Investment Migration Industry 2020–2025 Report

The 2020–2025 period is more than a cycle of policy adjustments for investment migration programs. It marks a wholesale paradigm shift, in which countries are redefining the objectives, role, and operation of programs that grant residence or citizenship in exchange for investment. What was once a simple financial transaction (“buy a passport, buy a residence card”) is giving way to more selective mechanisms tied to national interests, international standards, and long-term expectations of economic and social development.

The golden era of “transactional residency” programs (2009–2019)

After the 2008 financial crisis, smaller countries, particularly in Europe and the Caribbean, moved quickly to launch residency and citizenship by investment (RBI/CBI) programs as a way to attract direct capital without taking on debt. During this period:

• Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, and several Caribbean states introduced programs that granted foreign nationals residence rights (or even citizenship) in return for a minimum investment in real estate or a financial contribution., , Síp, Malta Caribbean
• Due diligence was light, processing was fast (often 3–6 months), and physical presence requirements were virtually nonexistent.
• Investors were mainly pursuing a “Plan B” for lifestyle, their children’s education, or global mobility.

The 2014–2019 period saw exceptional growth in the residency and citizenship by investment market, with global CBI/RBI applications rising 2.5-fold. Lenient “buy now, get it fast” programs clearly dominated.

The 2020 turning point: COVID-19, global instability, and a crisis of confidence

The COVID-19 pandemic delivered a shock unprecedented in modern history. Global immigration systems stalled, international travel collapsed, and demand for secure mobility surged. Yet, ironically, just as demand rose, barriers began to emerge.

The new context produced major consequences

• Developed countries grew concerned about granting residence or citizenship to foreign nationals without adequate controls during a health crisis.
• The potential use of second passports to evade sanctions, launder money, or move assets across borders became a central concern for the EU, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
• A series of international scandals erupted, from reports of Cyprus granting passports to individuals accused of financial crimes to allegations of money laundering through Caribbean real estate.

All of this led to a new understanding: without strict controls, residency and citizenship programs can become a national security threat, undermine public trust, and weaken diplomatic standing.

A new model takes shape — residency with strategic conditions

From 2021 onward, many countries began rebuilding their program frameworks, not only to ensure security but also to serve development goals:

• A shift from passive to active investment: instead of buying real estate, investors are required to put capital into venture funds, innovative companies, or actual job creation.
• Expanded due diligence: rather than basic background checks, many countries have introduced multi-layered vetting, requiring multi-year source-of-funds documentation, independent audits, and even in-person interviews.
• Development-oriented allocation: Greece, for example, has tiered its real estate thresholds to steer capital away from overcrowded cities toward regions in need of revitalization, while the United States has set aside visas for rural areas and infrastructure projects.
• A growing role for sector-based selection: Canada and the UAE have introduced visas for tech entrepreneurs, healthcare professionals, and talent for sustainable growth, directly tied to national workforce strategies.

The result: from a “transactional residency” business to a “strategic migration industry”

This is not simply a tightening of conditions. It reflects an industry coming of age:

• The quality of investors matters more than the quantity.
• Programs must demonstrate long-term value (attracting talent, driving innovation, and building institutional capacity), not just short-term revenue.
• Due diligence is no longer a technical formality; it is a line of defense for national security, legal integrity, and reputation.

The “financial transaction” model is gradually being replaced by a model of strategic partnership between investors and host countries — where each application is viewed as a potential project requiring comprehensive assessment.

The tightening of investment migration programs did not happen randomly or in isolation. Behind it is a chain of macro forces — economic, geopolitical, legal, and social — that simultaneously create pressure and opportunity for countries to redefine their program objectives and standards. Understanding these factors is key for investors to anticipate trends, assess risks, and choose the right strategic timing.

Rising demand: when “Plan B” becomes the top priority for the ultra-wealthy

Amid rising global instability, a growing number of high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) see a second residence or citizenship not merely as a “privilege” but as a form of comprehensive insurance.

More than 142,000 HNWIs are projected to relocate in 2025, the highest number on record. This reflects a global wave of strategic relocation by investors, and it requires host countries to adjust their policies to manage and carefully screen these inflows and to ensure that this capital does not harm the local economy and society.

A 2025 global survey of HNWIs found:

• 72% of HNWIs said they hold or plan to hold a second passport or residence permit.
• 49% said their goal was “asset protection and intergenerational wealth planning.”
• 38% want to safeguard their freedom of movement as visa restrictions on citizens of developing countries continue to tighten.

