Who counts as a spouse: five investor-residence routes, five answers

The word is settled one layer down from the programme page — in a general immigration law, an administrative manual or a partnership statute. In two of the five routes the clause that decides is one no immigration text read here names.

Each of the five routes below admits a spouse, and not one of them settles the word on its own page. Checked on 21 and 22 August 2026, the definition sits a layer down in every case — a general immigration law, an administrative manual, a partnership statute — and those texts do not agree with one another.

One boundary, stated at the outset because it changes what follows. Where a country’s immigration material itself says how it treats a marriage celebrated elsewhere, this article reports it: the United States does, and that passage is below. What it does not take up is how any of the five treats a partnership — a civil union, a registered partnership, a de facto union — constituted in a third country. Each of Italy and Hungary has a conflict-of-laws provision that answers that question, and neither is reported here; the question is large enough to take a piece of its own. What follows therefore concerns partnerships constituted at home, and even there three of the five answers carry a qualification, stated where it arises.

The programme page is the wrong place to look

Portugal shows the gap most clearly. The factsheet AIMA publishes for family reunification under the golden visa — the autorização de residência para investimento, or ARI — lists seven categories of relative and opens with one word: Cônjuge. Spouse. An unmarried partner is absent. The sheet carries no date on its face; its file metadata puts it at 16 February 2024.

One click further, on AIMA’s general reunification page for a relative outside Portugal, the partner appears — but not where the spouse stands. The page governs its two lists with different verbs. Under Têm direito ao Reagrupamento Familiar, a right of reunification runs to the spouse, to minor and incapable children, to first-degree ascendants of the resident or of their spouse who are dependent on them, and to minor siblings under guardianship. Under a separate União de facto heading the wording changes. The provision reads, complete: O reagrupamento familiar pode ser autorizado com: O parceiro que mantenha, em território nacional ou fora dele, com o cidadão estrangeiro residente uma união de facto, devidamente comprovada nos termos da lei — reunification may be authorised with the partner who maintains a de facto union with the resident, whether inside the national territory or outside it, duly proven under the law. The words about territory matter for an investor whose union was lived abroad, and they sit inside the same sentence as the rest. The same page sets the evidential bar — documents showing the union has lasted more than two years.

The programme sheet summarises; the statute governs. Read only the sheet and the partner has no route. Read the second list, stop at parceiro, and the partner appears to stand where a spouse stands. Both readings mislead, and the second on a point worth setting out. The União de facto block sits outside the Têm direito list, so it is a discretion and not a right. Whether it reaches a golden-visa holder is not stated in terms, and what follows is an inference from the page rather than something the page says. Two features point the same way: the Têm direito list itself contains an ARI-specific limb, for unmarried adult children studying sempre que o titular do direito ao reagrupamento tenha autorização de residência concedida ao abrigo do artigo 90.º-A, so the page’s framework plainly does apply to ARI holders; and the union limb is worded generically, for the partner of o cidadão estrangeiro residente, with no restriction by residence title, where the same page does expressly narrow its lists for refugee minors and for study permits. That is a reading, not a ruling, and an investor should treat it as one.

What each rule actually says

The final column names the instrument the answer turns on, not the paperwork. What an authority asks to see is a separate question, and outside Portugal and the family-based American material this article has no source for it.

Programme	The word in the source	Unmarried partner	Same-sex couple	The instrument the answer turns on
Portugal — ARI golden visa	cônjuge; parceiro in a união de facto	Inferred, not stated. The general reunification page permits a proven de facto union of more than two years, as a discretion; two features of the page point to it reaching an ARI holder, but the page does not say so	Both statuses are sex-neutral by statute — the de facto union under Lei 7/2001, civil marriage since 2010. Reunification through the union carries the qualification in the previous column	Arts. 98.º–100.º, Law 23/2007, via the ARI regime in art. 90.º-A; Lei 7/2001 for the union itself
Greece — investor permit, Type B.5	των συζύγων ή των συμβίων, under a σύμφωνο συμβίωσης	Yes, and stated in terms: the investor provision names the partner itself. No minimum duration. Not re-checked against amendments since 2023	Both routes open: marriage since 2024, and the cohabitation agreement sex-neutral since 2015	Art. 95(2), Law 5038/2023
Hungary — guest investor family reunification	the spouse of the third-country national or of a Hungarian national (including registered partner under Act XXIX of 2009)	Yes, but only through a registered partnership — which Act XXIX of 2009 opens to same-sex couples alone	The only partner route Hungary offers is a same-sex one. Its marriage law was not read for this article	§71(2), Act XC of 2023, read with §3(1), Act XXIX of 2009
Italy — Investor Visa	spouses not legally separated and aged over 18	Only through a civil union, and only conditionally: Law 76/2016 opens the civil union to same-sex couples alone, and whether reunification falls inside the purpose comma 20 states is unresolved. A convivente di fatto has no route on any reading	Through the civil union, on the same condition	Art. 29, Legislative Decree 286/1998, read with comma 20, Law 76/2016
United States — EB-5	spouses and unmarried children under 21	No partner category; a common law marriage may itself be a marriage	Valid if valid where celebrated, unless the marriage falls within an exception — in the family-based chapter	Policy Manual, Vol. 6, Pt. B, Ch. 6 — written for family-based petitions; nothing read here bridges it to an EB-5 derivative

