Validity of immigration circular restricting category change for fourth-group touristsValidez de circular migratoria que restringe cambio de categoría de turistas del cuarto grupo

**IV.- ON THE IMMIGRATION POLICY OF THE COSTA RICAN STATE.** This Tribunal has repeatedly held that immigration policy is part of the sovereignty of a Nation and includes the regulation of the entry and stay, whether temporary or permanent, of foreigners in its territory, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. In our case, the exercise of this sovereign power derives from Articles 6 and 19 of the Political Constitution and from various international instruments, among which the Convention on the Status of Aliens ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 40 of December 20, 1932; the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live; Convention 149 concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers; and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. Under this framework, foreigners seeking to enter our country must comply with the requirements demanded by the domestic legal system and submit to the legal rules that determine the legality or otherwise of their stay in the country and its consequences. Likewise, case law has recognized that this involves the exercise of a discretionary power in accordance with the current body of law and that the power to decide on the stay of a foreigner in the national territory lies exclusively with the Executive Branch, when it finds that such stay is harmful, or compromises public tranquility or public order, or when special circumstances so advise. To this end, the Administration possesses a series of legal means to enforce this power, regulated, among others, in the Immigration Law, such as, for example, the requirements and conditions for granting visas or residencies. All these means allow for exercising control over foreign residents and grant, in effect, a wide margin of discretion to implement its immigration policies. However, the exercise of these purely legal powers, however discretionary they may be, cannot be unrestricted, nor can it, even less, disregard the limits imposed by the legal system itself or the elementary principles of justice, logic, and appropriateness (Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the General Law of Public Administration). To this effect, numerals 5, 12, and 13(b) of Immigration Law No. 8487, in force at the time of the facts, provide for the rejection of entry applications by foreign persons who do not meet the required conditions or who fall within the assumptions provided in the Law or the immigration policy established in accordance with the law, for not authorizing requests. The cited Immigration and Aliens Law indicates in its Article 40 that the visa constitutes an authorization for entry into the national territory issued by the Director General or by the consular agent when authorized by the former, or when so permitted by the general directives for granting entry visas. This implies, as numeral 48 states, a mere expectation of right that does not entail the unconditional admission of the foreign person to the country, nor the authorization of the intended stay, but is subject to compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements demanded for entry. Consistent with the foregoing, numeral 41 of the same law grants the General Directorate of Immigration and Aliens the power to establish general directives on entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from certain countries or geographic zones in accordance with current treaties and international agreements and for reasons of security, appropriateness, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State. In complement, rule 42 indicates that the general directives on entry and stay visas for non-residents shall specify the countries that will not require a visa, those that will require a consular visa, and those that will require a restricted visa. Now then, numeral 44 ibidem indicates that foreign persons seeking to enter under the non-resident immigration category shall require the corresponding entry visa, except for the exceptions that are, precisely, determined in the general directives on entry and stay visas for non-residents. From the foregoing, it is easily inferred that various immigration categories exist by virtue of which legal stay in the country is authorized, regulated in Title VI of the aforementioned regulatory body. Each of these implies compliance with specific requirements, conditions, and procedures established in the body of law, and their granting may also be conditioned on public security and economic and social development assumptions of the country, as inferred from Articles 59 and 60 of the indicated rule. As far as the specific case is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the non-resident category, specifically that of tourism. As numeral 83 of the aforementioned Law No. 8487 indicates, this assumption classifies foreign persons to whom the General Directorate grants authorization for entry and stay in the country for a period not exceeding ninety days, in their capacity as tourists. Likewise, ordinal 86 indicates that foreign persons authorized to enter and remain in the country under this immigration category shall have the possibility of extending their stay, upon prior application before the expiration of the originally authorized period and upon prior verification that they possess sufficient economic means for their subsistence. Finally, it must be borne in mind that Article 85 ibidem indicates that foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not change immigration category while in the country, except for those included in Article 61 of the cited Law. This exception refers to cases of family reunification, that is, for what is relevant here, when the application for entry and stay of the foreigner is made by virtue of their bond with a Costa Rican citizen, understanding as such the spouse, children, parents, and unmarried siblings. By virtue of family reunification, the immigration category of permanent resident may even be chosen, as regulated by rule 73 of the same Law.

V.- ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF CIRCULAR DG-0907-2009. As indicated above, in this proceeding the validity of two formal administrative acts issued by the General Directorate of Immigration and Aliens is questioned: Circular DG-0907-2009 and resolution No. 135-186118-Administrativa. Regarding the first, it is pertinent to transcribe its text, which states: "CONSIDERANDO 1. That Article 1 of Decree No. 33506-G of October 30, 2006, published in La Gaceta No. 4 of January 5, 2007 (until the Regulation to the Immigration and Aliens Law No. 84887 is issued) authorizes the Director General of Immigration and Aliens to establish the requirements that must be demanded of its users, for any visa, residence, special categories, or other procedures related to its functions, according to Article 13 of the referred Law. POR TANTO SE ESTABLECE: That indefinitely and as of this date, foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their immigration category during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures, beginning with a visa application under family reunification status. It is worth mentioning that any residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a country of the fourth group who is in tourist status must be denied." The plaintiff questions that the cited circular (which served as the basis for the administrative act denying her residence application) violates numerals 6, 11, 15, 17, and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration, insofar as it restricts a right granted in a legal rule, in this case Article 85 of the cited Law No. 8487. This is because it establishes that foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries, including Cuba, and who remain in Costa Rica as tourists, may not change their immigration category but must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification visa. From the outset, it must be noted that the circular is an internal administrative act through which instructions can be issued regarding the manner in which officials are to proceed, in this case, in the assessment of visa applications from foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries who have been granted a tourist visa. In that sense, it is a guideline directed at officials to be applied when they assess the admissibility of applications by private individuals whose situation falls within what is described therein. Evidently, its content shall be subject to the Legal System and respect for the Principle of Hierarchy of Sources regulated in Article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration. This is so because, due to its hierarchical scale within the administrative legal system, it lacks the external effects typical of a legal rule. Even if it may have reflective effects on third parties, these must occur by virtue of preparatory acts within the procedure, which must be in accordance with the legal system, and never by virtue of the direct application of a directive to the legal sphere of the interested parties. Now then, for this Tribunal, the competence of the Director General of Immigration and Aliens to issue circulars or directives on immigration matters is undeniable. This derives not only from his status as supreme head of that body, but also from Article 13, subsections (k) and (n), which state that "...The functions of the General Directorate, developed within the content of this Law and its Regulation, shall be the following: (...) k. Execute immigration policy and ensure compliance with the corresponding legislation. n. Approve changes of immigration categories and subcategories and grant extensions of stay, in accordance with this Law and its Regulation (...)". As is evident from the cited rule, that head official has the faculty to issue directives or circulars such as the one questioned, with the aim of achieving uniform and efficient execution of the immigration policy of the Costa Rican State. Furthermore, Article 41 of the indicated Law establishes that "...The General Directorate shall establish the general directives on entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from certain countries or geographic zones, based on current international agreements and treaties and on reasons of security, appropriateness, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State." This rule is clear in exclusively granting the cited Director the power to establish general directives on entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from certain countries or geographic zones in accordance with current treaties and international agreements and for reasons of security, appropriateness, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State. Precisely, the challenged circular DG-0907-2009 comes to develop that rule by establishing a specific treatment for foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries, who are in our country with a tourist visa and who apply for permanent residence due to family reunification. Of course, this is so provided that its content conforms to the Legal System in general and respects, in particular, the Principle of Legality and the Hierarchy of Sources, an examination which is entered into below.

VI.- In its recital part, the cited circular DG-0907-2009, states "CONSIDERANDO 1. That Article 1 of Decree No. 33506-G of October 30, 2006, published in La Gaceta No. 4 of January 5, 2007 (until the Regulation to the Immigration and Aliens Law No. 84887 is issued) authorizes the Director General of Immigration and Aliens to establish the requirements that must be demanded of its users, for any visa, residence, special categories, or other procedures related to its functions, according to Article 13 of the referred Law." As explained above, for this Tribunal the issuance of this type of circulars is legally viable insofar as their content conforms to the body of law and to what is provided in hierarchical sources of higher rank. In that sense, no defect that must be declared is observed in the recital part. On the other hand, the first paragraph of the operative part of the circular in question indicates "...That indefinitely and as of this date, foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their immigration category during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures, beginning with a visa application under family reunification status (...)". The questioned circular regulates the immigration situation of foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, which is consistent with the provisions of numeral 41 of the cited Law. In particular, it regulates the situation of foreigners from that group of countries who entered the country as tourists, stating from the outset that they may not change their immigration category during the validity of the tourist visa. That first regulation falls within the powers to approve changes of immigration categories and subcategories, which is the responsibility of the Director General of Immigration, in accordance with Articles 13(n), 41, and 119, all of the Immigration and Aliens Law. Furthermore, it conforms to the general prohibition on changing immigration category established by ordinal 85 ibidem, according to which foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not, as a general rule, change immigration category while in the country. Now then, the plaintiff alleges that the circular disregards the exception contemplated by that same numeral 85, for persons who fall within the assumptions of Article 61 of the same law. This collegiate body considers that a correct reading and interpretation of the first paragraph of the operative part of that circular allows for the alleged defect to be dismissed. Article 85 of Law No. 8487 states that "Foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not change immigration category while in the country, except for those included in Article 61 of this Law." It is clear that this rule contemplates an exception, based on which the general prohibition for a foreigner admitted as a non-resident to change immigration category while in the country is not applicable to those who fall within the assumptions included in numeral 61 of the same Immigration Law. For what is relevant here, Article 61 indicates that "The application for entry and legal stay of foreign persons must be submitted to the consular agents of Costa Rica, by the interested party or by a duly authorized representative through a special power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements and conditions determined by the Regulation of this Law. The following cases are exempted from the preceding provision, in which the interested person must submit their application before the General Directorate, which shall authorize the opening of the respective expediente: a. Relatives of Costa Rican citizens. Understood as such are the spouse, children, parents, and unmarried siblings. b. Relatives of foreign persons legally resident in the country; understood as such are the spouse, children, and parents of those individuals. (...)". In general, the exception assumption refers to cases of foreigners seeking authorization to stay in the country by virtue of family reunification, a topic on which this Tribunal has already had the opportunity to comment. In this sense, it has been noted that the Constitution confers special protection on the family by the State. Thus, Article 51 of the Political Constitution establishes that the family is the "natural element and foundation of society", a definition also established by Articles 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 17.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. From that plane, the family nucleus is basic and essential for the free development of the personality of the individuals who comprise or integrate it, and consequently, it serves as the foundation for the entire social conglomerate. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that "...no public policy, legal or regulatory instrument or, in general, active or omissive administrative action may tend toward the disintegration or dismemberment of the family as the essential basis of society, since, otherwise, what Title V of our Political Charter enshrines as a Social Right and Guarantee, and which, in itself, constitutes a constitutional value that must guide the freedom of legislative configuration and administrative function or management, would be flagrantly transgressed. It is logical that both nationals and foreigners who are in our territory have the right to enjoy the special protection, by the Costa Rican State, of the family as the basic unit (Article 19 of the Political Constitution) and to have all the reactional instruments to challenge any formal or material action by public powers tending to undermine that fundamental right, which, by that sole condition, must have direct and immediate effectiveness and a stronger binding force (...) Based on the foregoing, it can be stated that part of the essential content of the right to family unity lies in the protection of the individual against the arbitrary action of public authorities...", as well as in the mutual enjoyment of coexistence between parents and children, which "...constitutes a fundamental element in family life; and that even when parents are separated from their children, family coexistence must be guaranteed..." (Judgment number 2007-05813 of ten thirty-seven hours on April twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, and in a similar vein, judgment number 2005-16860 of fourteen forty-four hours on December sixth, two thousand five). Of course, like any fundamental right, its exercise and enjoyment is not absolute or unrestricted (with the exception of the right to human life, which is considered inviolable by the Supreme Charter according to rule 21), ergo, it can be subjected to reasonable and proportionate limits or limitations, which implies that such restrictions on its exercise and enjoyment cannot nullify the essential content thereof. With everything, it is clear that as a projection of that maxim, the State must promote and guarantee family coexistence (On this matter, see, among others, resolutions No. 1280-2010, 1419-2010, and 2284-2010, issued by this Tribunal at 07:40 on April 12, 10:30 on April 22, and 10:50 on June 16, all of 2010, respectively). From this perspective, it is undeniable that the legislator weighed family reunification when imposing the exception to the general rule at issue here. Thus, it was the legislator who, in the cited numeral 85, regulated a special situation in favor of foreign persons who, being non-residents, could opt for a different and more favorable immigration category by virtue of their bond with a Costa Rican, allowing them to change it while in the country. All of the above, of course, provided they meet the other requirements that the immigration system imposes in each specific case. For, by virtue of the bond with a Costa Rican, the foreigner could even opt for a permanent resident category, as provided in Articles 72 and 73 of the already mentioned Law No. 8487. Having set forth the above, and considering the hierarchical rank occupied by the challenged circular, it must be interpreted harmoniously and in light of the entire current Legal System. Thus, it must be interpreted that when the circular states that foreigners whose nationalities belong to the fourth group of countries and who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their immigration category during this time; it actually reproduces the general prohibition stated in the already cited numeral 85. Likewise, when it indicates that they must do so through the already established procedures, beginning with a visa application under family reunification status; that provision must be interpreted in absolute respect for the exception contemplated by ordinal 85 ibidem. That is, allowing the family reunification visa application to be submitted directly in our country. This must be so because the exception established in the indicated article provides a special procedure for the change of immigration categories by virtue of a Costa Rican bond, which, being provided for in a rule of legal rank, cannot be disregarded by the bodies of the active Administration. As long as it is interpreted in this way, for this Tribunal, the circular neither contradicts nor imposes requirements not established in the Law, nor does it repeal it in a singular manner. Note that what it states is that for the change of immigration category, the established procedures must be followed, beginning with the family reunification visa application; and it is reiterated that the legislator foresaw a special assumption for the change from non-resident to permanent resident category by virtue of family reunification, which would allow the application to be submitted directly by the foreigner who is in the country, without the need to leave Costa Rica. In this situation, the exception regulated in ordinal 85 would apply. And this is not an isolated exception. If Law No. 8487 is analyzed in detail, in reality there are several cases in which the general prohibition on changing immigration category while in the country was exempted, taking the assumptions of family reunification as a parameter. To this effect, it suffices to read numerals 78, which in relation to the temporary resident category states that "Interested persons must process their applications to obtain the benefits of this Law through consular officials accredited abroad, except as provided in Article 61 of this Law."; 92, which in relation to special immigration categories states that "Foreign persons admitted under special categories may not change category while in the country, except for those who have a conjugal bond with a Costa Rican citizen or a first-degree consanguineous bond with a Costa Rican or except as provided by current ratified international agreements in Costa Rica."; 119, when it indicates that "Upon party request, the General Directorate shall authorize the change of immigration category and subcategory, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of this Law. However, in highly qualified cases, the Minister of the Interior and Police, upon prior recommendation of the Council, by reasoned resolution, may authorize category changes under other assumptions." (underlining not in original). As is easily inferred, the legislator's intention was to establish exceptional treatment in favor of foreigners who, holding a certain immigration category, could change it for a more favorable one by virtue of family reunification. Moreover, it is a reasonable and justified exception if the special characteristics surrounding it are taken into account. It is illogical that, being legally in the country, the foreigner alleging a bond with a Costa Rican should have to leave Costa Rica, solely to submit their residence application at the consulate of the country in question. In addition to the foregoing, there is also no legal impediment whatsoever for an application for permanent residence by family reunification to be submitted by the foreigner directly in Costa Rica. Note that Article 198 of Law No. 8487 states that "In the case of petitions to opt for permanent or temporary residence, these rules must be observed by immigration agents abroad, in cases where the submission of the application must be made from abroad, according to this Law, its Regulation, and immigration policy."; but it does not prevent its submission in our country. This is also inferred from judgment No. 116-F-S1-2010, issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which it was indicated that "(...) Along these lines, one of the modalities through which this application can be made is by family reunification, that is, when a foreigner has married a resident or when there is a family bond with the latter. In these assumptions, the standing to submit the application has been broadened, such that it can be done by the spouse or relative, and not necessarily the foreigner, provided that the requirements demanded by the legal system for granting the visa are met. (...) When it involves a visa by family reunification, there is an exception to the foregoing, since, as explained, the procedure can be initiated by the Costa Rican relative. However, it must be understood that this is done on behalf of and in representation of the foreigner. This is confirmed by the provision in ordinal 61 of the Immigration and Aliens Law, which indicates that the application for entry and stay of foreign persons, when involving relatives of Costa Rican citizens, must be submitted by 'the interested person' before the General Directorate. It is clear, consequently, that the applicant for the visa, even by family reunification, is the foreigner. (...) Although for family reunification, it is provided that the Costa Rican relative must submit the petition, this responds to the circumstance that, in most cases, it is that relative who is in the country and is in a better position to carry out the material act of submitting the application. However, this does not imply that the 'applicant' is not the foreigner requiring the provisional resident status.

