When a Council of State opinion is released, it does not mean that the regularization has already been approved. It means something else: that the Council has reviewed the draft Royal Decree and stated which parts it approves of, which parts must be corrected, and which changes it considers essential before the Government approves it. In this case, the opinion is dated April 9, 2026, and concludes by saying that if its essential observations are incorporated, the project can be submitted to the Council of Ministers.
Put very simply: we are not yet facing the final regulation, but we already know quite well how the extraordinary regularization process is intended to be organized and what legal and practical problems the Council of State has detected. This is important because it helps us understand who could apply, what documents might be requested, and what points may change in the final text.
Who could access regularization according to the document
The draft reviewed by the Council of State outlines two main access routes. The first is designed for individuals who had applied for international protection in Spain before January 1, 2026. The second is designed for persons in an irregular administrative situation who fit into a new category called extraordinary rooting (arraigo extraordinario).
The general idea of the project is to provide a temporary residence permit due to exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the draft is based on a very large forecast: it estimates around 750,000 applications and approximately 500,000 beneficiaries, which explains why the Council of State insists so much that the procedure must be very clear and well-organized.
1. The route for asylum seekers
According to the reviewed text, foreign nationals who, before January 1, 2026, had submitted, registered, or formalized their application for international protection in Spain could access this route. However, the Council of State requests an important correction: it considers that this route should not be mixed with statelessness, thus proposing to remove applicants for stateless status from this specific text.
A major objection arises here: the draft stated that if a person applied for this regularization, their asylum procedure would be paralyzed until the regularization request was firmly resolved. The Council of State clearly says this must be removed, as it may create uncertainty and disrupt asylum processing. In simple terms: applying for regularization should not freeze the asylum file.
This is a key takeaway for many migrants: the Council of State disagrees with forcing people to choose between continuing with asylum or entering the extraordinary regularization. Their recommendation is for this “brake” to disappear from the final text.
2. The route for persons in an irregular administrative situation
The second door is that of the so-called extraordinary rooting. Here, the draft places several different groups under the same label. It is not a single situation. They are, in fact, several doors within the same door.
The first sub-route is for people who have already worked in Spain before or who want to work in the future. In the case of those who want to work as employees, the text speaks of an offer or contract, although the Council of State asks to remove the reference to “labor contract” and leave it better defined as a real job offer. In the case of those who want to be self-employed, the draft provides for a “responsible declaration,” but the Council says it must be much better explained what it should contain: activity, sector, scope, experience, and other basic data. It also warns that the text does not clarify well how work already performed in the past will be proven.
The second sub-route is for people living in Spain with their family unit, when in that unit there are minor daughters or sons, adult daughters or sons with disabilities who need support or cannot cover their own needs, or first-degree ancestors with whom they live. In other words: the draft attempts to open a special route for families already living together in Spain who have a situation of dependency or care.
The third sub-route is for people in a situation of vulnerability. Here, the Council of State also puts on the brakes. It accepts that this vulnerability can be accredited by competent social assistance entities and, additionally, by Third Sector entities registered in the Electronic Registry of Immigration Collaborators. But it requires one very important thing: that the regulation explains exactly what is understood by vulnerability. Furthermore, it rejects the presumption that every person in an irregular situation is vulnerable by definition.
3. What happens with minors and families
This is one of the points that most interests many families, and the opinion devotes considerable attention to it. In the case of asylum seekers entering this regularization, the draft provides that their minor children—or adults with disabilities or dependency—can apply for their own authorization at the same time. This application would be resolved simultaneously with that of the main adult. The same is contemplated for first-degree ancestors, spouses, or registered partners when they are part of the cohabitation unit.
To put it very clearly: the document tries to avoid a situation where an adult regularizes their situation, but their daughters, sons, or close relatives are left behind.
The logic of the draft is that, when there is a family living together in Spain, the administrative response should not break that unit nor leave minors in a worse situation. The Council of State values this approach positively.
What documentation might be required
Here it is advisable to be very cautious: this comes from the reviewed draft, not the definitive text. Even so, the opinion does show which papers would play a central role.
Generally, the project mentions: a complete copy of the passport, registration certificate, or valid travel document in Spain; proof of continuous stay in Spain during the five months prior to the application; proof of fee payment; and accreditation of habitual residence.
For asylum seekers, in addition to those general documents, it would be necessary to prove that the request for international protection was submitted before January 1, 2026.
If the application is also submitted for daughters, sons, or other relatives in the same unit, it is logical that documentation proving the family link and, where appropriate, cohabitation or the situation of dependency must be provided.
The most sensitive role: Criminal records
If there is a point where the Council of State gets particularly serious, it is this one. The draft required having no criminal records and proposed some exceptions and flexible solutions. The Council says that this is not enough. It calls for a much more rigorous verification.
In practice, the opinion asks for the removal of exceptions that exempted providing foreign criminal records and also rejects that the lack of that certificate can be so easily replaced with a “responsible declaration.”
Its message is clear: without serious control of criminal records in the country of origin or in countries of previous residence, the procedure remains poorly constructed.
Where and how applications would be submitted
The draft provides that the application be addressed to the Government Delegation or Sub-delegation of the province where the person resides. The maximum resolution period provided in the project is three months from the entry of the application into the registry.
Additionally, the project contemplated enabling other public offices, such as the Post Office or Social Security offices. The Council of State reminds that public companies like Tragsa or Post Office personnel cannot replace the Administration in decisions involving the exercise of public power.
In parallel, the Ministry already opened the Electronic Registry of Immigration Collaborators in March so that migration organizations can provide free support.
What effects submitting the application would have
The draft provides something very relevant: once the application is admitted for processing, the person could work throughout the national territory, in any sector, and both as an employee and as self-employed.
The Council of State asks for clarification on the difference between a simple communication of commencement and a true admission for processing.
Main conclusions and recommendations of the Council of State
First: The Council does not strike down the extraordinary regularization; it says it can be approved if essential parts are corrected.
Second: It calls for a better separation between regularization and asylum, eliminating the automatic paralysis of the international protection procedure.
Third: It demands a much clearer procedure regarding: criminal records, vulnerability, documentation, and administrative organization.
Fourth: It warns of the enormous management challenge due to the volume of hundreds of thousands of applications.
When it could be approved and when it would enter into force
The text analyzed sets a deadline for submitting applications as June 30, 2026.
Right now, as of April 12, 2026, the regularization is not yet in force. Following the release of the opinion, the Government stated it is already working to approve the text “as soon as possible.”
Some journalistic reports place that approval on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, but as of today, that remains a forecast.
Key Idea
The most sensible recommendation today is not to be carried away by rumors.
Until the definitive Royal Decree is published in the BOE, there is no officially open period to submit applications.
What we do have, however, is a fairly clear picture of the direction the process is taking and of the points that will need to be scrutinised closely once the final text is published.