Five routes, five answers

Greece sets its rule in the statute rather than a factsheet, though not where a reader would look for it: article 95 of Law 5038/2023 is headed Διάρκεια ισχύος αδειών διαμονής για επενδυτικούς λόγους, the duration of validity of investor permits, and the family-member list is a derogation inside it. The Immigration Code was published in the Government Gazette on 1 April 2023 and has been in force since 1 January 2024. Article 95(2) governs family members for every investor permit in articles 96 to 100 — κάτοχοι άδειας διαμονής των άρθρων 96 έως 100 — the property-based permit the market calls the golden visa among them. It admits four categories:

• the other of the spouses, or the partner with whom a cohabitation agreement has been concluded;
• the unmarried common children of the couple under 21;
• the unmarried children of the sponsor, or of the other spouse or partner, where custody has lawfully been assigned, under 21;
• the direct ascendants of the spouses or partners.

Three things follow that the programme page does not mention. Greece states no minimum duration for the cohabitation agreement, where Portugal demands two years of evidence. The ascendants limb reaches both members of the couple and carries neither a degree limit nor a dependency test on its face, where Portugal admits only first-degree ascendants — parents, not grandparents — who are dependent on the resident or the spouse. And a child admitted under the second or third limb who turns 21 is not simply dropped, though the relief is finite. The provision reads: Στα τέκνα των περ. β) και γ) που συμπληρώνουν το εικοστό πρώτο (21ο) έτος της ηλικίας τους, χορηγείται αυτοτελής άδεια διαμονής για τρία (3) έτη, κατ' αναλογική εφαρμογή των οριζόμενων στο δεύτερο εδάφιο της παρ. 5 του άρθρου 90, με μόνη υποχρέωση την προσκόμιση της προηγούμενης άδειας διαμονής για οικογενειακή επανένωση. Three years, by analogous application of the second sentence of article 90(5) — and that sentence, which governs children who come of age, makes the independent permit a three-year one renewable for three more, after which no further renewal is permitted and the holder may only apply to change permit category. Six years, then a different question.

One reservation belongs with it. Article 95 has not been checked against the laws amending the code since 2023: the consolidated Greek texts sit behind a paywall, a 403 and a JavaScript shell.

Hungary and Italy arrive at their answers the same way, and it is not the way either government’s investor material suggests. In both, the immigration provision names only a spouse; in both, a separate partnership statute contains a general clause extending the word; and in both, that statute confines the partnership to same-sex couples, so the route it opens is open to them and to nobody else.

Take Hungary first. Its immigration statute, Act XC of 2023, defines a family member at §71(2) as the spouse of the third-country national or of the Hungarian citizen, together with four categories of child and custodian. No partner of any kind appears. Yet the factsheet the National Directorate-General for Aliens Policing last edited on 10 March 2026 glosses the word as the spouse of the third-country national or of a Hungarian national (including registered partner under Act XXIX of 2009). The gloss is not invented: section 3(1) of Act XXIX of 2009 provides that, unless that Act says otherwise or excludes the application, the rules on marriage apply mutatis mutandis to registered partnership and the rules on a spouse to a registered partner. Section 3(2) carves out joint adoption by spouses and the presumption of paternity. Neither of those touches immigration, and what else that subsection excludes was not established here — but the factsheet states the inclusion directly, so the answer does not rest on reading the carve-outs.

So Hungary does admit an unmarried partner. But section 1(1) of the same Act constitutes registered partnership before the registrar, both parties present, between két, tizennyolcadik életévét betöltött, azonos nemű személy — two persons who have attained the age of 18, of the same sex. An unmarried opposite-sex couple therefore has no route at all, and an unmarried same-sex couple has one. That is the reverse of what an investor would expect, and the reverse of Portugal, where the de facto union is open to any couple and guaranteed to none.

