The Ministry has published interpretative criteria explaining how Royal Decree 316/2026 should be applied in the extraordinary regularisation. Put simply, this document helps the Administration process cases more consistently and clarifies important questions about who can apply, which documents are needed and what happens with older cases or applicants with minor children.
This post summarises those criteria in plain language, without losing detail, so that anyone can understand how they really affect the processing of their case.
1. First criterion: people who applied for asylum before 1 January 2026 can qualify, even if their situation has changed
This is one of the most important clarifications. The criterion states that people who applied for international protection before 1 January 2026 may request this authorisation, even if they no longer have asylum-applicant status at that time.
This includes, for example, people whose asylum application:
- is still being processed,
- was withdrawn,
- was refused,
- was refused and appealed,
- or is still subject to an ongoing appeal.
How does this affect the processing of the case?
It matters greatly because it prevents the office from rejecting an application simply because the person no longer has valid asylum papers. What matters here is having submitted the international-protection application before the deadline, not still being formally an applicant at that time. In practice, this criterion increases legal certainty and reduces the risk of restrictive interpretations.
2. Second criterion: a vulnerability certificate is not required in every case
The criterion also clarifies an important point about the extraordinary-roots route under the twenty-first additional provision: there are three different ways to qualify for this route:
- having worked or being able to demonstrate an intention to work,
- remaining in Spain with the family unit,
- being in a situation of vulnerability.
The key point is this: the vulnerability certificate or report is required only in the third case, that is, when the application is submitted through the vulnerability route. If the person applies through work or family unity, that certificate should not be requested.
How does this affect processing?
It prevents unnecessary requests for documents. Many people might think that they always need a social report or vulnerability certificate, but the criterion clearly says they do not. This can save time, avoid requests to correct the file and make the case simpler when the application is based on work or family.
3. Third criterion: who can issue the vulnerability certificate and how it must be prepared
When vulnerability does need to be proven, the criterion explains who can issue the certificate and what formal requirements it must meet. It may be issued by:
- the public administrations competent in social assistance,
- and also Third Sector entities or trade-union organisations registered with RECEX.
The criterion also clarifies several practical points:
- only Third Sector entities or trade unions actually registered with RECEX may issue it;
- if their territorial scope is limited, they may issue it only within that territory;
- they are not obliged to issue certificates merely because they are registered;
- it may be signed by anyone who is part of the entity;
- it must bear the official stamp of the issuing entity and the RECEX case-file number; the criterion does not require a specific stamp format, so it may be electronic or on paper, provided that it clearly identifies the entity;
- and its issuance must be free of charge.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it brings order. This criterion helps clarify when a certificate is valid and when it is not. It can also prevent very common problems: certificates signed by entities that are not registered, documents without a stamp, or reports issued outside the relevant territorial scope. In short, it is not enough to have a report; it must also have been issued correctly.
4. Fourth criterion: it is not advisable to withdraw other applications or waive authorisations that have already been granted
The document expressly recommends that people who have already submitted an application for a stay or residence permit, or who already hold a valid authorisation, do not withdraw it or waive it.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because the extraordinary regularisation is not intended to leave someone with “nothing” while they wait. If someone waives an authorisation or withdraws an application that could be successful, they may end up in a worse situation. The practical message of the criterion is clear: before abandoning one route, it is important to assess carefully whether it really makes sense.
5. Fifth criterion: minor children and some people with disabilities must be processed at the same time as the main application
The first transitional provision, as explained by the criterion, says that when a person covered by the extraordinary regularisation has:
- minor children,
- adult children with a disability requiring support or who cannot meet their own needs because of their health,
- or is their guardian, the application for the minor or dependent person must be submitted at the same time as the parent’s or guardian’s main application.
The criterion also introduces several flexibilities:
- for Article 159, the requirement to submit the application within six months of the birth is waived;
- for Article 160, the two-year prior residence requirement is waived, as are the financial means and accommodation requirements for family reunification;
- but in the latter case, it is still necessary to prove that the minor has been in Spain for five consecutive months before the application.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it makes regularising children and dependent people much easier. In these cases, the Administration will not require all the ordinary conditions that would normally be required under Articles 159 and 160. This makes the family application more accessible and quicker to resolve jointly.
6. Sixth criterion: in certain family applications, the decision must be issued at the same time
The criterion also says that, in these cases involving minors or dependent people processed together with the main application, the checks will be carried out by the Foreigners’ Applications Processing Unit and the decision must be issued simultaneously. In these cases, competence lies with the head of the Directorate-General for Migration Management.
It also adds another important point: this provision also applies to authorisations that are being processed and to those submitted up to 30 June 2026. Even if the minor’s authorisation was not requested at the same time at the start, it can still be requested by that date so that both decisions are issued simultaneously.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it creates a second opportunity to regularise children or dependent people correctly if this was not done jointly at the start. It also helps prevent applications from being split in two, with one part resolved and the other left unresolved.
7. Seventh criterion: people who already had earlier applications submitted also benefit
The first transitional provision does not only concern new applications linked to this regularisation. It also applies to applications already submitted under Articles 159 and 160 by parents or guardians with a temporary residence permit, provided they were submitted before the maximum date set for applying for the authorisations under Additional Provisions 20 and 21. In those cases, the competent foreigners’ office will decide, and the Government Delegation or Subdelegation must notify the applicant within one month of receiving the application.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it does not exclude families that had already begun the process through the ordinary route. The criterion allows these favourable special rules to be applied to those earlier applications as well.
