When the National Directorate of Immigration (DNM) denies a residence application, orders an expulsion or cancels an already-issued DNI, the migrant is not without recourse. Law No. 25.871 establishes a dual challenge system: administrative, before the DNM itself, and judicial, before the Federal Courts. When properly used, this architecture allows unfavorable decisions to be reversed and protects residents against arbitrary or unlawful administrative acts.
Time is critical: the deadlines for filing appeals are short. An expulsion carried out without exhausting all defenses can cause irreversible harm — family separation, job loss, health deterioration — that is difficult to remedy later. We assist migrants with speed and decisiveness from the very first moment.
The first step: filed before the same authority that issued the act, within 10 administrative business days. It allows the act to be corrected before escalation. If the DNM denies reconsideration, the direct judicial avenue is opened.
Filed before the superior authority within 15 business days. A second opportunity to review the act before going to court. In immigration practice, it is often filed simultaneously with the reconsideration motion.
Available against certain acts of decentralized bodies. Filed before the Ministry of the Interior within 15 business days.
Art. 76 enables judicial review of final DNM acts before the Federal Administrative Court. The deadline is 30 business days from notification of the final act. It is a broad avenue: the federal judge may analyze the legality and proportionality of the act, order evidence, suspend execution and, where appropriate, set aside the administrative decision.
Expulsion orders are the most serious DNM decisions. Their judicial review enables suspension of execution as a precautionary measure — preventing the migrant from being effectively expelled while the case is resolved. We apply the criteria from the Granados Poma, Apaza Larico, Espósito and other consolidated precedents.
When the DNM cancels an already-granted residence, the migrant may challenge the decision in court, alleging procedural defects (lack of defense, insufficient reasoning) or substantive defects (erroneous assessment of facts, incorrect application of the law).
When urgency exists and the ordinary art. 76 avenue does not guarantee effective protection, the amparo under art. 43 of the Constitution applies. It is especially useful against imminent expulsions and violations of fundamental rights (family life, health, non-refoulement).
Denials based on certificates showing minor, time-barred or fully served convictions. We argue on the proportionality of the decision and the application of art. 29 sec. c) of Law 25.871.
Errors in apostilles, translations, certificates — formal defects that the DNM uses to reject applications that are substantively well-founded.
Disproportionate application of art. 62 for convictions that do not meet the gravity threshold required by case law.
Retroactive application of the DNU to consolidated situations; denials based on parameters incompatible with the constitutional block.