By Audra DeFalco, Latitude Group Director – Citizenship by Descent
In the last few years, Citizenship by Descent (CBD) has been experiencing renewed interest across the global mobility space. For many advisors, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge.
Unlike residence or citizenship by investment, CBD does not fit neatly into a programmatic framework. It has no minimum investment threshold, no government contribution, and no fixed processing timeline.
Yet it can result in one of the most durable outcomes available in this industry: Full nationality, often with intergenerational continuity.
The difficulty is that CBD is still frequently approached using the same assumptions applied to Residency by Investment (RBI) and Citizenship by Investment (CBI).
When that happens, expectations are misaligned, timelines are misunderstood, and frustration follows… for advisors and applicants alike.
It is important to realize that CBD is not a lesser alternative to investment migration. It is a fundamentally different legal pathway that requires its own advisory lens.
Citizenship By Descent Is Not An Investment Migration Program
The first and most important distinction is conceptual.
Residence and citizenship by investment are forward-looking. They are policy-driven frameworks designed to attract capital, talent, or economic activity. Eligibility is assessed against published criteria, and outcomes are generally predictable once those criteria are met.
Citizenship by Descent is the opposite. It is backward-looking, governed by nationality law rather than immigration policy. The question is not what an applicant is prepared to invest or contribute, but whether a legal right already exists based on ancestry.
CBD is not discretionary. Governments are not granting a privilege; they are recognizing a status that may already belong to the applicant under law. As a result, there is no ‘application window’ and no expedited track. The outcome is determined entirely by evidence.
Why Citizenship By Descent Often Appears More Complex Than RBI OR CBI Pathways
From the outside, CBD can look deceptively simple. The concept, which is essentially reclaiming citizenship through parents or grandparents, is incredibly easy to understand. By contrast, however, the execution is rarely as straightforward.
Complexity arises from several factors:
- Nationality laws that have changed over time
- Gender-based transmission rules in earlier decades
- Incomplete or inconsistent civil registries
- Name changes, anglicization, or transcription errors
- Migration histories that span multiple jurisdictions
- Changing borders within the EU
In many cases, the legal question is not whether citizenship can be transmitted, but whether it can be proven to the standard required by the relevant authority.
CBD, then, is less about legal interpretation and more about reconstructing identity across time. That work happens long before any formal submission is made.
Timelines: Why Citizenship by Descent Cannot Be Treated Like Investment Migration
One of the most common points of friction around CBD is timing.
RBI and CBI timelines are inherently predictive. Once an application is submitted, advisors can usually estimate how long each stage will take. CBD timelines are different because they are diagnostic.
Progress depends on:
- The existence of records
- Their accuracy
- Their accessibility
- Whether they require correction, supplementation, or judicial intervention
Some cases move quickly because the documentary trail is intact. Others take years. Not because of bureaucracy, but because foundational evidence must be located, corrected, or legally validated before eligibility can even be confirmed.
CBD timelines are not slow by nature. They are indeterminate until the evidentiary picture is complete.
Where Advisors Often Struggle With Citizenship by Descent Leads
As CBD inquiries increase, many advisors encounter them without a clear framework for assessment. Common missteps include:
- Treating CBD as a ‘lighter’ or faster alternative to CBI
- Discussing timelines before feasibility is established
- Underestimating the role of document remediation
- Assuming that ancestry automatically equates to eligibility
These issues are rarely the result of poor intent. CBD simply operates outside the norms of investment migration, and many advisory practices were not built with genealogical analysis at their core.
The most effective CBD advisors understand that a significant part of the work lies in determining whether a case should proceed at all.
Citizenship by Descent as a Distinct Advisory Discipline
At its best, CBD advisory work is methodical, evidence-led, and highly individualized.
It requires:
- Early legal feasibility analysis
- Precise understanding of nationality law across time
- Linguistic and documentary expertise
- Careful expectation-setting from the outset
Good CBD advice does not promise outcomes. It explains possibilities, limitations, and risks clearly… including the possibility that no viable pathway exists.
This level of candor is not a weakness. It is what protects both the advisor and the applicant.
CBD and Investment Migration Are Not Interchangeable, But They Can Be Complementary
It is important to avoid framing CBD and RCBI as competing solutions.
For some families, CBD provides a deep, permanent legal connection to a country of heritage, often with the ability to pass citizenship to future generations. For others, investment migration offers immediacy, flexibility, or access where no ancestral link exists.
In practice, many globally mobile families explore both. Sometimes sequentially, sometimes in parallel. The strongest outcomes occur when each pathway is understood for what it is, rather than forced into the same advisory mold.
In short, CBD is not a substitute for investment migration, and investment migration is not a shortcut around ancestry law.
Treating Citizenship by Descent With the Respect It Requires
As interest in citizenship planning broadens beyond purely investment-driven routes, Citizenship by Descent will continue to attract attention. And that should be seen as a positive development for the industry, provided CBD is approached with clarity and respect for its legal foundations.
CBD is neither simple nor more complicated than RBI or CBI. It is simply different.
Advisors who recognize that difference, and who position CBD as a distinct, evidence-based discipline, will be better equipped to guide clients responsibly and sustainably.
At Latitude, our Citizenship by Descent practice operates independently from our investment migration work precisely because these pathways require different expertise, timelines, and advisory models.
In an industry increasingly focused on long-term planning rather than transactional outcomes, understanding the true nature of Citizenship by Descent is no longer optional. It is essential.
To learn more, contact Latitude via our website or reach out directly via the form below.
About the Author
Audra DeFalcois Director of Citizenship by Descent at Latitude. She has helped more than 2,000 clients successfully acquire citizenship through ancestry across multiple jurisdictions. Audra holds degrees in Jurisprudence and Political Science, is a certified translator and interpreter, and has completed a Master’s in Italian Immigration Law.