(...) All of the foregoing confirms that, when the reference “the applicant” is used, even in the case of family reunification, where the documents are submitted by a third party, it must be understood to refer to the foreign national, who requires provisional residence (...)” Thus, it is clear that if the foreign national with tourist status is legally in Costa Rica and has a bond with a Costa Rican citizen that allows them to opt for a more favorable migratory category, under the protection of Article 85, they may submit their application directly to the Dirección General de Migración de Extranjería. This is not only because the law expressly authorizes such conduct, but also because they are in the best position to submit their application directly. It must be borne in mind that, in any case, this Court has already indicated, among others in judgment No. 2817-2009, of 10:20 a.m. on December 14, 2009, that in the procedures for residence applications for legal permanence in the country, there are two different phases or stages “(...) one is what could be called the contribution and verification of prior requirements (such as the application, the reason for it, the necessary documents, among others) and the other would be that, based on all the requirements submitted, the Immigration Administration proceeds to analyze the appropriateness and advisability of granting the migratory status application, that is, to decide whether the migratory procedure conforms to the substantive requirements established in the Law or in the migratory policies in force at the time of analyzing the migratory status application (...) it is clear that there are two stages; the first of contribution and verification of prior requirements and the second of analysis of the substantive requirements and migratory policy. The first is characterized by the fact that the Immigration Administration receives the necessary documentation and simply verifies whether the applicant met all the prior requirements set forth in the migratory regulations, such as the application form, the document indicating the reason or cause alleged for the permanent residence procedure, birth certificates, marital status, and any other documentation that helps the authorities to subsequently determine that the substantive requirements are fully met. The second depends entirely on the first stage described above being fulfilled, since based on the documentation submitted, the Immigration Administration may then consider the merits and, within its powers with discretionary elements, whether the permanent residence application is pertinent. (...) These rules describe in detail the first stage we have been explaining, specifically for residence applications for legal permanence in the country. Therefore, in summary, this first phase has the following particularities: a) The first thing the Immigration Administration must verify is that the applicant conducting the procedure while in Costa Rican territory is in the country legally, for example, with their entry visa valid, as established in the aforementioned Article 62. If the applicant is in the country irregularly or illegally, this first admissibility requirement of the migratory procedure is not met, and what corresponds on the part of the corresponding authorities is to declare the application inadmissible, without even considering the presentation of prior requirements, much less considering the substantive requirements, such as in the case at hand, the family bond (...)” Evidently, the contested circular regulates aspects related to the first stage of the procedure described in the cited ruling. Subsequently, the immigration authorities will determine the legal viability of their application and will ultimately decide on their permanence in our country. Based on all of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Court that the recitals section and the first paragraph of the operative part of the analyzed circular are not contrary to the legal system insofar as they are interpreted in accordance with the exception provided for in Article 85 of the cited Law No. 8485, that is, that one of the procedures for the foreign national to opt for a change of migratory category is precisely the mentioned exception, by virtue of which they could submit the application directly from Costa Rica, if it is submitted on time.

VII.- It remains to analyze the second paragraph of the cited circular, which states “(...) It should be mentioned that any residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist status must be denied.” Based on the arguments set forth in the preceding Considering, this Court must annul the indicated paragraph. This is because, on that point, the cited circular is contrary to the provisions of Article 85 of Law No. 8487. As explained, that norm excepted the general prohibition of changing migratory category while in the country, when the foreign national fell under the assumptions of family reunification. From this perspective, it is evident that when it is stated that “any residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist status must be denied,” the special treatment that the legislator granted in these cases is openly disregarded, and an obligation contra legem is imposed on the foreign national. This is because, if the residence application is submitted on time and is based on the assumptions regulated by Article 61 of the Ley de Migración y Extranjería (now repealed), the foreign national with a non-resident migratory category may indeed submit an application for a change of migratory category directly before the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, without needing to leave the country. Thereafter, the corresponding technical and legal study will come to determine the viability of the application. By stating that “any residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist status must be denied,” the cited circular violates the Principle of Legality and the Hierarchy of Sources, while also generating legal uncertainty and insecurity for both immigration officials and foreign nationals who qualify under the exemption assumption established in the indicated Article 85. The foregoing is because, despite the legal norm being clear in allowing the foreign national to submit their application directly before the Dirección General de Migración, subsequently, a circular that is also mandatory for officials imposes a new criterion that disregards the legally established exception. Thus, far from standardizing criteria for the efficient execution of migratory policy, the circular violates the existing body of legality with the legal uncertainty this may cause. For the reasons stated, this Court reiterates that the last paragraph of circular DG-0907-2009 is contrary to law, insofar as what is regulated therein nullifies an exception provided for in a legal provision such as the mentioned Article 85. In respect for the hierarchy of sources of the legal system, it is illegitimate to attempt to disregard legal precepts that regulate an exceptional situation in favor of some foreign nationals through a lower formal administrative act with strictly internal effectiveness, such as a circular. In these terms, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the contested circular is declared. The State representation argued that if this Court decided to disapply Regulation No. 32245-G or the contested circular, the objection of lack of jurisdiction should be deemed filed. In the present matter, Regulation No. 32245-G is not being disapplied. What has been resolved is the declaration of absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the contested circular, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution and Articles 1, 2, 36, and 42 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. However, it is necessary to clarify that this Court does not disregard the authority granted to the Director General of Migration regarding the issuance of directives and circulars aimed at the correct interpretation and application of the rules in force on migratory policy. Such attribution derives, even, from Law No. 8487 itself, as explained in the previous Considering sections. However, the issuance of these formal administrative acts is subject to the limits that the legal system itself imposes, which was not complied with in the specific case, since the cited circular nullifies the exception regulated in precept 85 ibidem, which exceeds the complementary regulation with respect to the law that must characterize this type of act. In the judgment of this collegiate body, the correct interpretation of the cited article compels the conclusion that the foreign national who has a non-resident category may request a change of migratory category while in the country if they fall under the assumptions of Article 61 of that Law, that is, if they have a bond with a Costa Rican citizen. In this sense, because they fall under the assumptions of family reunification, the exception that Article 85 expressly establishes must apply, making it unnecessary for the foreign national to leave the country to submit their application, since the legislator allowed them to submit it directly. In this respect, the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería does not have the power to reject that procedure outright solely because it was submitted directly from our country. On the contrary, it must analyze its admissibility as well as the procedural and substantive requirements required in each specific case and issue a ruling as legally appropriate. For the reasons stated, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the contested circular must be declared.

VIII.- ON THE VALIDITY EXAMINATION OF RESOLUTION 135-186118-ADMINISTRATIVA. The plaintiff also challenges the validity of the cited resolution, by which her residence application was denied. Fundamentally, she considers that the cited formal administrative act is illegal because it applies the cited circular DG-0907-2009 and disregards the exception expressly established in Article 85 of Law No. 8487. After the corresponding validity examination, this Court must annul the cited resolution for the reasons set forth below. From the scant reasoning of the formal act whose nullity is accused, the following can be inferred as reasons for denying the plaintiff’s application for permanent residence by virtue of a bond with a Costa Rican citizen: “(...) That by authorization of the visa, due to her restricted entry based on her nationality; granted by the Director General of Migration ex officio DGVR.480-2009, of FEBRUARY 16, 2009, the interested party IANELA ARZOLA MORELL is specified that her stay will be for thirty calendar days, as a tourist, after which the application of the Ley General de Migración y Extranjería will proceed and she must leave the country, likewise, it is indicated that said authorization does not empower her to make any type of family member claim (...) That by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group in accordance with the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their migratory category, they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification status visa. (...) That as the established provisions were not used in accordance with the general guidelines for entry and permanence visas for non-residents. This direction does not consider it appropriate to grant the permanence requested by the interested party until the established means for claiming their family members are used (...)” As was extensively explained in the previous Considering sections, in the specific case, the mentioned circular was improperly interpreted by the legal operator, which facilitated the contested act being contrary to law. According to the first paragraph of the cited circular, “...indefinitely and as of this date, foreign nationals whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their migratory category during this time, they must do so through the already established procedures beginning with a visa application for family reunification status (...).” As explained, in the judgment of this collegiate body, this text, in itself, is not illegal, as long as it is interpreted in light of the exception contemplated in Article 85 of Law No. 8487. Thus, in a correct dimension, it must be interpreted that if the foreign national with a tourist visa falls under the assumptions of Article 61, that is, family reunification, they may change migratory category while in the country and directly submit their permanent resident application (without having to leave the country) before the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería for its subsequent study and resolution, precisely because this is the procedure that, in that exceptional assumption, establishes the indicated Article 85. However, in applying the circular to the specific case, the contested act incurs several defects. Although it is based on the circular, it relies on considerations not indicated therein. For example, it states that by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group in accordance with the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their migratory category, they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification status visa (underlining not in the original). What the circular states is that to change migratory category “(..) they must do so through the already established procedures beginning with a visa application for family reunification status (...).” If carefully observed, the interpretation in the specific case goes beyond the circular itself: it concludes that they must enter the country with the family reunification visa status, which would imply that the foreign national must leave the country, process the family reunification visa, and when they have it, re-enter Costa Rica. This goes beyond the circular itself, which requires only that the change of migratory category be processed through the already established procedures (one of which would be the exceptional assumption of the cited Article 85) beginning with the visa application for family reunification status (and according to Article 85, that application may be made directly by the foreign national, without needing to leave the country, if they fall under the assumptions of Article 61 of the same Law). But furthermore, by improperly interpreting the circular, the contested act directly disapplies a legislative precept, which is the exceptional assumption contemplated in Article 85 ibidem. Moreover, it can be inferred from both the contested act and the facts that have been deemed proven that the plaintiff was granted a tourist visa for thirty calendar days, that she entered the country on April 24, 2009, and that, within the granted period, on May 22, 2009, she requested a change of migratory status because she fell under an assumption of Article 61, by virtue of being the daughter of a Costa Rican citizen, a status that has also been proven. Thus, it is the opinion of this Court that the plaintiff met the necessary conditions that allowed her to avail herself of the exceptional assumption contemplated in Article 85 itself and directly submit her permanent residence application while in the country. Therefore, unlike what was stated in the appealed resolution, she did use an established means to claim her family members, precisely the exceptional assumption contemplated in the indicated Article 85. Thereafter, the corresponding technical and legal analysis will determine the viability or not of the managed residence application. But the plaintiff's petition must be considered, because it is reiterated, she used the established means, exceptionally provided by canon 85. Furthermore, she submitted the procedure within the period indicated in Article 87 of the same regulatory body. It is clear to this Court that the contested act directly applied the second paragraph of the circular under analysis, which has already been annulled, precisely because it disregards the exceptional assumption regulated by Article 85 of Law No. 8487. Thus, in accordance with Articles 132, 133, 136, 158, 160, 165, 166, and 223 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the contested resolution is contrary to law and its absolute nullity must be declared.

IX.- Furthermore, having determined the substantial infringement of the legal system by ordering the rejection of the permanent residence application by bond with a Costa Rican father that was filed by the plaintiff, for the reasons already discussed ut supra, what is appropriate is to order the nullity of resolution 135-186118-Administrativa, of 1:04 p.m. on July 24, 2009, for the reasons already stated in the preceding sections of this judgment. It should be noted, however, that the declaration of nullity ordered hereby entails, in accordance with Article 171 of the cited Ley General de la Administración Pública, reverting the procedure to the prior stage or the one in which the defect was established. This implies that the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería must proceed to analyze the application for change of migratory status to permanent resident by bond with a Costa Rican father, filed directly by the plaintiff, and decide on its merits whether or not it is viable, as appropriate. For such purposes, it must consider the requirements established in legal or supra-legal norms, as well as their development in the executive regulations issued in the matter, circulars, and all relevant aspects inherent to that procedure that, within the framework of its powers, have been granted to it by the Legal System. In particular, it must observe the exceptional assumption contemplated in Article 85 of Law No. 8487 and weigh the considerations that have been expressed in this judgment. This is for the purpose of deciding, through a duly reasoned act, whether the residence application by bond with a Costa Rican citizen and family reunification that has been requested is legally viable. In that sense, it is necessary to point out that, in principle, it is inappropriate for this Court to order the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería to proceed with granting residence in favor of the plaintiff, because what was requested would imply a direct substitution in the exercise of the discretionary powers of the active Administration, in this case the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa.” In addition, Article 42 indicates that the general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents shall contemplate the countries that will not require a visa, those that will require a consular visa, and those that will require a restricted visa. Now then, numeral 44 ibidem indicates that foreign persons seeking to enter under the non-resident immigration category shall require the corresponding entry visa, except for the exceptions that are precisely determined in the general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents. From the foregoing, the existence of various immigration categories by virtue of which legal stay in the country is authorized, and which are regulated in Title VI of the aforementioned regulatory body, is easily extracted. Each one of them presupposes compliance with its own requirements, conditions, and procedures established in the block of legality, and furthermore, its granting may be conditioned on presuppositions of public security and economic and social development of the country, as is clear from Articles 59 and 60 of the indicated norm. Regarding the specific case, what is of interest is to refer to the non-resident category, specifically, tourism. As indicated by numeral 83 of the aforementioned Law No. 8487, foreign persons to whom the Dirección General grants authorization for entry and stay in the country for a period that may not exceed ninety days, in their condition as tourists, classify under this assumption. Likewise, ordinal 86 indicates that foreign persons authorized to enter the country and remain in it under this immigration category shall have the possibility of extending their stay, following a procedure initiated prior to the expiration of the originally authorized period and upon verification that they possess sufficient economic means for their subsistence. Finally, it must be kept in mind that Article 85 ibidem indicates that foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not change their immigration category while they are in the country, except for those included in Article 61 of the cited Law. This exception refers to the cases of family reunification, that is, for what is relevant here, when the foreigner's application for entry and stay is made by virtue of their link with a Costa Rican citizen, understood as such to be the spouse, children, parents, and single siblings. By virtue of family reunification, one may even opt for the permanent resident immigration category, as regulated by Article 73 of the same Law.