In countries facing political risk, the figures are even higher:

• In the Middle East and North Africa, 80% of HNWIs are seeking residence in Western countries.
• In Asia, the ultra-wealthy in China, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan are driving a wave of demand for “exit options.”

However, the more people want to participate, the more cautious host countries must be. A lenient program at this moment could lead to uncontrolled inflows, security risks, and negative domestic social reactions.

Budget pressures and selective investment after COVID-19

During the early COVID-19 period (2020–2021), some countries eased residency program requirements to attract emergency capital. From 2022 onward, however, the trend reversed:

• Many governments began phasing out passive investment routes that create little lasting value, such as real estate that sits unused or government bond purchases.
• Instead, they prioritized capital that could create jobs, drive technological innovation, or support development in less-developed regions.

Notable examples:

• Greece (2023): Introduced a tiered model of €250,000, €400,000, and €800,000 (approximately US$280,000, US$448,000, and US$897,000), depending on location. The aim is to steer investment away from overcrowded major cities toward regions in need of economic recovery.
• UAE (2022-2024): UAE (2022–2024): Rolled out a suite of specialized long-term visas, such as the Green Visa, Freelancer Visa, and Startup Visa, gradually moving away from standalone real estate investment policies.

This clearly demonstrates that residency programs are no longer just capital-raising tools, but have become an integrated part of industrialization strategies, population distribution, and economic restructuring.

Political pressure from international bodies and the “Brussels Effect”

One of the least-discussed but most far-reaching changes is the growing oversight role of the EU, FATF, and OECD over investment migration programs.

The EU and the “Brussels Effect”

The concept of the “Brussels Effect” describes how the EU sets binding legal standards not only within its territory but also globally through trade, legal, and diplomatic measures.

• The EU has warned Malta, Bulgaria, and Cyprus that their citizenship by investment (CBI) programs may breach EU law, particularly because citizenship carries freedom of movement within the Schengen Area.
• The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that easily issued passports could undermine the security of the entire bloc, and called for a review of the entire vetting mechanism.
• As a result, all EU countries have completely halted citizenship by investment programs.

FATF and OECD: Stronger standards against money laundering and tax evasion

• The FATF has repeatedly warned of money laundering risks, particularly through real estate investment and indirect investment structures.
• The OECD has published lists of investment migration schemes at risk of being misused to evade tax reporting under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS).
• Countries such as Grenada and Dominica have been required to share vetting databases with other nations — an unprecedented step in the history of CBI programs. .

The simultaneous intervention of these organizations creates significant pressure, making it impossible for countries to keep operating a model of “selling passports as commodities.” In effect, these reforms have become a precondition for continued participation in the global financial and legal system.

The impact of media and domestic public opinion

Finally, an important factor that cannot be overlooked is pressure from public opinion within the host country itself. In many countries, citizens increasingly criticize governments for selling residency or citizenship to foreigners:

• Concerns about real estate prices being driven too high (Greece, Portugal).
• Opposition to wealthy immigrants who do not genuinely contribute to society (Canada, Malta).
• A sense of unfairness among local residents — when a passport can be “bought” more easily than poorer immigrants can obtain long-term residency.

Domestic politics, especially during election periods or crises, can be a powerful catalyst for sudden program changes, or even closures within weeks. This is a type of risk that investors often underestimate — but it directly affects the feasibility of an application.

Unlike the period before 2020 — when programs competed on low capital thresholds, flexible conditions, and fast processing — the 2020–2025 period marks a coordinated shift, in which nearly every prominent program worldwide has fundamentally changed its design, selection criteria, and review process.

Below is a systematic summary of the most important policy changes in key regions, organized along a “before and after 2020” timeline, with in-depth analysis of consequences and policy signals.

Australia – ending BIIP, rebuilding toward innovation

Before 2020:

• The Business Innovation and Investment Program (BIIP) was one of the primary residency visa streams.
• It mainly attracted passive financial capital through the Significant Investor visa (SIV – A$5 million), the Investor stream (A$1.5 million), and the Business Innovation stream.
• Policy leaned toward a “capital-for-residency” model, favoring applicants with financial means rather than emphasizing innovation.

From 2024:

• July 31, 2024: The Australian government officially stopped accepting new BIIP applications, completely ending a system that had existed for over a decade.
• The government announced plans to launch the National Innovation Visa (late 2024), focused on attracting outstanding entrepreneurs and high-caliber researchers.
• Detailed guidelines are not yet available, but the official direction signals a strategic shift from financial capital to human capital.

