In collaboration with: DEC Consultores
Resolution 5477 of 2022, issued by the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regulates the visa system in Colombia, including both substantive and procedural provisions for application, evaluation, and issuance. Among the elements that have raised the greatest concern within this regulatory framework is the requirement for criminal records for visa applicants, even though such a requirement does not appear systematically and uniformly across all articles related to each visa type.
Specifically, Article 19 of the resolution grants discretionary power to the Visa and Immigration Authority to request additional documentation—including criminal background checks—during the evaluation of any visa application. However, in specific provisions such as Article 52 (Working Holiday Visa), Article 56 (Income-Based Visa), Article 57A (Special Visitor Visa), Article 71 (MERCOSUR Migrant Visa), Article 72 (Andean Migrant Visa), and Article 77 (Retiree Visa), the obligation to present a criminal background certificate from the countries where the applicant has resided in the past three years is explicitly stated.
This ambiguous framework has led to an extensive application of the requirement under the principle of discretion, resulting in a practice in which criminal background checks are required not only from the country of residence but also from the country of origin—even when the regulation only mentions the country of residence during the last three years.
The absence of a clear legal standard has generated several practical challenges. First, obtaining a criminal background certificate can be a complex process in certain countries, particularly when it requires fingerprint validation, apostille or consular legalization, and official translation into Spanish. This process can take several weeks, which contrasts with the 30-day deadline that the immigration authority has to decide on a visa application (Art. 13, Resolution 5477). As a result, many applicants are materially unable to meet these requirements within the legal timeframe.
Second, the lack of clear guidelines regarding which types of criminal records may or may not bar visa issuance creates considerable legal uncertainty. There have been cases where individuals with old criminal convictions, who have already served their sentence, face visa denial without sufficient explanation or predictable criteria. This is particularly problematic given that in some countries, criminal records are not automatically expunged from judicial records, even after the sentence has been served or a significant amount of time has passed.
From a rights-based and legal certainty perspective, it is essential that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issue a clear and public directive that:
Standardizes the requirement for criminal background checks: All applicants, without exception, should be required to submit certificates from the countries where they have resided and from their country of origin, if so required by the authority—but this must be clearly stated on the platform from the outset of the process.
Clearly defines which criminal records constitute grounds for visa denial, considering the principles of proportionality, passage of time, and the nature of the offense.
Adopts a differentiated approach based on the type of visa requested, taking into account the expected duration of stay and the level of risk that past conduct may pose to the host country.
Such clarity would allow applicants to prepare the necessary documentation in advance, which is key to ensuring that legitimate and well-justified migration processes are not hindered.
International migration requires clear, predictable legal frameworks that respect human rights. While discretionary power is a legitimate tool of a sovereign state, it must be exercised rationally, proportionally, and transparently. Failure to do so undermines user trust in the immigration system and negatively impacts the country’s image as a destination for investment, tourism, education, or remote work.