8. Eighth criterion: applications from earlier years that are still being processed are not excluded
The second transitional provision is another of the most important parts of the document. It says that two major groups of applications in progress benefit from this new regime:
- applications submitted under the fifth transitional provision of Royal Decree 1155/2024 before the new royal decree came into force;
- and applications for temporary residence on exceptional grounds under Title VII, except for the application under Article 128.1, which were in progress and were submitted between 20 May 2025 and 15 April 2026, inclusive. This also applies to administrative and contentious-administrative appeals that are pending against those decisions.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it prevents many older applications from having to start from scratch. If they were already being processed on those dates, the Administration must review them under the new transitional rules, rather than acting as if nothing had changed.
9. Ninth criterion: depending on the type of older application, the requirements reviewed by the Administration change
The criterion clearly distinguishes between two scenarios:
- in the first section of the second transitional provision, only compliance with the requirements of Additional Provision Twenty will be required;
- in the second section, the requirements in the first paragraph of Additional Provision Twenty-One must be met.
In addition, in the first scenario, the royal decree states that it will be sufficient to prove that the person has no criminal record and does not pose a threat to public order, public security or public health, assessed on the basis of the relevant police report.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because the office must not mix the requirements of one route with those of another. Each application must be reviewed against the correct list of requirements. This may sound technical, but it is actually very important: using the wrong set of requirements can lead to unfair refusals or incorrect requests for additional documents.
10. Tenth criterion: people with a favourable decision on an older application will receive the permit they applied for, not a different one
The criterion states that people with applications under Title VII still being processed, submitted between 20 May 2025 and 15 April 2026, will receive the authorisation they applied for, and that its validity will begin from the date it is granted.
It also sets out three practical rules:
- if someone applied for socio-educational roots and receives a favourable decision, they will have that authorisation with its own characteristics, including the possibility of working for an employer for up to 30 hours per week;
- if they applied for socio-occupational roots, the effectiveness of the authorisation will not depend on prior registration with Social Security;
- if they applied for residence based on cooperation against organised networks, that cooperation with the authorities must still exist.
How does this affect the processing of the application?
It matters because it provides certainty about the final outcome of the application. An application is not automatically converted into a different type of permit. Each case retains its nature, with its specific effects. This is particularly important for socio-educational roots, socio-occupational roots and cooperation with the authorities.
The most important points, explained very simply
If we had to summarise the entire criterion in very simple sentences, it would be as follows:
One: if you applied for asylum before 1 January 2026, you can qualify even if your situation is different now.
Dos: el informe de vulnerabilidad solo se pide si vas por la vía de vulnerabilidad.
Three: vulnerability certificates must come from the appropriate body and be properly signed.
Four: it is not a good idea to withdraw other applications or waive permits without considering it very carefully.
Five: applications for minors and dependent people are intended to be decided together with the main application and under more flexible rules.
Six: many older applications still being processed also benefit from the new framework and do not have to start from scratch.
Conclusion
The interpretative criteria for the 2026 extraordinary regularisation are not simply a technical text. In practice, they clarify questions that can completely change the outcome of an application. Thanks to these criteria, it is clearer that many asylum applicants can still qualify for the process, that a vulnerability certificate is not required in every case, that minors and dependent people receive more flexible treatment, and that many older applications still being processed should not be excluded from the new framework.
The main idea is simple: the extraordinary regularisation must be applied consistently, more clearly and more fairly. For that reason, before submitting an application, responding to a request for additional documents or giving up another residence route, it is advisable to check carefully which situation each case falls under and which specific criterion applies. Understanding these rules can prevent mistakes, save time and increase the chances that the application will be processed correctly from the outset.
In a process as important as this one, knowing the criteria well is not a minor detail: it can make the difference between an application that is poorly structured and one that is properly prepared.
FAQ: frequently asked questions about the interpretative criteria for the 2026 extraordinary regularisation
Does this criterion apply to people whose asylum application was refused?
Yes. The criterion says that people whose application for international protection was refused, withdrawn or appealed may also qualify, provided that the asylum application was submitted before 1 January 2026.
Is a vulnerability report always required?
No. It is only required when the application is submitted through the vulnerability route. If it is submitted on the basis of work or family unity, that report should not be required.
Can an NGO issue the vulnerability certificate?
Yes, but not just any NGO. It must be a Third Sector entity or trade union organisation registered with RECEX, and it must act within its territorial scope.
Can the entity charge for this certificate?
No. The criterion states that these entities must issue the vulnerability certificate or report free of charge.
Who can sign the vulnerability certificate?
It can be signed by anyone who belongs to the issuing entity or the competent administration, without prejudice to its internal organisational rules.
What must this certificate contain to be valid?
It must include the official stamp of the issuing entity and, if it is issued by an entity registered with RECEX, the file number recorded in that register as well. The criterion does not require a specific stamp design: it does not set a size, shape, colour or minimum wording. What matters is that it clearly identifies the entity, and it may be electronic or physical.
What happens with minor children?
They must be processed at the same time as the parent’s or guardian’s application, and in some cases requirements that would normally be more demanding are made more flexible.
Can a minor be regularised if their application was not submitted at the same time at the start?
Yes. In certain cases, the criterion allows it to be submitted until 30 June 2026 so that both decisions are issued simultaneously.
Can applications submitted before this royal decree benefit from it?
Yes. The criterion states that certain applications in progress submitted between 20 May 2025 and 15 April 2026, and even some appeals that are still pending, will be reviewed under these transitional rules.
If I already have another application in progress, should I withdraw it to apply for this regularisation?
The criterion recommends not automatically withdrawing or waiving other applications or authorisations that are in force. Each case must be examined before taking that step.
What happens if my older application was for socio-educational roots?
If the decision is favourable, you will receive that same authorisation, with its own characteristics, including permission to work for an employer for a maximum of 30 hours per week.
What if my older application was for socio-occupational roots?
The criterion clarifies that the effectiveness of that application will not be subject to prior registration with Social Security.