Policy signal:

• Gradually phasing out residency through “passive investment.”
• Restructuring the entire residency ecosystem to serve global innovation competitiveness.
• Replacing capital-for-residency flows with resources that deliver clear economic and technological impact, reinforcing a trend in which residency is tied to capability and strategic value rather than financial strength alone.

United States – the EB-5 program: from flexible opportunity to a high-scrutiny process

Before 2020:

• Minimum investment: US$500,000 in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA) — a rural area or high-unemployment area.
• The review process was relatively simple, with no requirement to demonstrate direct job impact.
• Regional centers could operate with minimal auditing.

After 2022:

• The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA)took effect:
  • Raised the investment amount to US$800,000 in TEAs and US$1,050,000 outside TEAs.
  • Established the EB-5 Integrity Fund and strengthened oversight of regional centers.
  • Requirementseparate escrow accounts, mandatory annual reporting, and periodic audits.
  • Permittedconcurrent filing of Form I-526 and I-485, shortening the wait for applicants already in the United States.

Policy signal:

• Tighter anti-abuse measures, more transparent capital flows, and stronger investor protections.
• A shift that positions EB-5 as a tool for developing underserved regions rather than merely a “fast track” into the United States.

Under the RIA, the program was reauthorized and remains lawfully in operation through the end of 2027.

Portugal – Golden Visa: the end of passive real estate investment

Before 2020:

• Allowed real estate investment from €280,000 — popular and straightforward.
• No physical residence requirement, fast processing times, high approval rates.

From 2023:

• Abolished the real estate investment route, including renovation projects in rural areas.
• Retained only indirect or active investment routes, such as:
  • Venture capital funds
  • Job creation for Portuguese citizens
  • Contributions to research and cultural activities

Policy signal:

• Curbing real estate speculation and easing housing price pressure in Lisbon and Porto.
• Steering investors toward sectors that create long-term value.

Cyprus – moving from CIP to Golden Visa

Before 2020:

• Cyprus ran a citizenship by investment program, the Cyprus Investment Programme (CIP), requiring an investment of approximately €2 million, but it was fully abolished on November 1, 2020, following the “Cyprus Papers” scandal.

After 2020:

• The government replaced it with a Golden Visa (permanent residence) program, which requires a minimum investment of €300,000 and remains in place today.
• However, the program is under close scrutiny due to numerous application errors and risk gaps, with warnings from oversight bodies such as MONEYVAL and internal auditors.

Policy signal:

• An effort to move toward a safer, more transparent residency model and avoid repeating the mistakes of the CIP.
• But tighter controls are still needed to ensure effectiveness and clear accountability.

Greece – a tiered model oriented toward regional development

Before 2020:

• A minimum investment of €250,000 applied nationwide.
• Real estate investment remained the overwhelmingly dominant route (over 90%).

From 2023:

• Tiered investment levels:
  • €250,000 applies only in less-developed areas.
  • €400,000 applies in major cities such as Thessaloniki.
  • €800,000 for central Athens and premium tourist areas.
• Proposed addition: an annual cap on applications in high-demand areas.

Policy signal:

• Preventing properties from being bought and left empty.
• Using visa policy as a tool to channel investment into regional development.

Malta – MPRP replaces MRVP: higher residency standards, greater financial transparency

Before 2020 (MRVP):

• The Malta Residence and Visa Programme (MRVP) required investors to demonstrate minimum assets of €500,000 or income of €100,000, sometimes in addition to a real estate investment or other qualifying criteria.
• Due diligence was less stringent than under the current MPRP.

From 2021 (MPRP):

• The MPRP requires a minimum net worth of €500,000, of which at least €150,000 must be financial assets; or alternatively €650,000, of which €75,000 must be liquid assets. 650.000 EUR
• Clear fee schedule:
  • Real estate purchase: minimum €375,000 + €37,000 government contribution + €50,000 administrative fee + €2,000 philanthropic contribution.
  • Real estate lease: €14,000 per year + the same fees as the purchase route.
• In addition:
  • The fee for each dependent is currently €7,500, effective from 2025.
  • The 2025 amendments also reduced the surcharge and increased flexibility for renting or subletting the property.

Policy signal:

• Clear asset requirements, with an emphasis on financial transparency.
• A detailed fee schedule that removes ambiguity and responds to EU oversight pressure.
• The 2025 changes strike a balance: tighter control of social costs while retaining appeal through rental flexibility.

Ireland – closure of the Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP)

Before 2023:

• The IIP allowed investors to invest at least €1,000,000 in an approved fund in return for residency.

From February 15, 2023:

• The government announced it would stop accepting new applications as of February 15, 2023, ending the program with immediate effect.