**V.- ON THE REVIEW OF THE VALIDITY OF CIRCULAR DG-0907-2009.** As was indicated supra, in the present proceeding, the validity of two formal administrative acts issued by the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería is questioned: Circular DG-0907-2009 and resolution No. 135-186118-Administrativa. In relation to the first, it is pertinent to transcribe its text, which states: *"CONSIDERANDO 1. Que el artículo 1 del Decreto No. 33506-G del 30 de octubre del 2006, publicado en La Gaceta No. 4 del 5 de enero de 2007 (hasta tanto no sea emitido el Reglamento a la Ley de Migración y Extranjería No. 848887) se autoriza al Director General de Migración y Extranjería para que establezca los requisitos que deberán ser exigidos a sus usuarios, para cualquier trámite de visa, residencia, categorías especiales u otros relacionados con sus funciones, según el artículo 13 de la referida Ley. POR TANTO SE ESTABLECE: Que por tiempo indefinido y a partir de esta fecha los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, **no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria** durante este tiempo, deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar. Cabe mencionar que toda solicitud de residencia realizada desde Costa Rica por un ciudadano de un país del cuarto grupo que se encuentre en condición de turista, deberá ser denegada"*.* The plaintiff questions that the cited circular (which served as the basis for the administrative act denying her residency application) violates numerals 6, 11, 15, 17, and 19 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as it restricts a right granted in a legal norm, in this case, Article 85 of the cited Law No. 8487. This is because it establishes that foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries, among which Cuba is found, and who remain in Costa Rica as tourists, may not change their immigration category but must instead activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the corresponding family reunification visa. From the very start, it must be pointed out that the circular is an internal administrative act by means of which instructions can be given regarding the manner of proceeding by officials, in this case, in the evaluation of visa applications from foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries and to whom a tourist visa has been granted. In that regard, it is a guideline directed at officials to be applied at the moment they evaluate the propriety of the proceedings of individuals whose situation fits the one described therein. Evidently, its content will be subject to the Legal System and to respect for the Principle of Hierarchy of Sources regulated in Article 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. This is so because, due to its hierarchical scale within the administrative legal system, it lacks the external effects characteristic of a legal norm. Even though it may have effects on third parties in a reflexive manner, these must occur by virtue of preparatory acts within the procedure, which must be in accordance with the legal system and never by virtue of the direct application of a guideline over the legal sphere of the interested parties. Now then, for this Tribunal, the competence of the Director General de Migración y Extranjería to issue circulars or guidelines on immigration matters is undeniable. This derives not only from his condition as supreme head of that body, but also from Article 13, subsections k) and n), which provide that *"...Serán funciones de la Dirección General, desarrolladas en el contenido de la presente Ley y su Reglamento, las siguientes: (...) k. Ejecutar la política migratoria y velar por el cumplimiento de la legislación correspondiente. n. Aprobar los cambios de categorías y subcategorías migratorias y otorgar las prórrogas de permanencia, de conformidad con la presente Ley y su Reglamento (...)"*. As is clear from the cited norm, that head has the power to issue guidelines or circulars such as the one questioned, with the purpose of achieving uniform and efficient execution of the Costa Rican State's immigration policy. Furthermore, Article 41 of the indicated Law establishes that *"...La Dirección General establecerá las directrices generales de visas de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes, para personas extranjeras provenientes de determinados países o zonas geográficas, con base en los acuerdos y tratados internacionales vigentes y en las razones de seguridad, conveniencia u oportunidad para el Estado costarricense."* This norm is clear in granting exclusively to the cited Director the power to establish general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from certain countries or geographical zones, in accordance with the international treaties and agreements in force and for reasons of security, convenience, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State. Precisely, the challenged circular DG-0907-2009, comes to develop this norm by establishing a specific treatment for foreigners belonging to the fourth group of countries, who are in our country with a tourist visa and who request permanent residency through family reunification. Of course, this is always provided that its content conforms to the Legal System in general and respects, in particular, the Principle of Legality and the Hierarchy of Sources, a review which is entered into immediately.

**VI.-** In its recitals section, the cited circular DG-0907-2009, indicates *"CONSIDERANDO 1. Que el artículo 1 del Decreto No. 33506-G del 30 de octubre del 2006, publicado en La Gaceta No. 4 del 5 de enero de 2007 (hasta tanto no sea emitido el Reglamento a la Ley de Migración y Extranjería No. 848887) se autoriza al Director General de Migración y Extranjería para que establezca los requisitos que deberán ser exigidos a sus usuarios, para cualquier trámite de visa, residencia, categorías especiales u otros relacionados con sus funciones, según el artículo 13 de la referida Ley."* As was explained supra, for this Tribunal, the issuance of this type of circular is legally viable as long as its content conforms to the block of legality and to what is provided in hierarchically superior sources. In that regard, no defect is observed in the recitals section that must be declared. On the other hand, the first paragraph of the operative part of the circular in question indicates *"...Que por tiempo indefinido y a partir de esta fecha los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, **no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria** durante este tiempo, deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar (...)"*. The questioned circular comes to regulate the immigration situation of foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, which is consistent with what is provided in numeral 41 of the cited Law. In particular, it regulates the situation of foreigners from that group of countries who entered the country as tourists, stating from the outset that they may not change their immigration category during the validity of the tourist visa. That first regulation falls within the powers to approve changes in immigration categories and subcategories, which is the purview of the Director General de Migración, in accordance with Articles 13, subsection n), 41, and 119, all of the Ley de Migración y Extranjería. Moreover, it conforms to the general prohibition on changing immigration category established by ordinal 85 ibidem, according to which foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not, as a general rule, change their immigration category while they are in the country. Now then, the plaintiff alleges that the circular disregards the exception contemplated in the same numeral 85, for persons who find themselves in the cases of Article 61 of the same law. This collegiate body considers that a correct reading and interpretation of the first paragraph of the operative part of that circular allow the claimed defect to be dismissed. Article 85 of Law No. 8487 indicates that *"Las personas extranjeras admitidas como no residentes no podrán cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras estén en el país, salvo aquellas comprendidas en el artículo 61 de esta Ley."* It is clear that this norm contemplates an exception, based on which the general prohibition for a foreigner admitted as a non-resident to be able to change immigration category while in the country is not applicable to those who find themselves in the cases included in numeral 61 of the same Ley de Migración. For what is relevant here, Article 61 indicates that *"La solicitud de ingreso y permanencia legal de las personas extranjeras deberá ser gestionada ante los agentes consulares de Costa Rica, por el interesado o por un representante debidamente autorizado mediante poder especial, de conformidad con los requisitos y las condiciones que determine el Reglamento de esta Ley. De la disposición anterior se exceptúan los siguientes casos, en los cuales la persona interesada deberá presentar su solicitud ante la Dirección General, la cual autorizará la apertura del respectivo expediente: a. Parientes de ciudadanos costarricenses. Se entienden como tales el cónyuge, los hijos, los padres y los hermanos solteros. b. Parientes de personas extranjeras residentes legalmente en el país; se entienden como tales el cónyuge, los hijos y los padres de aquellos. (...)"*. In general, the exception case refers to the cases of foreigners who seek to have their stay in the country authorized by virtue of family reunification, a topic on which this Tribunal has already had the opportunity to speak. In this sense, it has been pointed out that the Constitution confers special protection on the family by the State. Thus, Article 51 of the Constitución Política establishes that the family is the *"elemento natural y fundamento de la sociedad"*, a definition also established by Articles 16.3 of the Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos and 17.1 of the Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. From that plane, the family nucleus is basic and primordial for the free development of the personality of the persons who form or integrate it, and consequently, serves as the foundation for the entire social conglomerate. The Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has considered that *“...ninguna política pública, instrumento legal o reglamentario o, en general actuación administrativa activa u omisa puede propender a la desintegración o desmembración de la familia como base esencial de la sociedad, puesto que, de lo contrario se transgredería, palmariamente, lo que el Título V de nuestra Carta Política consagra como un Derecho y una Garantía Social y que, de por sí, constituye un valor constitucional que debe orientar la liberta de configuración legislativa y la función o gestión administrativas. Resulta lógico que tanto nacionales como extranjeros que se encuentren en nuestro territorio, tienen el derecho a gozar de la protección de especial, por parte del Estado Costarricense, de la familia como célula básica (artículo 19 de la Constitución Política) y de contar con todos los instrumentos reaccionales para impugnar cualquier actuación formal o material de los poderes públicos tendentes a enervar ese derecho fundamental el que, por esa sola condición, debe tener una eficacia directa e inmediata y una vinculación más fuerte (...) Con base en lo expuesto, se puede afirmar que parte del contenido esencial del derecho a la unidad familiar radica en la protección del individuo frente a la acción arbitraria de las autoridades públicas...”,* as well as, in the mutual enjoyment of coexistence between parents and children, that *“... constituye un elemento fundamental en la vida en familia; y que aun cuando los padres estén separados de sus hijos la convivencia familiar debe estar garantizada...”* (Judgment number 2007-05813 of ten hours and thirty-seven minutes of April twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, and in a similar sense, judgment number 2005-16860 of fourteen hours and forty-four minutes of December sixth, two thousand five). Of course, like any fundamental right, its exercise and enjoyment is not absolute or unrestricted (with the exception of the right to human life, which is considered by the Carta Suprema as inviolable according to Article 21), ergo, it can be subjected to reasonable and proportionate limits or limitations, which implies that such restrictions on its exercise and enjoyment cannot nullify the essential content of those rights. All in all, it is clear that as a projection of that maxim, the State must promote and guarantee family coexistence *(On this matter, see, among others, resolutions No. 1280-2010, 1419-2010, and 2284-2010, issued by this Tribunal at 07 hours 40 minutes of April 12, 10 hours 30 minutes of April 22, and 10 hours 50 minutes of June 16, all of 2010, respectively)*. From this perspective, it is undeniable that the legislator weighed family reunification when establishing the exception to the general rule at issue here. Thus, it was the legislator itself who regulated in the cited numeral 85 a special situation in favor of foreign persons who, being non-residents, could opt for a different and more favorable immigration category by virtue of their link with a Costa Rican, allowing them to change it while in the country. All the foregoing, of course, as long as they meet the other requirements that the immigration system imposes in each specific case. And indeed, by virtue of the link with a Costa Rican, the foreigner could even opt for a permanent resident category, as provided in Articles 72 and 73 of the already mentioned Law No. 8487. Having stated the foregoing, and taking into account the hierarchical rank occupied by the challenged circular, it must be interpreted harmoniously and in light of the entire Legal System in force. Thus, it must be interpreted that when the circular indicates that foreigners whose nationalities belong to the fourth group of countries and who remain in the country as tourists may not change their immigration category during this time; in reality, it reproduces the general prohibition indicated by the already cited numeral 85. Likewise, when it indicates that it must be done through the established procedures, beginning with a visa application under family reunification status; that provision must be interpreted with absolute respect for the exception contemplated by ordinal 85 ibidem. That is, allowing the family reunification visa application to be presented directly in our country. This must be so because the exception provided for in the indicated article establishes a special procedure for changing immigration categories by virtue of a Costa Rican link, which, being provided for in a legal norm, cannot be disregarded by the bodies of the active Administration. As long as it is interpreted in this way, for this Tribunal, the circular does not contradict nor impose requirements not established in the Law, nor does it derogate it in a singular manner. Note that what it indicates is that for the change of immigration category, the established procedures must be followed, beginning with the family reunification visa application; and it is insisted that the legislator provided for a special case for the change of category from non-resident to permanent resident by virtue of family reunification, which would allow the application to be presented directly by the foreigner who is in the country, without needing to leave Costa Rica. As such, the exception regulated in ordinal 85 would apply. And it is not an isolated exception. If Law No. 8487 is analyzed in detail, there are actually several cases in which the general prohibition on changing immigration category while in the country was excepted, taking family reunification cases as a parameter. To this effect, a reading of numerals 78, which in relation to the temporary resident category indicates that *"Las personas interesadas deberán tramitar sus solicitudes para obtener los beneficios de esta Ley por medio de los funcionarios consulares acreditados en el extranjero, salvo lo dispuesto en el artículo 61 de esta Ley."*; 92, which in relation to the special immigration categories indicates that *"Las personas extranjeras admitidas bajo las categorías especiales no podrán cambiar de categoría mientras estén en el país, salvo las que cuenten con vínculo conyugal con ciudadano costarricense o vínculo consanguíneo de primer grado con costarricense o salvo lo dispuesto por convenios internacionales vigentes ratificados y en Costa Rica."*; 119, when it indicates that *"A solicitud de parte, la Dirección General autorizará el cambio de categoría y subcategoría migratoria, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 73 de esta Ley. Sin embargo, en casos muy calificados, el Ministro de Gobernación y Policía, previa recomendación del Consejo, mediante resolución razonada, podrá autorizar cambios de categoría bajo otros supuestos."* (the underlining does not correspond to the original) is sufficient. As is easily deduced, the legislator's intention was to establish an exceptional treatment in favor of foreigners who, having a certain immigration category, could change it to a more favorable one by virtue of family reunification. Moreover, it is a reasonable and justified exception if one takes into account the special characteristics surrounding it. It is illogical that, being legally in the country, the foreigner claiming a link with a Costa Rican would have to leave Costa Rica solely to present their residency application at the consulate of the country in question. In addition to the above, there is also no legal impediment whatsoever for a permanent residency application by family reunification to be presented by the foreigner directly in Costa Rica. Note that Article 198 of Law No. 8487 indicates that *"Tratándose de peticiones para optar por la residencia permanente o temporal, estas normas deberán ser observadas por los agentes migratorios en el exterior, en los casos en que la presentación de la solicitud deba ser desde el extranjero, según la presente Ley, su Reglamento y la política migratoria."*; but it does not prevent its presentation in our country. This is also clear from judgment No. 116-F-S1-2010, issued by the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia in which it was indicated that *"(...) En esta línea, una de las modalidades mediante las cuales se puede realizar esta solicitud es por reunificación familiar, esto es, cuando un extranjero ha contraído matrimonio con un residente o cuando exista un vínculo familiar con este. En estos supuestos, se ha ampliado la legitimación para presentar la solicitud, siendo que lo puede realizar el cónyuge o familiar, y no necesariamente el extranjero, pero siempre que se cumplan los requisitos que exige el ordenamiento jurídico para la concesión de la visa. (...) Cuando se trata de una visa por reunificación familiar se da una excepción a lo anterior, ya que según lo explicado, el procedimiento puede iniciarse por el pariente costarricense. Empero, ha de entenderse que lo hace por cuenta y en representación del extranjero. Esto se confirma por lo preceptuado en el ordinal 61 de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería, el cual indica que la solicitud de ingreso y permanencia de las personas extranjeras, cuando se trate de parientes de ciudadanos costarricenses, deberá ser presentada por “la persona interesada” ante la Dirección General. Queda claro, en consecuencia, que el solicitante de la visa, aún por reunificación familiar, es el extranjero. (...) Si bien para la reunificación familiar, se dispone que quien deberá presentar la petición es el pariente costarricense, esto responde a la circunstancia de que, en la mayoría de los casos, es quien se encuentra en el país, y está en mejores condiciones para realizar el acto material de presentar la solicitud. Empero, ello no implica que el “solicitante” no sea el extranjero que requiere la condición de residente provisional. (...) Todo lo indicado viene a confirmar que, al utilizarse la referencia “el solicitante”, aún en el caso de reunificación, en donde los documentos son presentados por un tercero, debe entenderse que se refiere al extranjero, quien requiere la residencia provisional (...)"*. Thus, it is clear that if the foreigner with a tourist category is legally in Costa Rica and has a link with a Costa Rican that allows them to opt for a more favorable immigration category, under the protection of numeral 85, they can present their application directly before the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería. This is not only because the law expressly enables such conduct, but also because they are in the best condition to present their application directly.

It should be borne in mind that, in any case, this Tribunal has already indicated, among others in judgment No. 2817-2009, at 10:20 hours on December 14, 2009, that in procedures for residence applications for legal stay in the country, there are two different phases or stages "(...) *one is what could be called the submission and verification of prior requirements (such as the application, the reason for it, the necessary documents among others) and the other would be that, based on all the requirements presented, the Immigration Administration (la Administración Migratoria) proceeds to analyze the opportunity and convenience of granting the requested migratory status, that is, to decide on whether the migratory proceeding conforms to the substantive legal premises established in the Law (la Ley) or in the migratory policies in force at the time of analyzing the application for migratory status (...) it is clear that there are two stages; the first of submission and verification of prior requirements and the second of analysis of the substantive premises and migratory policy. The first is characterized in that the Immigration Administration (la Administración Migratoria) receives the necessary documentation and simply verifies if the applicant met all the prior requirements set out in the migratory regulations, such as the application form, the document indicating the motive or cause alleged for the permanent residence proceeding, birth certificates, marital status and any other that helps the authorities subsequently determine that the substantive premises are fully met. The second depends entirely on the first stage described above being fulfilled, since based on the documentation presented, the Immigration Administration (la Administración Migratoria) may proceed to hear the substantive merits, and within its powers with discretionary elements, whether the permanent residence application is pertinent. (...) These provisions describe in detail the first stage that we have been explaining, specifically for applications for residence for legal stay in the country. Therefore, in summary, this first phase has the following particularities: **a)** The first thing the Immigration Administration (la Administración Migratoria) must verify is that the applicant making the proceeding while in Costa Rican territory is in the country legally, for example with their entry visa valid, as established by the cited Article 62. If the applicant is in the country irregularly or illegally, this first admissibility requirement of the migratory proceeding is not met, and what corresponds on the part of the relevant authorities is to declare the application inadmissible, without even considering the presentation of prior requirements, and much less could it proceed to consider the substantive premises, as would be the case before us, the family bond (...)"* Evidently, the challenged circular regulates aspects related to the first stage of the procedure described in the cited ruling. Later, the migratory authorities will determine the legal merit of the application and will decide definitively on her stay in our country. Based on all of the above, it is this Tribunal's opinion that the whereas part and the first paragraph of the operative part of the analyzed circular are not contrary to the legal system, so long as they are interpreted in accordance with the exception provided for in Article 85 of cited Law No. 8485, that is, that one of the procedures for the foreigner to opt for a change of migratory category is precisely the mentioned exception and by virtue of which she could submit the application directly from Costa Rica, if it is submitted on time.

