Amine
Incorrect guidance and no meaningful accountability
I used Imigrata for a Portugal family reunification matter involving an AIMA appointment and the D6 visa route for my wife and child. Imigrata’s handling created confusion, led to incorrect guidance, and was then followed by an attempt to avoid meaningful responsibility. The service was presented as obtaining an AIMA appointment capable of advancing the family reunification process. In a case where the sponsor is in Portugal and the family members are outside Portugal, the expected result was a clear and usable appointment. What was obtained was not a clear sponsor appointment, but two appointments in the names of my wife and child abroad. This created the central ambiguity: were the appointments for them to attend in Portugal, or for me to attend on their behalf? After the appointments were issued, Imigrata’s team advised me that the confirmations could be used to submit D6 visa applications through the Portuguese Consulate/BLS route. I specifically raised the concern that there was no AIMA approval/deferimento or electronic communication visible for the Consulate. Despite that, I was guided to proceed. I relied on that guidance. My family incurred BLS visa fees, repeated travel between Settat, Casablanca, and Rabat, document costs, wasted time, and significant stress in a case involving long family separation and a dependent child with special needs. The D6 route failed. Imigrata later acknowledged in writing that its team had made a mistake by advising that the appointment confirmation could already be used for D6 applications. Imigrata’s narrow contractual defence is weak at the first step. If the contract is reduced to “obtaining an AIMA appointment,” the relevant question is what appointment was obtained. The result was not a clear sponsor appointment, but ambiguous appointments in the names of my wife and child abroad. Imigrata’s own acknowledgment of wrong D6 guidance confirms that the practical effect of the appointments was not properly understood by them either. For that reason, I do not accept Imigrata’s attempt to treat the later D6 guidance as separate “free” assistance. It was a direct consequence of the unclear appointment result obtained through their own service, not a detached favour. Their argument tries to separate the bad advice from the unclear result that made the advice necessary. Even on its own terms, wrong professional guidance remains wrong professional guidance and still reflects on competence, diligence, and care. Support continuity was also poor. Communication appeared to pass between different staff, and important details were repeatedly missed, minimized, or reframed. After I provided a chronology and calculation of direct expenses, Imigrata refused reimbursement or any material remedy. Their offer was a complimentary AIMA appointment preparation service, which does not meaningfully address the harm caused by the incorrect D6 guidance, costs, or stress created. Future clients should check the legal entity they are contracting with, its address, governing law, and complaint route. Imigrata’s website lists a Portugal office, but the contract I signed a few months ago listed an address outside the EU. I am not sure whether current contracts have changed, but this should be verified because enforcement and complaints may be harder when the contract is not clearly with a Portugal/EU-based entity. Based on my experience, I cannot recommend Imigrata even for apparently standard immigration matters. What concerns me most is not only the incorrect guidance, but the way Imigrata defended it afterwards: by claiming that obtaining any appointment was enough, even though the result was unclear, and by treating the wrong guidance as separate unpaid assistance, even though it arose directly from the unclear result obtained through their own service. In my view, this reflects a deeper problem in basic legal judgment, contractual reasoning, and professional accountability.