Policy signal:

• A swift response to reputational risk, money-laundering concerns, and public backlash.
• A signal that programs seen as overly generous to the wealthy, and out of step with social equity, would be cut back.

Grenada and the Caribbean – tighter screening, greater transparency, and international coordination

Before 2020:

• Contributions starting at US$150,000 — no interview required.
• No data sharing with other countries; each country reviewed applications independently.

From 2023–2025:

• A standardized minimum threshold of US$200,000.
• Some countries introduced interviews.
• Establishment of a data-sharing mechanism among Caribbean countries to prevent “passport shopping.”
• Rollout of multi-jurisdictional due diligence and background checks.
• A trend toward tighter controls driven by pressure from the EU, FATF, and OECD.

Policy signal:

• Meeting EU and FATF transparency requirements.
• Protecting the reputation of Caribbean passports amid intense competition.

The UAE – a specialized ecosystem of long-term residency visas

Before 2020:

• Most residents lived on employer-sponsored work visas.
• Real estate investment could support a visa renewal, but the benefits were limited.

From 2021–2025:

• The UAE introduced a series of residency programs that are not tied to employer sponsorship:
  • Golden Visa (10 years): for investors, entrepreneurs, and specialists.
  • Green Visa (5 years): for freelancers, startups, and researchers.
  • Blue Residency (new, 2024): for sustainable energy and green economy specialists.
• No continuous residence requirement and no personal income tax.

Policy signal:

• Positioning the UAE as a hub for global talent, not just capital.
• Building a residency model tied to strategic sector development goals.

The coordinated tightening of investment migration programs is not merely a technical policy adjustment — it brings profound changes to the investor’s experience, journey, and personal strategy. Old expectations such as “buy fast, get it now,” “no need for complex documentation,” or “enough money is all it takes” are becoming outdated. Instead, today’s investors face a new reality — one of higher financial costs, longer timelines, more complex paperwork, and significantly greater uncertainty.

Investment and execution costs rising beyond expectations

Between 2020 and 2025, the actual total cost of completing a residency or citizenship application came to far exceed the “minimum” figure published by governments. Beyond the official investment, investors must budget for many additional costs: legal fees, financial due diligence, translation, international counsel fees, filing fees, local administrative costs, and above all the cost of documenting source of funds — which can take months, even years, if the money trail is complex.

Malta – MPRP (2025)

• Government contribution: €37,000 (for the real estate lease route)
• Mandatory property lease: €14,000 per year × 5 years = €70,000
• Administrative fee (contribution fee + due diligence + local authority fees): €50,000
• Philanthropic contribution: €2,000
• Dependent fee: €7,500 per person

→ Total costs may reach approximately €166,500, not including the minimum net worth requirement of €500,000 (of which €150,000 must be financial assets).

United States – EB-5 visa (2024)

• Investment amount: US$800,000 (Targeted Employment Area)
• Regional center administrative fee: US$50,000–80,000: 50.000-80.000 USD
• All-inclusive legal fees: US$25,000–35,000: 25.000-35.000 USD
• USCIS Filing Fees USCIS filing fees (Forms I-526E, I-485, and I-829): approximately US$16,000–17,000 (excluding consulting, attorney, or other ancillary costs).

→ → Total costs: US$910,000–940,000 or more, not including additional fees for dependents or complex cases. 910.000 – 940.000 USD

Strategic assessment

Actual total costs can be 1.3–1.8 times higher than initially expected, particularly if the case involves complex fund flows, an unclear financial history, or the need for multi-jurisdictional legal support. As immigration authorities step up due diligence, investors need a comprehensive view of costs — not only for budgeting, but also to prepare the right documentation and timeline, avoiding risks that could prolong or stall the adjudication process.

Extended processing times, limited certainty

Very few programs still maintain the 3–6 month processing times of the past. Enhanced due diligence, stricter financial review, and backlogs from surging demand have lengthened the process:

Beyond technical delays, many countries also follow “unwritten policies” of slowing case processing ahead of elections or cabinet changes, or amid rising political pressure. Investors who fully meet the requirements may still face long waits due to factors beyond their control.

The Portugal Golden Visa program had a backlog of tens of thousands of pending cases as of May 2025. Sudden legal changes have extended timelines for investors with pending applications or required them to meet new conditions — creating psychological pressure and additional costs.

Source-of-funds documentation becomes the biggest hurdle

Where a case could once be filed as soon as “sufficient lawful funds were assembled,” proving a lawful, clear, and transparent source of funds is now the most important criterion — and the hardest hurdle to overcome.