**VII.-** It remains to analyze the second paragraph of the cited circular, which states "(...) *It is worth mentioning that every residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is on a tourist status, must be denied"*. Based on the arguments set forth in the preceding Whereas, this Tribunal must annul the indicated paragraph. This is because, on that point, the cited circular is contrary to the provision in Article 85 of Law No. 8487. As was explained, that provision provided an exception to the general prohibition of changing migratory category while in the country, when the foreigner fell within the family reunification scenarios. From this perspective, it is evident that when it is stated that *"every residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is on a tourist status, must be denied"*, the special treatment that the legislator granted in these cases is openly disregarded and an obligation contrary to law (contra legem) is imposed on the foreigner. This is because, if the residence application is submitted on time and is based on the scenarios regulated by Article 61 of the Migration and Foreigners Law (Ley de Migración y Extranjería) (now repealed), the foreigner with a non-resident migratory category can indeed submit an application for change of migratory category directly to the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería), without needing to leave the country. Later, the corresponding technical and legal study will follow to determine the merit of the application. By stating that *"every residence application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is on a tourist status, must be denied"*, the cited circular violates the Principle of Legality and Hierarchy of Legal Sources, while generating uncertainty (incerteza) and legal insecurity for both migratory officials and foreigners who qualify for the exception scenario established by the indicated numeral 85. The foregoing, given that despite the legal provision being clear in allowing the foreigner to submit their application directly to the General Directorate of Migration (Dirección General de Migración), later, through a circular that is also mandatory for officials, a new criterion is imposed that disregards the legally provided exception. Thus, far from standardizing criteria for efficient execution of migratory policy, through the circular the current body of legality is violated, with the legal uncertainty (incerteza) that this can cause. Therefore, this Tribunal reiterates that the last paragraph of circular DG-0907-2009 is contrary to law insofar as what is regulated therein renders ineffective an exception provided in a legal provision, namely Article 85. In respect for the hierarchy of sources of the legal system, it is illegitimate to attempt to disregard legal precepts that regulate an exceptional situation in favor of some foreigners through an inferior formal administrative conduct of strictly internal efficacy, such as a circular. In these terms, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the challenged circular is declared. The State representation indicated that in the event this Tribunal decided to disapply Regulation No. 32245-G or the challenged circular, an objection of incompetence should be considered as filed. In the present matter, Regulation No. 32245-G is not being disapplied. What has been decided is to declare the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the challenged circular, which falls within the exclusive competence of this Jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution and Articles 1, 2, 36 and 42 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Now, it is necessary to clarify that this Tribunal does not disregard the power granted to the General Director of Migration regarding the issuance of directives and circulars aimed at the correct interpretation and application of the rules in force regarding migratory policy. Said attribution derives, indeed, from Law No. 8487 itself, as was explained in the previous Whereases. However, the issuance of these formal administrative conducts is subject to the limits that the legal system itself imposes, which was breached in the specific case, given that through the cited circular, the exception regulated in Article 85 ibid is rendered ineffective, which exceeds the complementary regulation with respect to the law that must characterize this type of act. In the judgment of this collegiate body, the correct interpretation of the cited article compels the conclusion that a foreigner who holds a non-resident category may request the change of migratory category while in the country, if they are encompassed in the scenarios of Article 61 of that Law, that is, if they have a link with a Costa Rican. In this sense, because they are in the family reunification scenarios, the exception that Article 85 expressly establishes must be applied, which makes it unnecessary for the foreigner to leave the country to submit their application, since the legislator allowed them to submit it directly. To this extent, the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) does not have the power to summarily reject that proceeding solely because it was submitted directly from our country. On the contrary, it must analyze its admissibility as well as the formal and substantive premises required in each specific case and rule as legally corresponds. For the reasons stated, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the challenged circular must be declared.

**VIII.- ON THE VALIDITY REVIEW OF RESOLUTION 135-186118-ADMINISTRATIVA.** The plaintiff also questions the validity of the cited resolution, through which her residence application was denied. Fundamentally, she deems the cited formal administrative conduct illegal because it applies circular DG-0907-2009 cited and disregards the exception that Article 85 of Law No. 8487 expressly establishes. After the corresponding validity review, this Tribunal must annul the cited resolution for what is set forth below. From the scant reasoning of the formal conduct whose nullity is reproached, the following can be gleaned as reasons for denying the plaintiff (accionante) the permanent residence application based on a link with a Costa Rican: *" (...) That by virtue of the visa authorization, because her entry is restricted by her nationality; granted by the General Director of Migration ex officio DGVR.480-2009, of FEBRUARY 16, 2009, it is specified to the interested party IANELA ARZOLA MORELL, that her stay will be for thirty calendar days, as a tourist, upon the expiration of which the application of the General Law of Migration and Foreigners (Ley General de Migración y Extranjería) will proceed and she must leave the country, likewise, she is informed that said authorization does not empower her to make any type of claim for relatives (...) That by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group, in accordance with the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their migratory category; they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification status visa. (...) That by not using the established provisions in accordance with the general directives for entry visas and stay for non-residents. This directorate does not consider it appropriate to grant the stay requested by the interested party until the established means to claim their relatives are used (...)"* As was amply explained in the previous Whereases, in the specific case the mentioned circular was improperly interpreted by the legal operator, which facilitated that the challenged act was contrary to law. According to the first paragraph of the cited circular, *"...for an indefinite period and as of this date, foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, **may not change their migratory category** during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures starting with a visa application under family reunification status (...)"*. As was explained, in the judgment of this collegiate body, this text, in itself, is not illegal, as long as it is interpreted in light of the exception contemplated in Article 85 of Law No. 8487. Thus, in a correct dimension, it must be interpreted that if the foreigner with a tourist visa falls within the scenarios of Article 61, that is, family reunification, they can change their migratory category while in the country and directly submit their permanent resident application (without having to leave the country) to the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) for its subsequent study and resolution, precisely because this is the procedure that, in that exceptional scenario, Article 85 establishes. However, in applying the circular to the specific case, the challenged conduct incurs several defects. Although it is based on the circular, it starts from considerations not indicated in it. Thus, for example, it states that *by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group, in accordance with the Entry Directives to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, may not change their migratory category; they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification status visa* (underlining not in the original). What the circular states is that to change migratory category "(...) *they must do so through the already established procedures starting with a visa application under family reunification status (...)"*. If one observes carefully, the interpretation in the specific case goes beyond the circular itself: it concludes that she must enter the country with the family reunification visa status, which would imply that the foreigner must leave the country, process the family reunification visa, and when she has it, re-enter Costa Rica. This goes beyond the circular itself, whose requirement is that the change of migratory category must be processed through the already established procedures (one of which would be the exception scenario of cited Article 85) starting with the visa application under family reunification status (and according to Article 85, that application can be made directly by the foreigner, without needing to leave the country, if she falls within the scenarios of Article 61 of the same Law). But furthermore, by improperly interpreting the circular, the challenged act directly disapplies a legislative precept, which is the exception scenario contemplated in Article 85 ibid. Moreover, it is clear from both the challenged conduct and the facts that have been held as accredited, that the plaintiff (accionante) was granted a tourist visa for thirty calendar days, that she entered the country on April 24, 2009, and that, within the granted period, that is on May 22, 2009, she requested a change of migratory status for being in a scenario of Article 61, by virtue of being the daughter of a Costa Rican citizen, a condition that has also been accredited. This being the case, it is this Tribunal's opinion that the plaintiff met the necessary conditions that allowed her to avail herself of the exception scenario that Article 85 itself contemplates and to directly submit her permanent residence application while she was in the country. Consequently, unlike what was stated by the appealed resolution, she did use an established means to claim her relatives, precisely the exception scenario that Article 85 contemplates. Later, the corresponding technical and legal analysis will determine the merit or not of the processed residence application. But the plaintiff's request must be heard, because it is insisted, she used the established means, exceptionally, by Article 85. Furthermore, she submitted the proceeding within the period established by Article 87 of the same legal body. It is clear to this Tribunal that the challenged conduct directly applied the second paragraph of the circular under analysis, which has already been annulled, precisely because it disregards the exception scenario regulated by Article 85 of Law No. 8487. This being the case, in accordance with Articles 132, 133, 136, 158, 160, 165, 166, and 223 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the challenged resolution is contrary to law and its absolute nullity must be declared.

**IX.-** Furthermore, having determined the substantial infringement of the legal system by ordering the rejection of the permanent residence application based on a link with a Costa Rican father that was submitted by the plaintiff, for the reasons already commented upon above (ut supra), what is due is to order the nullity of resolution 135-186118-Administrativa, of 13 hours 04 minutes on July 24, 2009, for the reasons already explained in the prior sections of this judgment. It should be specified, however, that the declaration of nullity ordered hereby entails, in accordance with Article 171 of the cited General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), reversing the procedure to the prior stage or to the one in which the defect was established. This implies that the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) must proceed to analyze the application for change of migratory status to permanent resident based on a link with a Costa Rican father submitted directly by the plaintiff (accionante) and rule on the merits of its merit or not as corresponds. For such effects, it must consider the requirements established in legal or supra-legal provisions, as well as their development in the executive regulations issued on the matter, circulars, and all relevant and inherent aspects of that procedure which, within the framework of its powers, have been granted to it by the Legal System. In particular, it must observe the exception scenario that Article 85 of Law No. 8487 contemplates and weigh the considerations that have been expressed in this judgment. This is for the purpose of deciding, through a duly reasoned act, whether the residence application based on a link with a Costa Rican and family reunification that has been requested is legally meritorious.

In that sense, it is necessary to point out that, in principle, it is inappropriate for this Court to order the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería to proceed with granting residency in favor of the petitioner (accionante) because what is requested would imply a direct substitution in the exercise of the discretionary powers (potestades discrecionales) of the active Administration, in this case of the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa).” “IV.— REGARDING THE MIGRATION POLICY OF THE COSTA RICAN STATE. This Court has repeatedly held that migration policy is part of a Nation’s sovereignty and includes the regulation of the entry and stay, temporary or permanent, of foreigners in its territory, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. In our case, the exercise of that sovereign power derives from Articles 6 and 19 of the Constitución Política and from various international instruments, among which stand out the Convention on the Status of Foreigners ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 40, of December 20, 1932; the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live; Convention 149 on Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Treatment of Migrant Workers; and the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, with the possibility of exceptions and limitations to their rights by legal means. Under this framework, foreigners who intend to enter our country must comply with the requirements demanded by the domestic legal system and submit to the legal norms that determine the legality or not of their stay in the country and its consequences. Likewise, case law has recognized that it involves the exercise of a discretionary power (potestad discrecional) in accordance with the applicable legal framework (bloque de legalidad) and that the power to decide on a foreigner’s stay in the national territory belongs exclusively to the Executive Branch, when it finds that it is harmful, or compromises public tranquility or order, or when special circumstances so advise. For this purpose, the Administration has a series of legal means to enforce that power, which are regulated, among others, in the Ley de Migración, such as, for example, the requirements and conditions for granting visas or residencies. All these means allow for control over foreign residents and grant, in effect, a broad margin of discretion to execute its migration policies. But the exercise of these powers, purely legal, however discretionary they may be, cannot be unrestricted or, even less, disregard the limits that the legal system itself imposes or the basic principles of justice, logic, and convenience (Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). To this effect, numerals 5, 12, and 13 subparagraph b) of the Ley de Migración No.

8487, in force at the time of the events, provide for the rejection of admission requests for foreign persons who do not meet the required conditions or who fall within the circumstances set forth in the Law or the immigration policy established in accordance with the law, in order to deny petitions. The aforementioned Migration and Aliens Act indicates in its Article 40 that a visa constitutes an authorization to enter the national territory issued by the Director General or by the consular agent when authorized by the former, or when permitted by the general guidelines for granting entry visas. This implies, as stated in Article 48, a mere expectation of right that does not entail the unconditional admission of the foreign person into the country, nor the authorization of the intended stay, but rather is subject to compliance with all the legal and regulatory requirements demanded for entry. Consistent with the above, Article 41 of the same law grants the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería the power to establish general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from specific countries or geographical areas, in accordance with current international treaties and agreements and for reasons of security, convenience, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State. In addition, Article 42 indicates that the general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents shall include the countries that will not require a visa, those that will require a consular visa, and those that will require a restricted visa. Moreover, Article 44 ibidem indicates that foreign persons seeking to enter under the non-resident migratory category will require the corresponding entry visa, except for the exceptions that are precisely determined in the general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents. From the foregoing, it is easily inferred that there are various migratory categories under which legal stay in the country is authorized, which are regulated in Title VI of the aforementioned regulatory body. Each one of them entails compliance with requirements, conditions, and specific procedures established in the block of legality, and furthermore, their granting may be conditioned upon public security and economic and social development considerations of the country, as can be deduced from Articles 59 and 60 of the indicated norm. Regarding the specific case at hand, the non-resident category is of interest, specifically the tourism subcategory. As stated in Article 83 of the aforementioned Law No. 8487, foreign persons to whom the Dirección General grants authorization to enter and stay in the country for a period not exceeding ninety days, in their capacity as tourists, fall under this category. Likewise, Article 86 indicates that foreign persons authorized to enter and remain in the country under this migratory category will have the possibility of extending their stay, provided they apply before the expiration of the originally authorized period and prove they have sufficient economic means for their subsistence. Finally, it must be borne in mind that Article 85 ibidem indicates that foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not change their migratory category while in the country, except for those included in Article 61 of the aforementioned Law. This exception refers to cases of family reunification, that is, as relevant here, when the foreigner's application for entry and stay is made by virtue of their relationship with a Costa Rican citizen, understood as the spouse, children, parents, and unmarried siblings. By virtue of family reunification, one may even opt for the permanent resident migratory category, as regulated by Article 73 of the same Law.