Italy runs the same machinery. The Ministry’s investor-visa FAQ of 14 September 2018 sends the reader to article 29 of Legislative Decree 286/1998, which admits four categories:

• spouses not legally separated and over 18;
• minor children, including those of the spouse, or those born out of wedlock, who are unmarried and whose other parent has consented;
• dependent children over 18 unable to provide for their essential needs through a health condition implying total disability;
• dependent parents on narrow conditions.

Law 76/2016 created two statuses, and only one of them reaches article 29. Comma 20 reads: Al solo fine di assicurare l'effettività della tutela dei diritti e il pieno adempimento degli obblighi derivanti dall'unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso, le disposizioni che si riferiscono al matrimonio e le disposizioni contenenti le parole «coniuge», «coniugi» o termini equivalenti, ovunque ricorrono nelle leggi, negli atti aventi forza di legge, nei regolamenti nonché negli atti amministrativi e nei contratti collettivi, si applicano anche ad ognuna delle parti dell'unione civile tra persone dello stesso sesso. For the sole purpose of securing the effectiveness of the protection of rights and the full performance of the obligations arising from a same-sex civil union, provisions referring to marriage and provisions containing the words coniuge, coniugi or equivalent terms apply also to each party to such a union — wherever they occur in laws, in acts having force of law, in regulations, in administrative acts and in collective agreements. The reach through acts having force of law is what does the work here: a legislative decree is one, so article 29 is caught, where the first limb alone would not have touched it. Two exceptions follow, for civil-code provisions the law does not expressly recall and for the adoption statute; article 29 is neither.

One question about comma 20 stays open, and an investor should treat it as open. The clause extends the word coniuge for a stated purpose — securing the rights and obligations arising from the civil union. Whether reunification with a partner is among those rights is not settled by anything read for this article: the Ministry’s investor-visa FAQ does not mention Law 76/2016 at all, and no administrative material applying comma 20 to article 29 was obtained.

Italy’s inversion is Hungary’s all the same. Comma 2 of Law 76/2016 constitutes the unione civile between Due persone maggiorenni dello stesso sesso, two adults of the same sex. The other status the law creates, the convivenza di fatto, is open to any couple and is not reached by comma 20 at all. So in Italy the partner route, if comma 20 reaches reunification at all, runs to same-sex couples and to nobody else. Only Greece states in terms that an unmarried partner of any sex may join an investor: Portugal’s union limb is not written to the golden visa, and reaching an ARI holder is the inference set out above rather than something the page says.

The United States defines the term at length and puts the definition where an EB-5 investor has no reason to look. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) says on its EB-5 page only that investors may apply with their spouses and unmarried children under 21. The test sits in Part B of Volume 6 of the Policy Manual, the family-based part, while EB-5 is Part G of the same volume. Current as of 18 August 2026, it sets four cumulative requirements — the marriage must be legally valid in the place of celebration, consistent with United States public policy, bona fide, and between parties legally free and able to marry — then hedges the definition itself, which generally refers to a person recognised as married under the laws of the location where the marriage took place, and then adds a further statutory requirement that both parties to the marriage were present during the marriage ceremony, or the parties consummated the marriage following the ceremony if they were not present together. Civil unions and domestic partnerships appear on a list of five examples of relationships USCIS generally does not recognise. A common law marriage may qualify: it takes effect in some jurisdictions without a license or ceremony, where two people free and able to marry live together as spouses, intend to be married, and hold themselves out as married. A couple who never obtained a licence and never held a ceremony may have no partner category and a marriage all the same.

For same-sex couples, the answer sits outside investment-migration policy

Because all five define the spouse by pointing at national law, a same-sex couple’s answer is set by the family or partnership statute — and the five answers are not equally settled.

Three of the five admit a same-sex couple on the face of the instruments read here, though not all by the same kind of route. Greece is open by marriage and by the cohabitation agreement alike, and its investor provision names the partner in terms. Portugal is open by marriage on the face of Lei 9/2010; its de facto union is sex-neutral on the face of Lei 7/2001, but whether that limb reaches an ARI holder is the inference set out earlier. Hungary is open through the registered partnership and through nothing else read here. Italy admits a same-sex couple through the civil union if comma 20 reaches reunification, and that is unresolved. For the United States the passage is express — but it is express about family-based benefits, and nothing read here carries it to an EB-5 derivative.