Common new requirements:

• Transparent asset accumulation history over the past 5–10 years.
• Assets derived from lawful income sources, fully declared (taxes, transactions, contracts).
• Funds flowing through legitimate banks, with documentation and a reasonable transfer trail.
• For business income: audited financial statements, client contracts, and annual tax payment records.

An application can be returned for something as simple as:

• A single transaction missing its original invoice.
• No valid documentation for a share purchase or sale transaction.
• Personal tax history that does not match the investment fund flow.

This extends case preparation by an additional 3–6 months. At the same time, the cost of hiring financial and legal experts to restructure fund flows is substantial.

Rising policy risk: programs can change suddenly

Real-world examples have shown that programs can be tightened, suspended, or closed without notice, causing both financial losses and lost strategic opportunities for investors:

• Cyprus: its citizenship by investment (CBI) program was shut down within 2 weeks of a series of media scandals in 2020.
• United Kingdom (Tier 1 Investor): abruptly suspended in February 2022 over national security concerns.
• Portugal: the government changed its real estate policy within 60 days, affecting thousands of applications in preparation.

Investors therefore need a flexible mindset and contingency plans: rather than waiting for “perfect” conditions to file, they should act while the current rules still apply — before that window of opportunity closes.

The old mindset no longer works

Together, these factors force investors to change their entire approach. Old ways of thinking such as:

• “Buying real estate for a residence permit without any intention of using it”
• “Waiting until I have surplus cash to act”
• “Making a contribution means approval is certain”

are all losing relevance in the new environment

Instead, the thinking should shift toward:

• Investment migration is part of a global wealth management strategy, not a one-off transaction.
• Transparent financial documentation must be prepared proactively in advance.
• Program selection should be based on policy stability, system transparency, and how well the program fits with other long-term plans such as education, tax, or investment exit.

As investment migration programs worldwide enter a phase of broad tightening — not only in financial requirements but also in transparency, policy objectives, and vetting standards — investors can no longer rely on short-term playbooks. Instead, they need a residency and investment strategy that is multi-layered, flexible, and integrated over the long term. Below are practical strategic directions, informed by the perspective of analysts who track global trends.

Diversify your residency and citizenship portfolio — hedge rather than concentrate risk

Rather than going “all in” on a single program, investors should design a multi-layered structure:

• A long-term residence permit in Europe or the UAE establishing a durable base for lifestyle, education, or tax purposes.
• A Caribbean passport providing immediate global mobility and a contingency option.
• A strategic investment visa (such as the U.S. EB-5 or Canada’s Start-Up Visa) serving long-term goals such as children’s university education or permanent relocation plans.

This is not about “avoiding policy risk” but about optimizing flexibility and reducing points of failure when a program changes suddenly.

Act early — don’t wait for the “perfect moment”

One of the most common mistakes investors make is waiting until everything is absolutely ready — funds in place, documents complete, program stable — before filing. But in reality, changes often happen within weeks, and investors miss opportunities simply because they… “waited until after the holidays” or “waited to sell the house.”

Strategic action includes:

• Preparing financial documentation and source-of-funds evidence first (even before choosing a country).
• Arranging independent appraisals or audits in advance, if needed.
• Filing while the program window is open, even if not everything is perfect.

In the current environment, a 1-month delay can mean losing 1 year — or losing an opportunity permanently.

Consider the degree of policy stability — but don’t treat risk as absolute

Not all programs are equally volatile. Based on observations over the past 5 years, programs can be grouped into 3 categories:

• Frequently adjusted: Portugal, Greece, the UK, Cyprus — changes typically respond to domestic and international economic and social conditions.
• Moderately stable: Malta, the Caribbean — influenced by FATF and OECD standards, but with phased, predictable policy responses.
• Long-term legal frameworks: the UAE, the U.S., Canada — programs embedded in long-term immigration legislation.

Programs in Europe such as Portugal, Greece, or Cyprus tend to react quickly to public pressure or shifts in domestic development priorities. By contrast, programs in Canada, the U.S., or the UAE rest on a more durable legislative foundation, with clear protections for applications already filed.

However, flexibility does not mean instability, and stability does not mean absolute safety. What investors need is a realistic assessment of how well they can adapt to each program — from the review process and physical presence obligations to how predictable future changes are.

Redefine “success” in investment migration

In the past, the success criteria were: “get a residence permit or citizenship as fast as possible, at the lowest possible cost.”

Today, the criteria should be:

• The application is not denied for technical or administrative reasons.
• Processing time falls within a reasonable expected range.
• The benefits received align with personal or family office objectives.
• There is an exit or upgrade pathway suited to long-term changes.