**V.- ON THE VALIDITY REVIEW OF CIRCULAR DG-0907-2009.** As indicated supra, this proceeding challenges the validity of two formal administrative actions issued by the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería: Circular DG-0907-2009 and resolution No. 135-186118-Administrativa. Regarding the former, it is pertinent to transcribe its text, which reads: *"CONSIDERANDO 1. That Article 1 of Decree No. 33506-G of October 30, 2006, published in La Gaceta No. 4 of January 5, 2007 (until the Regulation to the Migration and Aliens Law No. 848887 is issued) authorizes the Director General of Migration and Aliens to establish the requirements that must be demanded of its users, for any visa, residency, special categories, or other procedures related to its functions, according to Article 13 of the referred Law. POR TANTO IT IS ESTABLISHED: That indefinitely and as of this date, foreign persons whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Guidelines for Entry to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, **may not change their migratory category** during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures, starting with a visa application under family reunification. It is worth mentioning that any residency application made from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist status, must be denied."* The claimant argues that the aforementioned circular (which served as the basis for the administrative act denying her residency application) violates Articles 6, 11, 15, 17, and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration, in that it restricts a right granted by a legal norm, in this case, Article 85 of the cited Law No. 8487. This is because it establishes that foreign persons belonging to the fourth group of countries, among which is Cuba, and who remain in Costa Rica as tourists, may not change their migratory category but must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification visa. From the outset, it must be noted that a circular is an internal administrative act by which instructions can be issued regarding the manner in which officials should proceed, in this case, in the assessment of visa applications from foreign persons belonging to the fourth group of countries who have been granted a tourist visa. As such, it is a guideline directed at officials to be applied when they assess the admissibility of petitions from individuals whose situation fits the description therein. Evidently, its content is subject to the Legal System and respect for the Principle of the Hierarchy of Legal Sources, which is regulated in Article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration. This is so because, given its hierarchical level within the administrative legal system, it lacks the external effects proper to a legal norm. Even though it may have reflective effects on third parties, these must arise by virtue of preparatory acts within the procedure, which must be consistent with the legal system, and never by virtue of the direct application of a directive to the legal sphere of the interested parties. Now, for this Tribunal, the competence of the Director General of Migration and Aliens to issue circulars or directives on immigration matters is undeniable. This derives not only from his status as the supreme head of that body but also from Article 13, subsections k) and n), which provide that *"...The functions of the Dirección General, developed within the content of this Law and its Regulations, shall be the following: (...) k. Implement immigration policy and ensure compliance with the corresponding legislation. n. Approve changes of migratory categories and subcategories and grant extensions of stay, in accordance with this Law and its Regulations (...) ". * As can be deduced from the cited norm, this head has the power to issue directives or circulars like the one challenged, for the purpose of achieving uniform and efficient implementation of the Costa Rican State's immigration policy. Furthermore, Article 41 of the indicated Law establishes that *"...The Dirección General shall establish the general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from specific countries or geographical areas, based on current international agreements and treaties and for reasons of security, convenience, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State."* This norm is clear in granting exclusively to the mentioned Director the power to establish general guidelines for entry and stay visas for non-residents, for foreign persons from specific countries or geographical areas, in accordance with current international treaties and agreements and for reasons of security, convenience, or opportunity for the Costa Rican State. Precisely, the challenged circular DG-0907-2009 develops that norm by establishing a specific treatment for foreign persons belonging to the fourth group of countries who are in our country on a tourist visa and who apply for permanent residency through family reunification. Of course, this is always provided that its content conforms to the Legal System in general and respects, in particular, the Principle of Legality and the Hierarchy of Legal Sources, an examination which follows.

**VI.-** In its recitals, the cited circular DG-0907-2009 states *"CONSIDERANDO 1. That Article 1 of Decree No. 33506-G of October 30, 2006, published in La Gaceta No. 4 of January 5, 2007 (until the Regulation to the Migration and Aliens Law No. 848887 is issued) authorizes the Director General of Migration and Aliens to establish the requirements that must be demanded of its users, for any visa, residency, special categories, or other procedures related to its functions, according to Article 13 of the referred Law."* As explained supra, for this Tribunal, the issuance of this type of circular is legally viable as long as its content conforms to the block of legality and the provisions of hierarchically superior sources. In this regard, no defect is observed in the recitals that must be declared. On the other hand, the first paragraph of the operative part of the circular in question states *"...That indefinitely and as of this date, foreign persons whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Guidelines for Entry to Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, **may not change their migratory category** during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures, starting with a visa application under family reunification (...)"* The challenged circular regulates the migratory situation of foreign persons whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Guidelines for Entry to Costa Rica, which is consistent with the provisions of Article 41 of the cited Law. In particular, it regulates the situation of foreign persons from that group of countries who entered the country as tourists, stating from the outset that they may not change their migratory category during the validity of the tourist visa. This first regulation falls within the powers to approve changes of migratory categories and subcategories, which is the responsibility of the Director General of Migration, in accordance with Articles 13, subsection n), 41, and 119, all of the Migration and Aliens Law. Moreover, it conforms to the general prohibition on changing migratory category established by Article 85 ibidem, according to which foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not, as a general rule, change their migratory category while in the country. Now, the claimant argues that the circular disregards the exception contemplated in the same Article 85 for persons who fall within the circumstances of Article 61 of the same law. This collegiate body considers that a correct reading and interpretation of the first paragraph of the operative part of that circular allows the alleged defect to be dismissed. Article 85 of Law No. 8487 states that *"Foreign persons admitted as non-residents may not change their migratory category while in the country, except for those included in Article 61 of this Law."* It is clear that this norm contemplates an exception, based on which the general prohibition for a foreigner admitted as a non-resident to change their migratory category while in the country is not applicable to those who fall within the circumstances included in Article 61 of the same Migration Law. As relevant here, Article 61 indicates that *"The application for entry and legal stay of foreign persons must be processed before the consular agents of Costa Rica, by the interested party or by a duly authorized representative with a special power of attorney, in accordance with the requirements and conditions determined by the Regulations of this Law. The following cases are excepted from the preceding provision, in which the interested party must submit their application before the Dirección General, which will authorize the opening of the respective case file: a. Relatives of Costa Rican citizens. These are understood to be the spouse, children, parents, and unmarried siblings. b. Relatives of foreign persons legally residing in the country; these are understood to be the spouse, children, and parents thereof. (...)"* In general, the exception refers to cases of foreign persons seeking authorization to stay in the country by virtue of family reunification, a subject on which this Tribunal has already had the opportunity to comment. In this sense, it has been noted that the Constitution confers special State protection on the family. Thus, Article 51 of the Political Constitution establishes that the family is the *"natural element and foundation of society"*, a definition also established by Articles 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 17.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. From this perspective, the family nucleus is basic and essential for the free development of the personality of the individuals who make it up or integrate it, and consequently, it serves as the foundation for the entire social conglomerate. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has considered that *"...no public policy, legal or regulatory instrument, or, in general, active or omissive administrative action can tend towards the disintegration or dismemberment of the family as the essential basis of society, since, otherwise, what Title V of our Political Charter enshrines as a Social Right and Guarantee, and which, in itself, constitutes a constitutional value that must guide the freedom of legislative configuration and administrative function or management, would be flagrantly transgressed. It is logical that both nationals and foreign persons in our territory have the right to enjoy special protection, by the Costa Rican State, of the family as the basic cell (Article 19 of the Political Constitution) and to have all reactive instruments to challenge any formal or material action of the public powers aimed at undermining that fundamental right, which, by that sole condition, must have direct and immediate efficacy and a stronger binding force (...) Based on the foregoing, it can be affirmed that part of the essential content of the right to family unity **lies in the protection of the individual against arbitrary action by public authorities...",** as well as in the mutual enjoyment of cohabitation between parents and children, which "...constitutes a fundamental element in family life; and that even when parents are separated from their children, family cohabitation must be guaranteed..."* (Judgment number 2007-05813 of ten hours thirty-seven minutes of April twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, and in a similar sense, judgment number 2005-16860 of fourteen hours forty-four minutes of December sixth, two thousand five). Of course, like any fundamental right, its exercise and enjoyment are not absolute or unrestricted (with the exception of the right to human life, which is considered by the Supreme Charter as inviolable according to Article 21), ergo, it can be subjected to reasonable and proportionate limits or limitations, which implies that such restrictions on its exercise and enjoyment cannot render the essential content of those rights nugatory. Nevertheless, it is clear that as a projection of this maxim, the State must promote and guarantee family cohabitation *(On this point, see, among others, resolutions No. 1280-2010, 1419-2010, and 2284-2010, issued by this Tribunal at 07:40 on April 12, 10:30 on April 22, and 10:50 on June 16, all of 2010, respectively).* From this perspective, it is undeniable that the legislator weighed family reunification when imposing the exception to the general rule at issue here. Thus, it was the legislator who regulated in the cited Article 85 a special situation in favor of foreign persons who, being non-residents, could opt for a different and more favorable migratory category by virtue of their relationship with a Costa Rican, allowing them to change it while in the country. All of the foregoing, of course, as long as they met the other requirements imposed by the migratory system in each specific case. Indeed, by virtue of the relationship with a Costa Rican, the foreigner could even opt for a permanent resident category, as provided by Articles 72 and 73 of the already mentioned Law No. 8487. Given the foregoing, and taking into account the hierarchical rank of the challenged circular, it must be interpreted harmoniously and in light of the entire current Legal System. Thus, it must be interpreted that when the circular states that foreign persons whose nationalities belong to the fourth group of countries and who remain in the country as tourists may not change their migratory category during this time, it actually reproduces the general prohibition stated in the cited Article 85. Likewise, when it states that they must do so through the already established procedures, starting with a visa application under family reunification, this provision must be interpreted in absolute respect for the exception contemplated in Article 85 ibidem. That is, by allowing the family reunification visa application to be presented directly in our country. This must be so because the exception set forth in the indicated article establishes a special procedure for changing migratory categories by virtue of a Costa Rican relationship, which, being provided for in a legal norm, cannot be disregarded by the active Administration bodies. As long as it is interpreted in this way, for this Tribunal, the circular does not contradict or impose requirements not established in the Law, nor does it singularly repeal it. Note that what it states is that to change the migratory category, the established procedures must be followed, starting with the family reunification visa application; and it is reiterated that the legislator provided a special circumstance for changing from non-resident to permanent resident category by virtue of family reunification, which would allow the application to be presented directly by the foreigner who is in the country, without needing to leave Costa Rica. This being the case, the exception regulated in Article 85 would apply. And it is not an isolated exception. If Law No. 8487 is analyzed in detail, there are actually several cases in which the general prohibition on changing migratory category while in the country is excepted, taking the circumstances of family reunification as a parameter. In this regard, a reading of the following articles suffices: 78, which, in relation to the temporary resident category, states that *"Interested persons must process their applications to obtain the benefits of this Law through consular officials accredited abroad, unless otherwise provided in Article 61 of this Law."*; 92, which, in relation to special migratory categories, states that *"Foreign persons admitted under special categories may not change category while in the country, except for those who have a marital relationship with a Costa Rican citizen or a first-degree blood relationship with a Costa Rican, or unless otherwise provided by current international agreements ratified in Costa Rica."*; 119, when it indicates that *"At the request of a party, the Dirección General shall authorize the change of migratory category and subcategory, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of this Law. However, in very qualified cases, the Minister of Governance and Police, with the prior recommendation of the Council, by reasoned resolution, may authorize category changes under other circumstances."* (underlining not in the original). As can be easily deduced, the legislator’s intention was to establish an exceptional treatment in favor of foreign persons who, having a specific migratory category, could change it for a more favorable one by virtue of family reunification. Moreover, it is a reasonable and justified exception considering the special characteristics surrounding it. It is illogical that, being legally in the country, the foreigner claiming a relationship with a Costa Rican must leave Costa Rica solely to present their residency application at the consulate of the country in question. In addition to the above, there is also no legal impediment for an application for permanent residency through family reunification to be presented by the foreigner directly in Costa Rica. Note that Article 198 of Law No. 8487 states that *"In the case of petitions to apply for permanent or temporary residency, these norms must be observed by immigration agents abroad, in cases where the presentation of the application must be made from abroad, according to this Law, its Regulations, and immigration policy."* However, it does not prevent its presentation in our country. This is also inferred from judgment No. 116-F-S1-2010, issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which it was stated that *"(...) In this line, one of the modalities through which this application can be made is through family reunification, that is, when a foreigner has married a resident or when there is a family relationship with them. In these circumstances, the standing to present the application has been broadened, allowing the spouse or relative to do so, and not necessarily the foreigner, provided that the requirements demanded by the legal system for granting the visa are met. (...) When it concerns a visa through family reunification, there is an exception to the foregoing, since, as explained, the procedure can be initiated by the Costa Rican relative. However, it must be understood that this is done on behalf of and representing the foreigner. This is confirmed by what is prescribed in Article 61 of the Migration and Aliens Law, which indicates that the application for entry and stay of foreign persons, when it concerns relatives of Costa Rican citizens, must be presented by 'the interested party' before the Dirección General. It is therefore clear that the applicant for the visa, even through family reunification, is the foreigner."* (...) Although for family reunification, it is provided that the Costa Rican relative must file the petition, this responds to the circumstance that, in the majority of cases, they are the one in the country and in a better position to carry out the material act of filing the application. However, this does not imply that the “applicant” is not the foreigner who requires the condition of provisional resident. (...) All of the foregoing confirms that, when the reference “the applicant” is used, even in the case of reunification, where the documents are filed by a third party, it must be understood that it refers to the foreigner, who requires provisional residence (...)" Thus, it is clear that if the foreigner with tourist status is legally in Costa Rica and has a relationship with a Costa Rican that allows them to opt for a more favorable migratory category, under the protection of section 85, it indicates they may file their application directly before the Dirección General de Migración de Extranjería. This is not only because the law expressly enables such conduct, but also because they are in the best position to file their application directly. It must be borne in mind that, in any case, this Court has already indicated, among others, in judgment No. 2817-2009, at 10:20 a.m. on December 14, 2009, that in proceedings for residence applications for legal stay in the country, there are two different phases or stages "(...) one is what could be called the contribution and verification of prior requirements (such as the application, the reason for it, the necessary documents, among others) and the other would be that, based on all the requirements submitted, the Administración Migratoria enters into the analysis of the opportunity and convenience of granting the requested migratory status, that is, to decide on whether the migratory proceeding conforms to the substantive criteria established in the Law or in the migratory policies in force at the time of analyzing the migratory status application (...) it is clear that there are two stages; the first of contribution and verification of prior requirements and the second of analysis of the substantive criteria and migratory policy. The first is characterized in that the Administración Migratoria receives the necessary documentation and simply verifies if the applicant fulfilled all the prior requirements provided in the migratory regulations, such as the application form, the document indicating the motive or cause alleged for the permanent residence proceeding, birth certifications, marital status, and any other that helps the authorities subsequently determine that the substantive criteria are fully met. The second depends entirely on the completion of the first stage described above, since based on the documentation submitted, the Administración Migratoria may proceed to examine the merits, and within its powers with discretionary elements, whether the permanent residence application is pertinent. (...) These rules describe in a detailed manner the first stage we have been explaining, specifically for applications for residence for legal stay in the country. Therefore, in summary, this first phase has the following particularities: a) The first thing the Administración Migratoria must verify is that the applicant making the proceeding while in Costa Rican territory is in the country legally, for example, with their entry visa valid, as established by the aforementioned Article 62. If the applicant is in the country irregularly or illegally, this first admissibility requirement for the migratory proceeding is not met, and what is appropriate for the corresponding authorities is to declare the application inadmissible, without even considering the submission of prior requirements, much less could they proceed to consider the substantive criteria, such as would be, in the case at hand, the family relationship (...)" Evidently, the challenged circular regulates aspects related to the first stage of the procedure described in the cited judgment. Subsequently, the migratory authorities will determine the legal merit of their application and definitively decide on their stay in our country. Based on all the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that the recitals and the first paragraph of the operative part of the analyzed circular are not contrary to the legal system insofar as they are interpreted in accordance with the exception provided by Article 85 of the cited Law No. 8485, that is, one of the procedures for the foreigner to opt for a change of migratory category is precisely the mentioned exception and by virtue of which they could file the application directly from Costa Rica, if it is filed in time.

