining Citizenship here is not a problem for US Citizens, and in of itself is not considered a show of interest to giving up your US citizenship. State.gov says DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who: 1. is naturalized in a foreign country; 2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state; 3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or 4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government, and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed. When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship. Thus if they ask, and you simply reply that you had no intention of giving up your US citizenship, Dual Citizenship is not a problem nowadays. I have not heard since Franklin Chang that CR required tyou to give up your previous citizenship, so I will again check that. The issue of SS payment as well have nothing to do with Citizenship as far as I know either, as there are many ex-residents of the US here and in Canada that I know are on US Social Security from paying in while working in the US. However we can also recheck that with the Embassy to update the board...
  9. Hi Kenn, I actually do believe this was the intent, as my inside track was from actually reading the law as published. What I wasn't certain of is whether Migracion would apply the law as written, but they actually are. Apparently Mario had't read the law according to what he told another news source... And why should he as he was finishing his term ... except he actually has now been promoted to a higher position that oversees migracion...
  10. Dear Aradana, Hi there. Your attorney is correct, as you cannot apply for residency if you are overstayed. To answer all your q though we need more information, especially about your other child. If not a resident (nor citizen) no permission is needed from the Father to leave. I also take it the other child was born here in Costa Rica? In any event, please contact me at the ARCR office to better get aquainted with your situation, so we can provide clear advise, Ryan Piercy
  11. Good morning all. Some very valid points from all corners, but incomplete... Shankscat, You are correct about you being allowed to work in your own company, because you are an Investor. Investors are allowed to work specifically in the company under which they received residency. The same goes for Representante (work permits, etc) However, I believe the original post related to a Rentista Status, and under the law neither Rentista nor Pensionado (nor Tourist) is supposed to work (labour) Permission for such must be granted by Migracion, which we believe would be unlikely. Now, if you own a business, yes you can take dividends. You can be at the business, oversee things, have a presence.... But You may not do labour or work (ie sell, collect money, etc.) You can train/oversee employees... OF course... yes many people get away with working under both types (even tourists) others get caught. In my experience (to date) no one with residency has been deported for working (only tourists) likely because to do so, migracion would first have to go through the lengthy process of canceling the residency status... If anyone needs further clarification, please feel free to contact me.
  12. You should renew until you have an approval on the change of status....
  13. Hola all. I was asked to post this in our forums, as it is possible some of you out there may have more stories or information on this subject. Whoever posted this on CRL is correct in quoting me, but as usual the criteria used by migracion is unclear. aditional insight (if any) may be of use..
  14. Hi All, To help clarify the confusion.... The CCSS still requires (officially of course) that you must have residency to apply. The new law for immigracion requires that you have CCSS and maintain it on a continuous basis from the time you are granted residency (approved). -up to here everything seems to be clear and orderly.... However another section of the immigration law states that every process at migracion requires proof of affiliation to the CCSS, and so it appears that they are requiring everyone to proove CCSS enrollment, even to start your residncy application. The ARCR will try to talk to migracion and the CCSS to try and sort this out, as I think this is (obviously) causing some problems....
  15. Good Morning all, Please be aware that we are now 99% certain that the extension DOES NOT APPLY to those who by citizenship receive a 90 day visa. The Tourism extension is only available to those with LESS than 90 day visas. This can also now be independently collaborated in the Tico Times (March 5th) who discovered this week that the previous information they had received was incorrect. Though thre is always a slim possibility that this will be amended in the Regulations (yet to be published) it is unlikely as the Regulations are but sub-text to the Law, and not above the law.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.