This shift also signals that investment migration is gradually becoming a segment of global wealth planning — rather than a short-term purchase.

Work with experienced advisors — and keep building your own knowledge

Immigration advisory firms play an important role — but in the current environment, investors cannot afford to be passive. They should:

• Understand the basic legal procedures.
• Grasp the financial and tax policies of the destination country.
• Stay current with official sources (governments, the OECD, the EU).
• Demand transparency from advisors on fees, timelines, and legal risks.

The more informed the investor, the sounder the decision — and the more resilient it is to change. Relying entirely on one party without understanding the overall structure is the single greatest risk.

Strategic considerations for investors

Beyond the global product map, investors also need to take stock of their own circumstances — so they can act early and act correctly.

Investors from emerging markets have strong potential but also face specific challenges of their own. Preparing for these factors in advance not only strengthens an application but can also determine the success of the entire plan.

• Source-of-funds transparency comes first: this is the biggest hurdle. Investors should proactively build a transparent financial record that can be traced back several years. Rather than waiting until a decision is made to start preparing, begin now: keep property purchase agreements, bank statements, personal and corporate income tax returns, and other lawful documentation. A clean, clear financial record is the most valuable asset in today’s stringent vetting environment.
• Plan a lawful transfer of capital: moving a large amount of capital abroad must comply with the regulations of your home country. Investors should consult legal and financial professionals to structure a lawful transfer and avoid unnecessary risks that could undermine the legitimacy of the source of funds when it is explained to a foreign immigration authority.
• Shift from real estate to financial investment: as real estate investment options narrow (as in Portugal), investors who traditionally favor tangible assets should become more open to financial channels such as venture capital funds. This is the time to build knowledge and work with reputable fund managers to understand the risks, return potential, and exit strategy.

If the earlier sections painted an analytical picture of policy trends, macroeconomic drivers, and practical impact, this section answers a specific question: How do the investment migration programs commonly available today reflect that trend?

Programs raising investment thresholds and tightening controls: the U.S. EB-5 investor green card

U.S. EB-5 (Regional Center – RIA)

• Exemplifies the trend toward higher financial requirements, paired with tighter oversight of regional centers.
• Since 2022, the investment amount has risen to US$800,000, with requirements for reporting, audits, and safeguards on investor funds.
• Processing times of up to 36 months, with in-depth vetting of both the investor and the managing entity.
• Strategic significance: emblematic of a broad “raising of the bar,” turning EB-5 from a shortcut into a managed economic development tool.

Programs shifting toward “innovation-based investment”: Canada’s Start-Up Visa and provincial entrepreneur streams

Canada Start-Up Visa

• No initial asset requirement, but an innovative business idea supported by a designated organization is required.
• High refusal rates without a clear partnership strategy.
• Representative of the trend: from “having money is enough” to “having innovative value is what qualifies you.”

Provincial entrepreneur streams (PEI, Ontario, BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick)

• Requires building or acquiring a real business and creating local jobs.
• Key features: province-specific, subject to quotas, long processing times (18–24 months).
• Notable trends:
  • Decentralized provincial selection, with measures to prevent duplication.
  • Priority for sectors facing labor shortages and rural areas — reflecting a strategy of population distribution and development of remote regions.

Programs closed entirely: strategic shifts and political factors

Úc – Business Innovation & Investment Program (BIIP)

• July 31, 2024: Australia stopped accepting new BIIP applications, ending its investor migration visa stream entirely after more than a decade.
• Policy transition: according to the Department of Home Affairs, a new program called the National Innovation Visa was expected to launch in late 2024, focused on attracting exceptional entrepreneurs and highly qualified researchers. The strategic priority has shifted from financial capital to human capital and innovation. National Innovation Visa .
• Marks a reconfiguration of the investment migration ecosystem, aimed at competing globally for innovation. Passive investment options are gradually being phased out and replaced by options with clearer and more sustainable economic and technological impact. .

Spain Golden Visa

Investment migration programs are often turned into political talking points and can easily become targets of criticism when social pressure mounts.

• April 3, 2025: the Golden Visa program ended (most notably the €500,000 real estate route).
• Policy drivers: a combination of EU scrutiny (security and financial risks) and domestic political narratives blaming the program for the housing crisis.
• Factual note: Golden Visa transactions accounted for a very small share of the overall real estate market, yet were enough to create a political effect.
• Strategic significance: high reputational and policy-backlash risk for real estate models investors need a de-risking strategy that fits the EU framework.