VII.- It remains to analyze the second paragraph of the cited circular, which states "(...) It is worth mentioning that any residence application filed from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist condition must be denied." Based on the arguments set forth in the preceding Considerando, this Court must annul the indicated paragraph. This is because, on that point, the cited circular is contrary to the provisions of Article 85 of Law No. 8487. As explained, that rule excepted the general prohibition of change of migratory category while in the country, when the foreigner falls under the circumstances of family reunification. From this perspective, it is evident that when it is stated that "any residence application filed from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist condition must be denied," the special treatment that the legislator granted in these cases is openly disregarded and an obligation contra legem is imposed on the foreigner. This is because, if the residence application is filed in time and is based on the circumstances regulated by Article 61 of the Ley de Migración y Extranjería (now repealed), the foreigner with a non-resident migratory category can indeed file an application for a change of migratory category directly before the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, without needing to leave the country. Subsequently, the corresponding technical and legal study will determine the merit of the application. By stating that "any residence application filed from Costa Rica by a citizen of a fourth-group country who is in tourist condition must be denied," the cited circular violates the Principle of Legality and Hierarchy of Sources, while also generating uncertainty and legal insecurity both for migratory officials and for foreigners who qualify under the exception circumstance established by the indicated section 85. The foregoing is because, despite the legal rule being clear in allowing the foreigner to file their application directly before the Dirección General de Migración, then by a circular that is also of mandatory compliance for officials, a new criterion is imposed that disregards the legally established exception. Thus, far from standardizing criteria for an efficient execution of migratory policy, the circular violates the existing legality framework with the legal uncertainty this may cause. Therefore, this Court reiterates that the last paragraph of circular DG-0907-2009 is contrary to law insofar as what is regulated therein renders ineffective an exception established in a legal provision, namely the mentioned section 85. In respect of the hierarchy of sources of the legal system, it is illegitimate to attempt to disregard legal precepts that regulate an exceptional situation in favor of some foreigners through an inferior formal administrative conduct with strictly internal efficacy such as a circular. In these terms, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the challenged circular is declared. The State representation indicated that if this Court decided to disapply Reglamento No. 32245-G or the challenged circular, the plea of incompetence should be deemed filed. In the present matter, the cited Reglamento is not being disapplied. What has been decided is to declare the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the challenged circular, which falls under the exclusive competence of this Jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution and sections 1, 2, 36, and 42 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Now, it is necessary to clarify that this Court does not disregard the power granted to the Director General de Migración regarding the issuance of directives and circulars aimed at the correct interpretation and application of the rules in force on migratory policy matters. Said attribution derives, even, from Law No. 8487 itself, as was explained in the previous Considerandos. However, the issuance of these formal administrative conducts is subject to the limits imposed by the legal system itself, which was breached in the specific case, since through the cited circular the exception regulated in precept 85 ibidem is rendered ineffective, which exceeds the complementary regulation regarding the law, which must characterize this type of acts. In the judgment of this collegiate body, the correct interpretation of the cited article compels the conclusion that the foreigner who holds a non-resident category may request a change of migratory category while they are in the country, if they are included in the circumstances of Article 61 of that Law, that is, if they have a relationship with a Costa Rican. In this sense, for being in the circumstances of family reunification, the exception that section 85 expressly establishes must be applied, making it unnecessary for the foreigner to leave the country to file their application, since the legislator allowed them to file it directly. To this extent, the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería does not have the power to reject that proceeding outright only because it was filed directly from our country. On the contrary, it must analyze its admissibility as well as the formal and substantive criteria required in each specific case and rule in accordance with the relevant law. For the reasons stated, the absolute nullity of the second paragraph of the operative part of the challenged circular must be declared.

VIII.- ON THE VALIDITY EXAMINATION OF RESOLUTION 135-186118-ADMINISTRATIVA. The plaintiff also questions the validity of the cited resolution, by which her residence application was denied. Fundamentally, she considers that the cited formal administrative conduct is illegal because it applies the cited circular DG-0907-2009 and disregards the exception expressly established by Article 85 of Law No. 8487. Following the corresponding validity examination, this Court must annul the cited resolution for the reasons set forth below. From the scant reasoning of the formal conduct whose nullity is claimed, the following can be discerned as grounds for denying the plaintiff the permanent residence application by virtue of relationship with a Costa Rican: "(...) That by authorization of the visa, since her entry is restricted due to her nationality; granted by the Director General de Migración ex officio DGVR.480-2009, of February 16, 2009, it is specified to the interested party IANELA ARZOLA MORELL that her stay will be for thirty calendar days as a tourist, upon expiration of which the application of the Ley General de Migración y Extranjería will proceed and she must leave the country; likewise, she is informed that said authorization does not empower her to carry out any type of family member claim (...) That by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director, Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group in accordance with the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, will not be able to change their migratory category; they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification condition visa. (...) That by not using the established provisions in accordance with the general visa entry and stay directives for non-residents. This office does not consider it appropriate to grant the stay requested by the interested party until the established means to claim her family members are used (...)" As was extensively explained in the previous Considerandos, in the specific case, the mentioned circular was improperly interpreted by the legal operator, which facilitated the challenged act being contrary to law. According to the first paragraph of the cited circular, "... for an indefinite time and as of this date, foreigners whose nationalities belong to the Fourth Group established by the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists, will not be able to change their migratory category during this time; they must do so through the already established procedures, beginning with a visa application in family reunification condition (...)." As was explained, in the judgment of this collegiate body, this text, by itself, is not illegal, insofar as it is interpreted in light of the exception contemplated in section 85 of Law No. 8487. Thus, in a correct dimension, it must be interpreted that if the foreigner with a tourist visa falls under the circumstances of section 61, that is, family reunification, they can indeed change their migratory category while in the country and file their permanent resident application directly (without having to leave the country) before the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería for its subsequent study and resolution, precisely because that is the procedure that, in that exceptional circumstance, the indicated section 85 establishes. However, when applying the circular to the specific case, the challenged conduct incurs several defects. Although it is based on the circular, it proceeds from considerations not indicated therein. Thus, for example, it states that by circular DG-907-2009, of March 16, the director, Mr. Mario Zamora Cordero, establishes that nationalities belonging to the fourth group in accordance with the Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, who remain in the country as tourists will not be able to change their migratory category, they must activate the pertinent mechanisms to enter the country with the respective family reunification condition visa (underlining is not in the original). What the circular states is that to change migratory category "(...) they must do so through the already established procedures, beginning with a visa application in family reunification condition (...)." If one observes carefully, the interpretation in the specific case goes beyond the circular itself: it concludes that she must enter the country with the family reunification visa condition, which would imply that the foreigner must leave the country, process the family reunification visa, and once they have it, re-enter Costa Rica. This goes beyond the circular itself, which only requires that the change of migratory category must be processed through the already established procedures (one of which would be the exceptional circumstance of cited section 85) beginning with the visa application in family reunification condition (and according to section 85, that application can be made directly by the foreigner, without needing to leave the country, if they are in the circumstances of Article 61 of the same Law). But also, by interpreting the circular improperly, the challenged act directly disapplies a legislative precept, namely the exceptional circumstance contemplated in section 85 ibidem. Moreover, it can be inferred from both the challenged conduct and the facts that have been deemed proven that the plaintiff was granted a tourist visa for thirty calendar days, that she entered the country on April 24, 2009, and that, within the granted period, that is, on May 22, 2009, she requested a change of migratory condition for being in a circumstance of Article 61, by virtue of being the daughter of a Costa Rican citizen, a condition that has also been proven. Thus, it is the criterion of this Court that the plaintiff met the necessary conditions that allowed her to avail herself of the exceptional circumstance contemplated in section 85 itself and to file her permanent residence application directly while she was in the country. Therefore, unlike what was stated by the challenged resolution, she did use an established means to claim her family members, precisely the exceptional circumstance contemplated in the indicated section 85. Subsequently, the corresponding technical and legal analysis will determine the merit or not of the processed residence application. But the plaintiff’s petition must be admitted for consideration, because it is insisted, she used the established means, on an exceptional basis, by article 85. Furthermore, she filed the proceeding within the period indicated by Article 87 of the same regulatory body. It is clear to this Court that the challenged conduct directly applied the second paragraph of the circular under analysis, which has already been annulled, precisely because it disregards the exceptional circumstance regulated by section 85 of Law No. 8487. Thus, in accordance with Articles 132, 133, 136, 158, 160, 165, 166, and 223 of the Ley General de la Administración Público, the challenged resolution is contrary to law and its absolute nullity must be declared.

IX.- Furthermore, having determined the substantial infringement of the legal system in ordering the rejection of the permanent residence application based on a relationship with a Costa Rican father that was filed by the plaintiff, for the reasons already commented upon ut supra, the proper course is to order the nullity of resolution 135-186118-Administrativa, of 1:04 p.m. on July 24, 2009, for the reasons already explained in the previous sections of this judgment. It is necessary to specify, however, that the declaration of nullity ordered by this means entails, in accordance with section 171 of the cited Ley General de la Administración Pública, retracting the procedure to the previous stage or the one in which the defect was established. This implies that the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería must proceed to analyze the application for change of migratory condition to permanent resident based on a relationship with a Costa Rican father, filed directly by the plaintiff, and decide on its merits whether or not it is appropriate, as applicable. For such purposes, it must consider the requirements established in legal or supra-legal rules, as well as their development in the executive regulations issued on the matter, circulars, and all relevant and inherent aspects of that proceeding that, within the framework of its powers, have been granted to it by the Legal System. In particular, it must comply with the exceptional circumstance contemplated in Article 85 of Law No. 8487 and weigh the considerations that have been expressed in this judgment. This is so that it may decide, through a duly reasoned act, whether the residence application based on a relationship with a Costa Rican and family reunification that has been requested is legally appropriate. In that sense, it is necessary to point out that, in principle, it is inappropriate for this Court to order the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería to proceed with the granting of residence in favor of the plaintiff because what is requested would imply a direct substitution in the exercise of the discretionary powers of the active Administration, in this case the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, which escapes the competence of the Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa.”

“IV.- SOBRE LA POLÍTICA MIGRATORIA DEL ESTADO COSTARRICENSE. Este Tribunal ha sostenido que en forma reiterada que la política migratoria es parte de la soberanía de una Nación e incluye la regulación del ingreso y permanencia, temporal o definitiva, de los extranjeros en su territorio, con la posibilidad de excepciones y limitaciones a sus derechos por vía legal. En nuestro caso, el ejercicio de esa potestad soberana deriva de los artículos 6 y 19 de la Constitución Política y de diversos instrumentos internacionales, entre los que destacan la Convención sobre la Condición de los Extranjeros ratificada por Costa Rica por Ley No. 40, de 20 de diciembre de 1932; la Declaración de Derechos Humanos de los Individuos que no son nacionales del país en que viven; el Convenio 149 de las Migraciones en Condiciones Abusivas y la Promoción de Igualdad de Trato de los Trabajadores Migrantes y el Protocolo contra el Tráfico Ilícito de los Migrantes por Tierra, Mar y Agua, con la posibilidad de excepciones y limitaciones a sus derechos por vía legal. Bajo esta tesitura, los extranjeros que pretendan ingresar a nuestro país deberán cumplir con los requisitos que al efecto exige el ordenamiento jurídico interno y someterse a las normas jurídicas que determinan la legalidad o no de su permanencia en el país y sus consecuencias. Asimismo, la jurisprudencia ha reconocido que se trata del ejercicio de una potestad discrecional conforme al bloque de legalidad vigente y que compete exclusivamente al Poder Ejecutivo la potestad de decidir sobre la permanencia de un extranjero en el territorio nacional, cuando encuentre que es nociva, o compromete la tranquilidad o el orden público, o bien cuando circunstancias especiales así lo aconsejen. Cuenta para ello la Administración con una serie de medios jurídicos para hacer efectiva esa potestad y que se regulan entre otros, en la Ley de Migración, como lo son por ejemplo, los requisitos y condiciones para el otorgamiento de visas o residencias. Todos esos medios permiten ejercer el control sobre los residentes extranjeros y otorgan, en efecto, un amplio margen de discrecionalidad para ejecutar sus políticas migratorias. Pero el ejercicio de estas potestades, puramente legales, aún por muy discrecionales que fueran, no puede ser irrestricto o menos aún, desconocer los límites que el propio ordenamiento jurídico le impone ni los principios elementales elementales de justicia, lógica y conveniencia (artículos 15, 16 y 17 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Al efecto, los numerales 5, 12, y 13 inciso b) de la Ley de Migración No. 8487, vigente al momento de los hechos, disponen el rechazo de las solicitudes de ingreso de personas extranjeras que no cumplan con los requisitos exigidos o que se encuentren dentro de los supuestos previstos en la Ley o política migratoria fijada de conformidad con la ley, para no autorizar pedidos. Indica la citada Ley de Migración y Extranjería en su artículo 40 que la visa constituye una autorización de ingreso al territorio nacional extendida por el director general o por el agente consular cuando lo autorice el primero, o cuando así lo permitan las directrices generales para el otorgamiento de visas de ingreso. Implica ésta, como señala el numeral 48, una mera expectativa de derecho que no supone la admisión incondicional de la persona extranjera al país, ni la autorización de permanencia pretendida sino que está sometida al cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales y reglamentarios exigidos para el ingreso. Conteste con lo anterior, el numeral 41 de la misma ley otorga a la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería la potestad de establecer directrices generales de visa de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes, para personas extranjeras provenientes de determinados países o zonas geográficas de acuerdo a los tratados y convenios internacionales vigentes y en razones de seguridad conveniencia u oportunidad para el Estado costarricense. En complemento, el canon 42 indica que las directrices generales de visas de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes, contemplarán los países que no requerirán visa, los que requerirán visa consular y los que requerirán visa restringida. Ahora bien, señala el numeral 44 ibídem que las personas extranjeras que pretendan ingresar bajo la categoría migratoria de no residentes requerirán la correspondiente visa de ingreso, salvo las excepciones que, precisamente, se determinen en las directrices generales de visas de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes. De lo expuesto se extrae fácilmente la existencia de diversas categorías migratorias en virtud de las cuales se autoriza la permanencia legal en el país y que se regulan en el Título VI del mencionado cuerpo normativo. Cada uno de ellas supone el cumplimiento de requisitos, condiciones y procedimientos propios establecidos en el bloque de legalidad, siendo que, además, su otorgamiento puede condicionarse a presupuestos de seguridad pública y desarrollo económico y social del país según se desprende de los artículos 59 y 60 de la norma señalada. En lo que atañe al caso concreto, interesan referirse a la categoría de no residentes, específicamente a la de turismo. Como señala el numeral 83 de la mencionada Ley No. 8487, en este supuesto clasifican las personas extranjeras a quienes la Dirección General les otorgue autorización de ingreso y permanencia en el país por un plazo que no podrá exceder los noventa días, en su condición de turista. Asimismo, el ordinal 86 indica que las personas extranjeras autorizadas para ingresar al país y permanecer en él bajo esta categoría migratoria, tendrán la posibilidad de prorrogar su permanencia, previa gestión anterior al vencimiento del plazo original autorizado y previa comprobación de que poseen medios económicos suficientes para su subsistencia. Finalmente, debe tenerse presente que el artículo 85 ibídem indica que las personas extranjeras admitidas como no residentes no podrán cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras estén en el país, salvo aquellas comprendidas en el artículo 61 de la citada Ley. Esta excepción refiere a los supuestos de reunificación familiar, esto es en lo que interesa, cuando la solicitud de de ingreso y permanencia del extranjero se realice en virtud de su vínculo con ciudadano costarricense, entendiendo como tales el cónyuge, los hijos, los padres y los hermanos solteros. En virtud de reunificación familiar, incluso, puede optarse por la categoría migratoria de residente permanente, tal y como lo regula del canon 73 de la misma Ley.