Greece is open on both. It legalised same-sex civil marriage under Law 5089/2024, published on 16 February 2024, and the state’s register of administrative procedures carries the ceremony as a live service, last updated on 30 July 2026. The cohabitation agreement was already sex-neutral: article 1 of Law 4356/2015 constitutes it between two adults ανεξάρτητα από το φύλο τους, regardless of their sex. That wording was read in full, though from the Athens Bar Association’s reproduction rather than from the gazette, which could not be retrieved.

Portugal is open on both as well, and by statute rather than by inference. Lei n.º 9/2010 of 31 May 2010 states in its first article that A presente lei permite o casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo. The de facto union is governed by Lei n.º 7/2001, whose article 1.º(1) regulates the position of duas pessoas, independentemente do sexo, que vivam em união de facto há mais de dois anos — two persons, regardless of sex, living in a de facto union for more than two years. That single sentence is also where the two-year bar on the AIMA page comes from. What that openness does not settle is the separate question of whether the union limb carries an ARI holder’s partner.

Hungary and Italy each reach a same-sex couple through the partnership, as the previous section set out: the registered partnership and the unione civile are both confined to same-sex couples, so each is a door open to them and closed to everyone else. In Italy’s case the door is only as wide as comma 20’s purpose allows, which is the open question above. Whether either country’s marriage law is also open to them is a question about domestic family law that this article did not read and does not answer.

For the United States the Policy Manual is explicit and then qualifies itself: a same-sex marriage valid where it was celebrated is valid for immigration purposes even where the couple’s jurisdiction of residence does not recognise same-sex marriage, unless the marriage falls within one of the exceptions the chapter lists. Its most recent revision, Policy Alert PA-2025-23 of 17 October 2025, is titled Family-Based Immigration: Spousal Petitions and is written for family-based petitions. The EB-5 part neither repeats the definition nor links to it.

What this changes before filing

The consequence is documentary, and it lands months before any capital moves. Of the sources read for this article, only two state what evidence they want. For Portugal the requirement is on the reunification page itself. For the United States it is in the family-based chapter, and whether that chapter governs an EB-5 derivative is exactly the question nothing read here answers — so what follows is the test a spouse faces on a family-based petition, offered as a published statement of how USCIS reads the word rather than as the EB-5 rule.

Portugal requires documentos que comprovem a existência da união de facto há mais de 2 anos, a paper trail going back more than two years that cannot be assembled in the weeks before filing — and at the end of it the answer is an authorisation rather than an entitlement, on a page that does not say in terms that it reaches a golden-visa holder at all. For a common law marriage the family-based chapter gives examples but are not limited to: an affidavit of marriage or third-party affidavits, documents showing a marital partnership such as income tax returns, mortgages, joint utility bills or leases, or a religious marriage certificate. For Greece, Hungary and Italy the instrument names a status and this article found no source stating what proves it.

The American test also runs on two jurisdictions rather than one. The place of celebration decides whether a marriage exists; the state where the couple lives, or will live, can still decline to recognise it. A state of residence may not recognise a common law marriage which was entered into in another jurisdiction, and a marriage valid where celebrated may not be consistent with the public policy of the United States or the state in which the couple resides. Where the couple has moved or will move, the family-based chapter does not leave this to the officer’s discretion: officers must issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) for the petitioner to establish whether the state of residence recognises the marriage.

One country was left out. The UAE golden visa portal, updated on 28 July 2026, promises the ability to sponsor family members, including spouses and children and defines none of it; the detailed sponsorship pages that once carried the requirements now return 404.

What to watch

The evidence behind these answers ages at different speeds. Italy’s investor-visa FAQ dates from September 2018 and does not mention the 2016 statute that changes its answer. Hungary’s factsheet was last edited in March 2026 but describes an Act in force since 2024, and it is the factsheet rather than the Act that names the partner. The USCIS EB-5 page was last reviewed on 1 March 2023. The Portuguese factsheet that opens this article carries no date at all on its face, which is a larger currency risk than a dated document, not a smaller one. And the Greek code has been amended since 2023 by laws this article could not read.

Where a programme page and a statute disagree, the statute decides — but the investor who reads only the programme page will not know a disagreement exists, and in Hungary’s case would not find the partner at all. Before a family is priced into any of these routes, the question for counsel is narrow: under which named instrument is my partner a family member, what proves it, and is the answer stated or inferred. If it depends on a partnership registered somewhere other than the destination country, that is a second question — the instruments exist and are named in the record behind this article — and one for a conflict-of-laws specialist rather than an immigration adviser.