Is It Getting Easier to Spend More Days in Colombia as a Tourist?
For many years, those of us who work with foreign nationals in Colombia have understood the rules governing tourist stays to be relatively strict. In simple terms, a person entering the country may be granted a tourism permit for a specific period of time and, if they wish to stay longer, they must use the mechanism established by Migración Colombia to extend their stay.
However, a recent case we handled for a foreign national before Migración Colombia allowed us to confirm an interpretation that, if it is ultimately confirmed and adopted as an administrative practice, could make it more flexible for certain tourists to distribute their days of stay in Colombia. To understand this, it is first necessary to explain, in very simple terms, how the system currently works.
Foreign nationals whose citizenship does not require a visa to enter Colombia may receive a Tourism Permit (PT) — formerly known as a PIP-5 — when they enter the country. This permit, which under the previous regulations was understood to be granted for 90 days, allows a person to remain in Colombia for activities such as tourism, vacation, and leisure. In addition, there is a clear limit on the number of days a person may spend in Colombia as a tourist during the same calendar year: 180 days.
The important issue lies in how the Temporary Stay Permit (PTP) has been regulated under Colombia’s immigration framework. In other words, if a foreign national had 90 days available as a tourist in Colombia during a calendar year and wanted to stay for the full 180 days, that person had to request a PTP. Previously, the regulations clearly stated that the PTP was granted for 90 days. This led to the conclusion that the time a tourist could spend in Colombia operated in two blocks: the first 90 days under the PT, followed by another 90 days granted through the PTP.
However, the new regulation introduced a couple of wording changes that initially appeared insignificant, but ultimately became the basis for an interpretation that allowed us to avoid an administrative sanction for a client.
First, it provided that the PT is not granted for 90 days, but rather for up to 90 days. Second, it removed the specific reference to the number of days for which the PTP is granted, limiting it instead to the requirement that the PTP, together with the time already spent in Colombia under the PT, may not result in the foreign national exceeding the 180 days that may be spent in Colombia as a tourist.
At first glance, this may appear to be the same rule expressed in different words. However, in a recent case, we had the opportunity to present a different interpretation and learned that the Migración Colombia officer handling the matter in Medellín agreed with our position. Under this interpretation, the PT operates as a permit that the immigration officer may, at their discretion, grant for up to 90 days. However, when calculating the 180-day limit, only the days actually spent in Colombia under that permit are counted.
Likewise, a foreign national who has already been granted a PT during the same calendar year may enter Colombia again with another PT, which the immigration officer may once again grant for up to 90 days. In other words, the limit is not necessarily based on the existence of a single 90-day block available under the same PT status. Instead, the relevant limit is that successive PTs, each of which may be granted for up to 90 days, cannot result in the foreign national actually spending more than 180 days in Colombia during the year.
This raises an obvious question: What is the PTP for now? Under this interpretation of the regulation, the PTP would only be required when a person has been granted a PT for a period of up to 90 days and wants to remain in Colombia continuously, as a tourist, for longer than the period initially authorized. In that case, the immigration officer would have the authority to grant the extension for a period determined according to the circumstances, provided that doing so does not cause the foreign national to exceed the 180-day limit on actual time spent in Colombia during the calendar year.
It is important to emphasize that this interpretation was provided to us by a Migración Colombia officer in the context of an actual case. However, it is not established in binding case law, nor is it expressly stated in the immigration regulations. For this reason, although this possibility arose in a real case and our client benefited from this interpretation, the truth is that it remains an interesting example of an administrative interpretation provided by an immigration officer, rather than an unquestionable rule whose binding nature would prevent Migración Colombia from adopting a different interpretation in another case.