Ireland Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP)

• February 15, 2023: the Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP) closed to new applications after 11 years in operation.
• Policy drivers: pressure from public opinion, the media, and international watchdog organizations. Concerns centered on the program’s potential use for money laundering, lack of transparency, and failure to generate spillover value for the local economy.
• Strategic significance: Ireland became one of the first EU countries to firmly eliminate the “buying residency” model through purely financial investment. This is a clear signal of the tightening trend and comprehensive restructuring of residency programs — toward transparency, social fairness, and real value rather than simply the applicant’s ability to pay.

Passive residency programs: narrowing options, raising vetting standards

Portugal Golden Visa

• Previously popular for its real estate route since 2023, only venture capital fund, research, and cultural investment options remain.
• Longer processing times, physical presence requirements, and proof of transparent fund flows.
• Representative of the trend: from “pure real estate” to “investment that creates long-term value.”

Greece Golden Visa

• Regional tiers have been introduced: Athens has risen to €800,000 only less-developed areas keep the €250,000 threshold.
• Regional caps on the number of applications are expected.
• Strategic significance: a tool for regulating the domestic housing market, no longer a freely available personal investment product.

Cyprus Permanent Residence Permit

• Minimum real estate investment of €300,000.
• Permanent residence, but without the right to take up employment.
• The property must be retained.
• Strict source-of-funds vetting.
• No shortcut to naturalization.

Portugal D7 Visa

• Once a “passive residence” route for people with a regular income, it now demands more in terms of actual time spent in the country and proof of a genuine connection to it.
• Suited to retirees and remote freelancers — but a clear residency strategy is needed.

Programs reforming against the trend: liberalization to reactivate capital flows

New Zealand – Active Investor Plus (AIP)

A shift toward simplification, standardization, and closer alignment with market demand to restore the program’s appeal.

• The 2022 version underperformed because of its complex structure, high capital thresholds, and strict English-language requirements.
• From April 2025: restructured into 2 categories — Growth (NZ$5 million) and Balanced (NZ$10 million); the English-language requirement was removed and the time-in-country requirement reduced.
• Immediate effect: 189 applications in under 3 months, with expected capital inflows of more than NZ$1.6 billion.

→ Strategic significance: a textbook case showing that when a product is well matched to market demand and the legal framework is streamlined, investment migration remains an effective economic leveramid a global tightening.

EU compliance-driven reforms: rebuilding to survive and compete

Hungary – Guest Investor Program (GIP)

A “second-generation Golden Visa” — maximizing economic benefits while proactively designing out real estate and social risks.

• Relaunched with a 10-year residence permit from July 2024.
• January 2025 decision: the direct real estate purchase option was removed entirely, avoiding a repeat of the speculation and instability seen in Southern Europe.
• Remaining options: €250,000 into an approved real estate investment fund or a €1,000,000 contribution.

→ Strategic significance: a shift from “asset purchase” to a “managed vehicle,” increasing control and reducing political backlash.

Bulgaria permanent residence

A tactical retreat from citizenship by investment, repositioning around an EU-compliant permanent residence route.

• 03/2022: March 2022: citizenship by investment (CBI) was abolished under direct, sustained pressure from the European Commission, with limited economic benefits and security risks acknowledged (against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine).
• Late 2023: a new EU-compliant Golden Visa (permanent residence) was launched. .
• Requirements: a minimum of €512,000 in prescribed funds; a standard 5-year naturalization pathway, with no shortcut. vào , .

→ Strategic significance: creating asustainable, compliant product, that remains competitive withoutcompromisingEU-level security and legal standards.

Fast-track citizenship programs — but under growing scrutiny

Grenada citizenship

• Higher contribution amounts, mandatory interviews, and data-sharing cooperation among Caribbean countries.
• Although Grenada’s passport is strong, its program is under close scrutiny from the EU and the U.S., with a risk of losing visa waiver if it does not reform further.

Turkish citizenship by investment

• Once a “fast passport route” through US$250,000 in real estate → now raised to US$400,000, with longer processing times.
• Processing is slow in practice and vetting of applicants may tighten due to geopolitics.
• It represents the CBI model under pressure from the international community, gradually losing its “ease of access.”

Permanent residence programs with high net worth requirements — setting the standard for classifying investors

Malta Permanent Residence Programme (MPRP)

• Total costs can run to more than €160,000.
• Applicants must demonstrate a minimum net worth of €500,000 (of which at least €150,000 must be financial assets), a clear source of funds, and no anonymous transactions.
• It represents a trend: smaller but rigorous jurisdictions are moving toward classifying investors by comprehensive financial standards — no longer simply “pay and you’re done.”