V.- SOBRE EL EXAMEN DE VALIDEZ DE LA CIRCULAR DG-0907-2009. Conforme fuera indicado supra, en el presente proceso se cuestiona la validez de dos conductas formales administrativas dictadas por la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería: la Circular DG-0907-2009 y la resolución No. 135-186118-Administrativa. En relación con la primera, resulta pertinente transcribir su texto que indica: "CONSIDERANDO 1. Que el artículo 1 del Decreto No. 33506-G del 30 de octubre del 2006, publicado en La Gaceta No. 4 del 5 de enero de 2007 (hasta tanto no sea emitido el Reglamento a la Ley de Migración y Extranjería No. 848887) se autoriza al Director General de Migración y Extranjería para que establezca los requisitos que deberán ser exigidos a sus usuarios, para cualquier trámite de visa, residencia, categorías especiales u otros relacionados con sus funciones, según el artículo 13 de la referida Ley. POR TANTO SE ESTABLECE: Que por tiempo indefinido y a partir de esta fecha los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria durante este tiempo, deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar. Cabe mencionar que toda solicitud de residencia realizada desde Costa Rica por un ciudadano de un país del cuarto grupo que se encuentre en condición de turista, deberá ser denegada". La actora cuestiona que la citada circular (que sirvió de fundamento al acto administrativo denegatorio de su solicitud de residencia) violenta los numerales 6, 11, 15, 17 y 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en tanto restringe un derecho otorgado en una norma legal, en este caso el artículo 85 de la Ley No. 8487 citada. Ello toda vez que establece que los extranjeros que pertenezcan al cuarto grupo de países, entre los que se encuentra Cuba, y que permanezcan en costa Rica en calidad de turistas, no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria sino que deberán activar los los mecanismos pertinentes para ingresar al país con la respectiva visa de reunificación familiar. De pleno inicio, debe señalarse que la circular es un acto administrativo interno mediante el cual se puede girar instrucciones respecto a la forma de proceder por parte de los funcionarios, en este caso, en la valoración de las solicitudes de visas de extranjeros pertenecientes al cuarto grupo de países y a los que se les haya concedido visa de turista. En ese tanto, se trata de un lineamiento dirigido a los funcionarios para que sea aplicado al momento en que éstos valoran la procedencia de las gestiones de los particulares cuya situación encuadra en la que ahí se describe. Evidentemente su contenido estará sujeto al Ordenamiento Jurídico y al respeto del Principio de Jerarquía de las Fuentes que se regula en el artículo 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Ello es así toda vez que, por su escala jerárquica dentro del ordenamiento jurídico administrativo, carece de los efectos externos propios de una norma jurídica. Aún y cuando pueda tener efectos sobre terceros de manera refleja, éstos se deben dar en virtud de actos preparatorios dentro del procedimiento, los cuales deben ser acordes con el ordenamiento jurídico y nunca en virtud de la aplicación directa de una directriz sobre la esfera jurídica de los interesados. Ahora bien, para este Tribunal es innegable la competencia del Director General de Migración y Extranjería para dictar circulares o directrices en materia migratoria. Ello deriva no solo de su condición de jerarca supremo de ese órgano, sino además del artículo 13 incisos k) y n), que disponen que "...Serán funciones de la Dirección General, desarrolladas en el contenido de la presente Ley y su Reglamento, las siguientes: (...) k. Ejecutar la política migratoria y velar por el cumplimiento de la legislación correspondiente. n. Aprobar los cambios de categorías y subcategorías migratorias y otorgar las prórrogas de permanencia, de conformidad con la presente Ley y su Reglamento (...) ". Como se desprende de la norma citada, cuenta ese jerarca con la facultad de emitir directrices o circulares como la cuestionada, con la finalidad de lograr una uniforme y eficiente ejecución de la política migratoria del Estado costarricense. Además, el artículo 41 de la indicada Ley establece que "...La Dirección General establecerá las directrices generales de visas de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes, para personas extranjeras provenientes de determinados países o zonas geográficas, con base en los acuerdos y tratados internacionales vigentes y en las razones de seguridad, conveniencia u oportunidad para el Estado costarricense." Esta norma es clara al otorgarle de forma exclusiva al citado Director la potestad de establecer directrices generales de visa de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes, para personas extranjeras provenientes de determinados países o zonas geográficas de acuerdo a los tratados y convenios internacionales vigentes y en razones de seguridad conveniencia u oportunidad para el Estado costarricense . Precisamente, la circular impugnada DG-0907-2009, viene a desarrollar o esa norma al establecer un determinado tratamiento para los extranjeros pertenecientes al cuarto grupo de países, que estén en nuestro país con visa de turista y que soliciten residencia permanente por reunificación familiar. Claro está, ello siempre que su contenido se ajuste al Ordenamiento Jurídico en general y respete, en particular, el Principio de Legalidad y de Jerarquía de las Fuentes, examen al cual se ingresa de seguido.

VI.- En su parte considerativa, la citada circular DG-0907-2009, señala "CONSIDERANDO 1. Que el artículo 1 del Decreto No. 33506-G del 30 de octubre del 2006, publicado en La Gaceta No. 4 del 5 de enero de 2007 (hasta tanto no sea emitido el Reglamento a la Ley de Migración y Extranjería No. 848887) se autoriza al Director General de Migración y Extranjería para que establezca los requisitos que deberán ser exigidos a sus usuarios, para cualquier trámite de visa, residencia, categorías especiales u otros relacionados con sus funciones, según el artículo 13 de la referida Ley. Conforme fuera explicado supra, para este Tribunal el dictado de este tipo de circulares es jurídicamente viable en tanto su contenido se ajuste al bloque de legalidad y a lo dispuesto en fuentes jerárquicas de rango superior. En ese tanto, no se observa en la parte considerativa vicio alguno que deba ser declarado. Por otra parte, el primer párrafo de la parte dispositiva de la circular de marras indica "...Que por tiempo indefinido y a partir de esta fecha los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria durante este tiempo, deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar (...)" La circular cuestionada viene a regular la situación migratoria de extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, lo que resulta conteste con lo dispuesto en el numeral 41 de la citada Ley. En particular, se regula la situación de los extranjeros de ese grupo de países que ingresaron al país en calidad de turistas, señalando de entrada que éstos no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria durante la vigencia de la visa de turista. Esa primera regulación se enmarca dentro de las potestades de aprobar cambios de categorías y subcategorías migratorias, la cual compete al Director General de Migración, de conformidad con los artículos 13 inciso n), 41 y 119, todos de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería. Por otra parte, se ajusta a la prohibición general de cambio de categoría migratoria que establece el ordinal 85 ibídem, según el cual las personas extranjeras admitidas como no residentes no podrán, por regla general, cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras estén en el país. Ahora bien, alega la accionante que la circular desconoce la excepción que contempla el mismo numeral 85, para las personas que se encuentren en los supuestos del artículo 61 de la misma ley. Estima este órgano colegiado que una correcta lectura e interpretación del párrafo primero de la parte dispositiva de esa circular, permiten descartar el vicio que se acusa. El artículo 85 de la Ley No. 8487 señala que "Las personas extranjeras admitidas como no residentes no podrán cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras estén en el país, salvo aquellas comprendidas en el artículo 61 de esta Ley." Es claro que esa norma contempla una excepción, a partir de la cual la prohibición general para que un extranjero admitido como no residente pueda cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras se encuentre en el país, no es aplicable para quienes se encuentren en los supuestos comprendidos en el numeral 61 de la misma Ley de Migración. En lo que interesa, el artículo 61 indica que "La solicitud de ingreso y permanencia legal de las personas extranjeras deberá ser gestionada ante los agentes consulares de Costa Rica, por el interesado o por un representante debidamente autorizado mediante poder especial, de conformidad con los requisitos y las condiciones que determine el Reglamento de esta Ley. De la disposición anterior se exceptúan los siguientes casos, en los cuales la persona interesada deberá presentar su solicitud ante la Dirección General, la cual autorizará la apertura del respectivo expediente: a. Parientes de ciudadanos costarricenses. Se entienden como tales el cónyuge, los hijos, los padres y los hermanos solteros. b. Parientes de personas extranjeras residentes legalmente en el país; se entienden como tales el cónyuge, los hijos y los padres de aquellos. (...)" En general, el supuesto de excepción refiere a los casos de extranjeros que pretendan que se les autorice la permanencia en el país en virtud de la reunificación familiar, tema sobre el cual ya este Tribunal ha tenido la oportunidad de referirse. En este sentido se ha señalado que el Derecho a la Constitución confiere una protección especial a la familia por parte del Estado. Así, el artículo 51 de la Constitución Política establece que la familia es el “elemento natural y fundamento de la sociedad”, definición que también establecen los artículos 16.3 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y 17.1 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Desde ese plano, el núcleo familiar es básico y primordial para el libre desarrollo de la personalidad de las personas que lo conforman o integran, y por consiguiente, sirve de fundamento para todo el conglomerado social. La Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, ha considerado que “...ninguna política pública, instrumento legal o reglamentario o, en general actuación administrativa activa u omisa puede propender a la desintegración o desmembración de la familia como base esencial de la sociedad, puesto que, de lo contrario se transgredería, palmariamente, lo que el Título V de nuestra Carta Política consagra como un Derecho y una Garantía Social y que, de por sí, constituye un valor constitucional que debe orientar la liberta de configuración legislativa y la función o gestión administrativas. Resulta lógico que tanto nacionales como extranjeros que se encuentren en nuestro territorio, tienen el derecho a gozar de la protección de especial, por parte del Estado Costarricense, de la familia como célula básica (artículo 19 de la Constitución Política) y de contar con todos los instrumentos reaccionales para impugnar cualquier actuación formal o material de los poderes públicos tendentes a enervar ese derecho fundamental el que, por esa sola condición, debe tener una eficacia directa e inmediata y una vinculación más fuerte (...) Con base en lo expuesto, se puede afirmar que parte del contenido esencial del derecho a la unidad familiar radica en la protección del individuo frente a la acción arbitraria de las autoridades públicas...”, así como también, en el disfrute mutuo de la convivencia entre padres e hijos, que “... constituye un elemento fundamental en la vida en familia; y que aun cuando los padres estén separados de sus hijos la convivencia familiar debe estar garantizada...” (Sentencia número 2007-05813 de las diez horas treinta y siete minutos del veintisiete de abril del dos mil siete y en sentido similar, la sentencia número 2005-16860 de las catorce horas cuarenta y cuatro minutos del seis de diciembre del dos mil cinco). Desde luego, como todo derecho fundamental su ejercicio y goce no es absoluto ni irrestricto (salvedad hecha del derecho a la vida humana, que es considerado por la Carta Suprema como inviolable según el canon 21), ergo, puede ser sometido a límites o limitaciones razonables y proporcionadas, lo que implica, que dichas restricciones a su ejercicio y disfrute, no pueden hacer nugatorio el contenido esencial de aquellos. Con todo, es claro que como proyección de esa máxima, el Estado debe promover y garantizar la convivencia familiar (Sobre ese particular pueden verse, entre otras, las resoluciones No. 1280-2010, 1419-2010 y 2284-2010, dictadas por este Tribunal a las 07 horas 40 minutos del 12 de abril, 10 horas 30 minutos del 22 de abril y 10 horas 50 minutos del 16 de junio, todas del 2010, respectivamente). Desde esta perspectiva, es innegable el legislador ponderó la reunificación familiar al momento de imponer la excepción a la regla general que aquí nos ocupa. Así las cosas, fue el propio legislador quien reguló en el numeral 85 citado una situación especial en favor de las personas extranjeras que, siendo no residentes, podían optar por una categoría migratoria distinta y más favorable en virtud de su vínculo con costarricense, permitiéndoles cambiarla mientras estuvieran en el país. Todo lo anterior claro está, en el tanto cumplieran con los demás requisitos que el ordenamiento migratorio impone en cada caso concreto. Y es que, en virtud del vínculo con costarricense, el extranjero podría optar, incluso, por una categoría de residente permanente, tal y como lo disponen los artículos 72 y 73 de la ya mencionada Ley No. 8487. Expuesto lo anterior, y tomando en cuenta el rango jerárquico que ocupa la circular impugnada, ésta debe ser interpretada en forma armónica y a la luz de de todo el Ordenamiento Jurídico vigente. Así, debe interpretarse que cuando la circular señala que los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al cuarto grupo de países y permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria durante este tiempo; en realidad reproduce la prohibición general que señala el numeral 85 ya citado. Asimismo, cuando se indica que deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos, iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar; esa disposición debe ser interpretada en absoluto respeto a la excepción que contempla el ordinal 85 ibídem. Esto es, permitiendo que la solicitud de visa por reunificación familiar pueda presentarse directamente en nuestro país. Ello debe ser así porque la excepción que supone el artículo indicado establece un procedimiento especial para el cambio de categorías migratorias en virtud de vínculo costarricense, el cual al estar previsto en una norma de rango legal, no puede ser desconocido por los órganos de la Administración activa. En tanto se interprete así, para este Tribunal, la circular no contradice ni impone requisitos no establecidos en la Ley ni la deroga de forma singular. Nótese que lo que señala es que para el cambio de categoría migratoria deben seguirse los procedimientos establecidos iniciando con la solicitud de visa por reunificación familiar; y se insiste en que el legislador previo un supuesto especial para el cambio de categoría de no residente a residente permanente en virtud de la reunificación familiar, el cual permitiría que la solicitud pudiera ser presentada directamente por el extranjero que se encuentra en el país, sin necesidad de tener que salir de Costa Rica. Así las cosas, se aplicaría la excepción regulada en el ordinal 85. Y es que no se trata de una excepción aislada. Si se analiza con detalle la Ley No. 8487, en realidad son varios los casos en los que se excepcionó la prohibición general de cambio de categoría migratoria mientras estuviera en el país, tomando como parámetro los supuestos de reunificación familiar. Al efecto, basta la lectura de los numerales 78, que en relación con la categoría de residentes temporales señala que " Las personas interesadas deberán tramitar sus solicitudes para obtener los beneficios de esta Ley por medio de los funcionarios consulares acreditados en el extranjero, salvo lo dispuesto en el artículo 61 de esta Ley."; 92, el cual en relación con las categorías migratorias especiales señala que "Las personas extranjeras admitidas bajo las categorías especiales no podrán cambiar de categoría mientras estén en el país, salvo las que cuenten con vínculo conyugal con ciudadano costarricense o vínculo consanguíneo de primer grado con costarricense o salvo lo dispuesto por convenios internacionales vigentes ratificados y en Costa Rica."; 119, cuando indica que "A solicitud de parte, la Dirección General autorizará el cambio de categoría y subcategoría migratoria, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 73 de esta Ley. Sin embargo, en casos muy calificados, el Ministro de Gobernación y Policía, previa recomendación del Consejo, mediante resolución razonada, podrá autorizar cambios de categoría bajo otros supuestos."(el subrayado no corresponde al original). Como se desprende fácilmente, la intención del legislador fue establecer un tratamiento excepcional en favor de los extranjeros que, teniendo una determinada categoría migratoria, podían cambiarla por otra más favorable en virtud de reunificación familiar. Por demás, se trata de una excepción razonable y justificada si se toma en cuenta las características especiales que la rodean. Resulta ilógico que estando legalmente en el país, el extranjero que alega un vínculo con costarricense, tenga que salir de Costa Rica, únicamente para presentar su solicitud de residencia en el consulado del país que se trata. Aunado a lo anterior, tampoco existe impedimento legal alguno para que una solicitud de residencia permanente por reunificación familiar pueda ser presentada por el extranjero directamente en Costa Rica. Nótese que el artículo 198 de la Ley No. 8487 señala que "Tratándose de peticiones para optar por la residencia permanente o temporal, estas normas deberán ser observadas por los agentes migratorios en el exterior, en los casos en que la presentación de la solicitud deba ser desde el extranjero, según la presente Ley, su Reglamento y la política migratoria."; más no impide su presentación en nuestro país. Ello se desprende también de la sentencia No. 116-F-S1-2010, dictada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en la que se indicó que "(...) En esta línea, una de las modalidades mediante las cuales se puede realizar esta solicitud es por reunificación familiar, esto es, cuando un extranjero ha contraído matrimonio con un residente o cuando exista un vínculo familiar con este. En estos supuestos, se ha ampliado la legitimación para presentar la solicitud, siendo que lo puede realizar el cónyuge o familiar, y no necesariamente el extranjero, pero siempre que se cumplan los requisitos que exige el ordenamiento jurídico para la concesión de la visa. (...) Cuando se trata de una visa por reunificación familiar se da una excepción a lo anterior, ya que según lo Empero, ha de entenderse que lo hace por cuenta y en representación del extranjero. Esto se confirma por lo preceptuado en el ordinal 61 de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería, el cual indica que la solicitud de ingreso y permanencia de las personas extranjeras, cuando se trate de parientes de ciudadanos costarricenses, deberá ser presentada por “la persona interesada” ante la Dirección General. Queda claro, en consecuencia, que el solicitante de la visa, aún por reunificación familiar, es el extranjero. (...) Si bien para la reunificación familiar, se dispone que quien deberá presentar la petición es el pariente costarricense, esto responde a la circunstancia de que, en la mayoría de los casos, es quien se encuentra en el país, y está en mejores condiciones para realizar el acto material de presentar la solicitud. Empero, ello no implica que el “solicitante” no sea el extranjero que requiere la condición de residente provisional. (...) Todo lo indicado viene a confirmar que, al utilizarse la referencia “el solicitante”, aún en el caso de reunificación, en donde los documentos son presentados por un tercero, debe entenderse que se refiere al extranjero, quien requiere la residencia provisional (...)" Así las cosas, es claro que si el extranjero con categoría de turista se encuentra legalmente en Costa Rica y cuenta con un vínculo con costarricense que le permita optar por una categoría migratoria más favorable, al amparo del numeral 85 señala puede presentar directamente su solicitud ante la Dirección General de Migración de Extranjería. Ello no solo porque la ley le habilita expresamente tal conducta, sino además porque, está en las mejores condiciones para presentar directamente su solicitud. Debe tenerse presente que, en todo caso, ya este Tribunal ha señalado entre otras en la sentencia N o. 2817 -2009 , de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 14 de diciembre de 2009, que en los procedimientos para la solicitudes de residencia para la permanencia legal en el país, existen dos fases o etapas diferentes "(...) una es la que podría denominarse de aportación y verificación de requisitos previos (como la solicitud, el motivo de ésta, los documentos necesarios entre otros) y la otra sería que con base en todos los requisitos presentados, la Administración Migratoria entre al análisis de la oportunidad y conveniencia de otorgar la solicitud del estatus migratorio, es decir, resolver sobre si la gestión migratoria se ajusta a los presupuestos de fondo establecidos en la Ley o en las políticas migratorias vigentes al momento de analizar la solicitud de estatus migratorio (...) es claro que existen dos etapas; la primera de aportación y verificación de requisitos previos y la segunda de análisis de los presupuestos de fondo y de la política migratoria. La primera se caracteriza en que la Administración Migratoria, recibe la documentación necesaria y simplemente verifica si el solicitante cumplió como todos los requisitos previos dispuestos en la normativa migratoria, como sería el formulario de solicitud, el escrito en el que se indique el motivo o causa que se alega para la gestión de residencia permanente, certificaciones de nacimiento, estado civil y cualquier otra que ayude a las autoridades a determinar posteriormente que los presupuestos de fondo se cumplen plenamente. La segunda, depende totalmente de que la primera etapa descrita anteriormente, se cumpla, ya que con base en la documentación presentada la Administración Migratoria, podrá entrar a conocer por el fondo, y dentro de sus potestades con elementos discrecionales, si la solicitud de residencia permanente es pertinente. (...) Estas normas, describen de manera detallada la primera etapa que hemos venido residencia para la permanencia legal en el país. Por lo que en resumen, esta primera fase, tiene las siguientes particularidades: a) Lo primero que debe verificar la Administración Migratoria, es que el solicitante que realice la gestión estando en territorio costarricense, se encuentre en el país de forma legal, ejemplo con su visa de ingreso vigente, tal y como lo establece el citado artículo 62. Si el solicitante se encuentra en el país de forma irregular o ilegal, no se cumple este primer requisito de admisibilidad de la gestión migratoria, y lo que corresponde por parte de las autoridades correspondiente es declarar inadmisible la solicitud, sin entrar ni siguiera a considerar la presentación de requisitos previos y mucho menos podría entrar a considerar los presupuestos de fondo, como sería en el caso que nos ocupa, el vínculo familiar (...)" Evidentemente la circular impugnada regula aspectos relacionados con la primera etapa del procedimiento descrito en el fallo citado. Ya luego, las autoridades migratorias determinarán la procedencia legal de su solicitud y decidirán en definitiva sobre su permanencia en nuestro país. Con base en todo lo expuesto, es criterio de este Tribunal que la parte considerativa y el párrafo primero de la parte dispositiva de circular analizada no resulta contrario al ordenamiento jurídico en el tanto se interprete de conformidad con la excepción que prevee el artículo 85 de la citada Ley No. 8485, esto es que uno de los procedimientos para que el extranjero pueda optar por un cambio de categoría migratoria es precisamente la excepción mencionada y en virtud de la cual podría presentar la solicitud directamente desde Costa Rica, si ésta es presentada en tiempo.

