Collective request for clarification on the 2026 extraordinary regularization

To the State Secretariat for Migration.

Ivan Pustovalov, NIE Y2402115D, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the applicants whose personal data, individual consents, and special representation authorizations are attached to this filing, respectfully requests the publication of official, uniform, and accessible guidance on the application of the 2026 extraordinary regularization.

These clarifications are both personally and publicly significant. For individual applicants and their families, the official position determines the choice of legal pathway, the preservation or loss of asylum-related status or reception support, the ability to avoid refusals based on purely formal grounds, and the risk of losing time, money, and social support. For the public interest, uniform criteria are essential to legal certainty, reduced administrative overload, and the prevention of contradictory outcomes in materially similar cases.

This collective petition is submitted within the framework of Article 29 of the Spanish Constitution and Organic Law 4/2001 on the Right of Petition. For electronic filing and registration, Article 16 of Law 39/2015 is also relevant. The annex includes only the minimum data needed to identify each signer, contact them, and validate their individual act of joining and authorizing representation: full name, nationality where declared, contact method, identity document data, and an individual confirmation record.

Based on the issues that repeatedly arise among affected applicants, we request official clarification on the following groups of questions:

1. Minor children. Which form applies to minors in the main recurring scenarios, when EX-31 should be used, whether a separate form is required for the child, which fee is payable, and how the child’s authorization type should be recorded once an expediente number is assigned.
2. Asylum seekers after refusal and calculation of time limits. From which procedural moment a person should be treated as following the asylum-seeker pathway or the irregular-status pathway after a refusal, whether an administrative appeal changes that qualification, and how the relevant deadlines must be counted.
3. Compatibility between asylum and regularization. Whether an applicant must withdraw an international protection claim in order to apply for regularization, if so at which exact stage, whether asylum-related rights remain in force until approval, and what happens if the regularization application is later refused.
4. Reception programs and families with children. Whether the mere filing of a regularization application can justify termination from a reception program, whether applicants must leave the program before a decision is issued, and what safeguards apply to families with minors and to applicants who still have no work authorization.
5. Criminal record certificates and foreign documents. Whether certificates issued by consulates are admissible, when apostille is or is not required under international agreements, which documents are acceptable for previous countries of residence, what solution applies where it is objectively impossible to obtain a certificate from the country of origin or a third country, and in which situations production of the original may be deferred.
6. SIS, entry bans, and the concept of rechazable. How alerts or restrictions in other Schengen states affect eligibility, how the requirement of no figurar como rechazable should be interpreted, and whether the relevant analysis is limited to a ban on entry into Spain or also includes records originating in other states.
7. Telematic filing through Mercurio, fees, and technical requirements. What the correct telematic filing pathway is, which fee applies in disputed applicant categories, what proof of payment is sufficient, and what rules apply to electronic copies and later presentation of originals.

We respectfully request that these clarifications be published in a format accessible to applicants, lawyers, NGOs, and support organizations so that equivalent cases are handled under equivalent criteria throughout Spain.