Summary table of key policy change trends

Warning signs and prudent next steps

The product map above shows that:

• Programs are increasingly specialized, serving different goals (citizenship, permanent residence, long-term residence).
• The “easiest” programs face the closest scrutiny and may disappear or become more expensive without warning.
• Applications now require far more rigor than before 2020; some programs even call for close collaboration with attorneys, investment advisors, startups, and others.

→ This underscores the central argument of this report: investment migration is no longer a “buy it and you’re done” product, but a long-term, complex strategy that demands serious preparation. .

Based on our analysis of global policy trends from 2020 to 2025, as well as the real-world profiles of the investors we advise, IMM Group has identified 3 core strategic priorities to help investors make the most of opportunities and reduce risk:

Act early and take advantage of the “transition window”

Most policy changes begin with a transition period, during which investors can still file under the previous rules. This window typically lasts from a few months to a year, but the surge in filings lengthens processing times and increases pressure on adjudicating agencies.

If investment migration is a genuine strategy for you, it is best to decide early — while conditions are still manageable, costs have not yet escalated, and the previous rules remain in effect.

Choose a program that matches your goals and actual capacity

There is no “best” program — only the program that best fits each goal: settling abroad, diversifying assets, obtaining a second citizenship, or education and legacy planning.

IMM Group currently focuses on a select group of programs that we consider relatively stable, with clear legal frameworks and a good fit for our clients’ profiles, including:

U.S. residency programs

• EB-5 visa (Regional Center Program): investment from US$800,000, offering a pathway to green cards for the investor and eligible family members; the program has been reauthorized through 2027. 800.000 USD

| See the full EB-5 program here

Canadian residency programs

• Start-Up Visa: for investors with an innovative business idea, or who join an existing startup team.

| See the full Canada SUV program here

• Provincial entrepreneur streams (Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island): require establishing and operating a business in the selected province, with a commitment to physical presence. :

| See the full Canada provincial entrepreneur programs here

European residency programs

• Portugal Golden VisaThe real estate route has been replaced by financial routes, with investment from500.000 EURin qualifying investment funds.

| See the full Portugal Golden Visa program here

• Portugal D7 visa: for people with stable passive income; no capital investment required.

| See the full Portugal D7 visa program here

• Greece Golden VisaProperty ownership from 250.000 EUR, but acting early is advisable, as the government may adjust the program soon.

| See the full Greece Golden Visa program here

• Malta Permanent Residence Programme (MPRP): clear eligibility criteria, with a financial investment requirement and a government contribution.

| See the full Malta Permanent Residence Programme here

• Cyprus Permanent Residence: real estate investment from €300,000, fast processing, and permanent residence for three generations of the family. 300.000 EUR

| See the full Cyprus Permanent Residence program here

Citizenship programs

• Grenada citizenship: fast processing, no residency requirement, a pathway to apply for the U.S. E-2 visa (subject to U.S. eligibility rules), and visa-free travel to many countries.

| See the full Grenada citizenship program here

• Turkish citizenship: real estate investment from US$400,000, a clear process, and a possible stepping stone in a two-step migration strategy. 400.000 USD

| See the full Turkish citizenship program here

• Dominica citizenship: a lower entry point from US$200,000, suited to investors who want to keep costs to a minimum.

| See full details of Dominica’s citizenship by investment program

• St. Kitts and Nevis citizenship: a long-established citizenship by investment program (since 1984), well regarded, with a strong legal framework and a stable track record.

| See full details of St. Kitts and Nevis’s citizenship by investment program

Prepare before you act — rather than “put down a deposit and worry later”

An investment migration application cannot rest on capital alone. It requires careful preparation, from the source and flow of funds and tax planning to background documentation and the ability to maintain physical presence. Investors should clarify their expectations and their 5–10 year plan, and should not see this as a temporary hedge against risk.

Once a fast-growing market with low entry standards, global investment migration has evolved into a selective, strategy-driven system with high transparency requirements. This is not a barrier but a natural step toward maturity — one that raises the real value of both the programs and their participants.

For investors, this is the moment to rethink the entire residency strategy: from goals to methods, and from short-term moves to long-term planning. Those who get ahead are no longer those who “buy fastest,” but those who understand the game, read the trends correctly, and prepare most thoroughly.

The tightening trend will not stop. But for those with vision and preparation, the “window of opportunity” remains open — just not for everyone.

If you are interested in investment migration programs, contact IMM Group or leave your details below. Our experienced advisors will provide detailed guidance and help assess the prospects of your case. We will keep your personal data confidential and use the information you provide only to advise on your family’s case.

IMM Group