VII.- Resta analizar el segundo párrafo de la citada circular, que señala " (...) Cabe mencionar que toda solicitud de residencia realizada desde Costa Rica por un ciudadano de un país del cuarto grupo que se encuentre en condición de turista, deberá ser denegada". Con base en los argumentos expuestos en el Considerando anterior, este Tribunal debe anular el párrafo indicado. Ello toda vez que, en ese punto, la citada circular resulta contraria a lo dispuesto en el artículo 85 de la Ley No. 8487. Según se explicó, esa norma excepcionó la prohibición general de cambio de categoría migratoria mientras estuviera en el país, cuando el extranjero estuviera en los supuestos de reunificación familiar. Desde esta perspectiva, es evidente que cuando se señala que "toda solicitud de residencia realizada desde Costa Rica por un ciudadano de un país del cuarto grupo que se encuentre en condición de turista, deberá ser denegada", se desconoce abiertamente el tratamiento especial que el legislador concedió en estos casos y se impone al extranjero una obligación contra legem. Esto porque, si la solicitud de residencia se presenta en tiempo y se fundamenta en los supuestos que regula el artículo 61 de la Ley de Migración y Extranjería (hoy derogada), el extranjero con categoría migratoria de no residente si puede presentar una solicitud de cambio de categoría migratoria directamente ante la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, sin necesidad de salir del país. Ya luego vendrá el estudio técnico y legal correspondiente para determinar la procedencia de la solicitud. Al señalar que "toda solicitud de residencia realizada desde Costa Rica por un ciudadano de un país del cuarto grupo que se encuentre en condición de turista, deberá ser denegada", la citada circular violenta el Principio de Legalidad y de Jerarquía de las Fuentes, a la vez que genera incerteza e inseguridad jurídica tanto en los funcionarios migratorios como en los extranjeros que califiquen en el supuesto de excepción que establece el numeral 85 indicado. Lo anterior toda vez que pese a que la norma legal es clara al permitir que el extranjero presente su solicitud directamente ante la Dirección General de Migración, luego por una circular que resulta también de cumplimiento obligatorio para los funcionarios, se impone un nuevo criterio que desconoce la excepción legalmente prevista. Así, lejos de uniformar criterios para una eficiente ejecución de la política migratoria, por medio de la circular se violenta el bloque de legalidad vigente con la incerteza jurídica que ello puede provocar. Por lo expuesto, reitera este Tribunal que el último párrafo de la circular DG-0907-2009 es contrario a derecho en tanto lo ahí regulado deja sin efecto una excepción prevista en una disposición legal como lo es el mencionado numeral 85. En respeto a la jerarquía de las fuentes del ordenamiento jurídico resulta ilegítimo pretender desconocer preceptos legales que regulan una situación excepcional en favor de algunos extranjeros a través de una conducta formal administrativa inferior y de eficacia estrictamente interna como lo es una circular. En estos términos, se declara la nulidad absoluta de párrafo segundo de la circular impugnada. La representación estatal señaló que en caso de que este Tribunal decidiera desaplicar el Reglamento No. 32245-G o la circular impugnada, debía tenerse por interpuesta la excepción de incompetencia. En el presente asunto, no se está desaplicando el Reglamento de cita. Lo que se ha resuelto es declara la nulidad absoluta del párrafo segundo de la parte dispositiva de la circular impugnada, lo que resulta de competencia exclusiva de esta Jurisdicción, de conformidad con el artículo 49 constitucional y los numerales 1, 2, 36 y 42 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Ahora bien, es menester aclarar que este Tribunal no desconoce la facultad concedida al Director General de Migración en relación con la emisión de directrices y circulares tendentes a la correcta interpretación y aplicación de las normas vigentes en materia de política migratoria. Dicha atribución deriva, incluso, de la propia Ley No. 8487, según fuera explicado en los Considerandos previos. Sin embargo, el dictado de estas conductas formales administrativas está sometido a los límites que el propio ordenamiento jurídico le impone, lo que se incumplió en el caso concreto, toda vez que a través de la citada circular se dejan sin efecto la excepción regulada en el precepto 85 ibídem, lo que excede de la regulación complementaria respecto de la ley, que debe caracterizar este tipo de actos. A juicio de este órgano colegiado, la correcta interpretación del artículo citado impone concluir que el extranjero que cuente con una categoría de no residente puede solicitar el cambio de categoría migratoria mientras estén en el país, si está comprendido en los supuestos del artículo 61 de esa Ley, esto es, si tiene vínculo con costarricense. En este sentido, por estar en los supuestos de reunificación familiar debe aplicarse la excepción que el ordinal 85 establece para presentar su solicitud, ya que el legislador le permitió presentarla directamente. En este tanto, la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería no tiene potestad para rechazar de plano esa gestión solo por haber sido presentada directamente desde nuestro país. Por el contrario, debe analizar su admisibilidad así como los presupuestos de forma y fondo requeridos en cada caso concreto y pronunciarse conforme a derecho corresponda. Por las razones expuestas, debe declararse la nulidad absoluta del segundo párrafo de la parte dispositiva de la circular impugnada.

VIII.- SOBRE EL EXAMEN DE VALIDEZ DE LA RESOLUCIÓN 135-186118-ADMINISTRATIVA. La parte actora cuestiona también la validez de la citada resolución, mediante la cual se denegó su solicitud de residencia. En lo fundamental, estima que la citada conducta formal administrativa es ilegal porque aplica la circular DG-0907-2009 citada y desconoce la excepción que expresamente establece el artículo 85 de la Ley No. 8487. Luego del examen de validez correspondiente, este Tribunal debe anular la citada resolución por lo que de seguido se expone. De la escasa motivación de la conducta formal cuya nulidad se recrimina, pueden desprenderse como motivos para denegar a la accionante la solicitud de residencia permanente en virtud de vínculo con costarricense los siguientes: " (...)Que mediante autorización de la visa, por ser su ingreso restringido por su nacionalidad; otorgada por el Director General de Migración de oficio DGVR.480-2009, de 16 de FEBRERO de 2009, se le especifica a la interesada IANELA ARZOLA MORELL, que su permanencia será de treinta días naturales, como turista vencida la cuál se procederá a la aplicación de la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería y deberá abandonar el país, así mismo se le indica que dicha autorización no faculta a la misma a realizar ningún tipo de reclamación de familiares (...) Que mediante circular DG-907-2009, de 16 de marzo el señor director el Lic. Mario Zamora Cordero, establece que las nacionalidades pertenecientes al cuarto grupo de conformidad con las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria, deberán accionar los mecanismos pertinentes para ingresar al país con la respectiva visa de condición de reunificación familiar. (...) Que al no utilizar las disposiciones establecidas de conformidad con las directrices generales de visa de ingreso y permanencia para no residentes . Esta dirección no considera procedente otorgar la permanencia solicitada por el interesado hasta tanto no se utilice los medios establecidos para reclamar a sus familiares (...)" Conforme fuera ampliamente concreto la mencionada circular fue interpretada indebidamente por el operador jurídico, lo que facilitó que el acto impugnado resultara contrario a derecho. Conforme al párrafo primero de la citada circular, "...por tiempo indefinido y a partir de esta fecha los extranjeros cuyas nacionalidades pertenecen al Cuarto Grupo establecido por las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas, no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria durante este tiempo, deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar (...)". Según fuera explicado, a juicio de este órgano colegiado este texto, por sí, no resulta ilegal, en el tanto se interprete a la luz de la excepción que contempla el numeral 85 de la Ley No. 8487. Así, en una correcta dimensión debe interpretarse que si el extranjero con visa turista se encuentra en los supuestos del numeral 61, esto es, reunificación familiar; si puede cambiar de categoría migratoria mientras se encuentre el país y presentar directamente su solicitud de residente permanente (sin tener que salir del país) ante la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería para su posterior estudio y resolución, precisamente porque el es el procedimientos que, en ese supuesto de excepción, establece el numeral 85 indicado. Sin embargo, al aplicar la circular al caso concreto, la conducta impugnada incurre en varios vicios. Aunque se fundamenta en la circular parte de consideraciones no indicadas en ésta. Así por ejemplo, señala que mediante circular DG-907-2009, de 16 de marzo el señor director el Lic. Mario Zamora Cordero, establece que las nacionalidades pertenecientes al cuarto grupo de conformidad con las Directrices de Ingreso a Costa Rica, que permanezcan en el país en calidad de turistas no podrán cambiar su categoría migratoria, deberán accionar los mecanismos pertinentes para ingresar al país con la respectiva visa de condición de reunificación familiar (el subrayado no es del original). La circular lo que señala es que para cambiar de categoría migratoria " (..) deberá hacerlo mediante los procedimientos ya establecidos iniciando con una solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar (...)". Si se observa con cuidado la interpretación en el caso concreto va más allá de la propia circular: concluye que debe ingresar al país con la condición de visa de reunificación familiar, lo que supondría que el extranjero, debe salir del país, gestionar la visa por reunificación familiar y cuando la tenga, ingresar nuevamente a Costa Rica. Ello va más allá de la propia circular, que lo que exige es que el cambio de categoría migratoria debe gestionarse por los procedimientos ya establecidos ( uno de los cuales sería el supuesto de excepción del numeral 85 citado) iniciando con la solicitud de visa en condición de reunificación familiar ( y conforme al numeral 85, esa solicitud puede hacerla directamente el extranjero, sin necesidad de salir del país, si se encuentra en los supuestos del artículo 61 de la misma Ley). Pero además, al interpretar indebidamente la circular, el acto impugnado desaplica directamente un precepto legislativo como lo es el supuesto de excepción que contempla el numeral 85 ibídem. Por otra parte, se desprende tanto de conducta impugnada como de los hechos que se han tenido por acreditados que a la accionante se le otorgó una visa de turista por treinta días naturales, que ingresó al país el 24 de abril de 2009 y que, dentro del plazo concedido, sea el 22 de mayo de 2009, solicitó cambio de condición migratoria por encontrarse en un supuesto del artículo 61, en virtud de ser hija de ciudadano costarricense, condición que también se ha acreditado. Así las cosas, es criterio de este Tribunal que la demandante cumplía con las condiciones necesarias que le permitían acogerse al supuesto de excepción que contempla el propio numeral 85 y presentar directamente su solicitud de residencia permanente mientras estaba en el país. Por ende, a diferencia de lo expuesto por la resolución recurrida, sí utilizó un medio establecido para reclamar a sus familiares, precisamente el supuesto de excepción que contempla el numeral 85 indicado. Ya luego, el análisis técnico y jurídico correspondientes determinarán la procedencia o no de la solicitud de residencia gestionada. Pero debe entrar a conocerse la petición de la demandante, porque se insiste, utilizó el medio establecido, de forma excepcional por el canon 85. Por demás, presentó la gestión dentro del plazo que señala el artículo 87 del mismo cuerpo normativo. Es claro para este Tribunal que la conducta impugnada aplicó directamente el segundo párrafo de la circular en análisis, el cual ya fue anulado, precisamente porque desconoce el supuesto de excepción que regula el numeral 85 de la Ley No. 8487. Así las cosas, de conformidad con los artículos 132, 133, 136, 158, 160, 165, 166, y 223 de la Ley General de la Administración Público, la resolución impugnada resulta contraria de derecho y debe declararse su nulidad absoluta.

IX.- Por otra parte, habiéndose determinado la infracción sustancial al ordenamiento jurídico al disponer el rechazo de la solicitud de residencia permanente por vínculo con padre costarricense que fuera presentada por la actora, por las razones ya comentadas ut supra, lo debido es disponer la nulidad de la resolución 135-186118-Administrativa, de las 13 horas 04 minutos del 24 de julio del 2009 por los motivos ya explicitados en los apartes previos de este fallo. Cabe precisar no obstante, la declaratoria de nulidad que por este medio se dispone conlleva, de conformidad con el numeral 171 de la citada Ley General de la Administración Pública retrotraer el procedimiento a la etapa previa o aquella en la que se ha establecido el vicio. Esto implica que debe la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería entrar a analizar la solicitud de cambio de condición migratoria a residente permanente por vínculo con padre costarricense presentada directamente por la accionante y resolver por el mérito su procedencia o no según corresponda. Para tales efectos debe considerar los requisitos establecidos en normas legales o supralegales, así como su desarrollo en los reglamentos ejecutivos dictados en la materia, circulares y todos los aspectos relevantes e inherentes a ese trámite que, dentro del marco de sus potestades, le han sido otorgados por el Ordenamiento Jurídico. En particular, debe acatar el supuesto de excepción que contempla el artículo 85 de la Ley No. 8487 y ponderar las consideraciones que en esta sentencia se han externado. Ello a efectos de que decida, mediante acto debidamente motivado, si resulta jurídicamente procedente la solicitud de residencia por vínculo con costarricense y reunificación familiar que ha sido peticionada. En ese sentido, resulta menester señalar que, en principio, resulta improcedente que este Tribunal ordene a la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, que proceda al otorgamiento de residencia a favor de la accionante porque lo solicitado implicaría una sustitución directa en el ejercicio de las potestades discrecionales de la Administración activa, en este caso de la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería, lo que escapa de la competencia de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa.”