Digital Nomad Visa Case Study Across Jurisdictions
By: IAG Global Migration Section’s Katarzyna Gospodarowicz[1] and Claire Pratt[2],[3]
What is a Digital Nomad Visa?
Digital nomad visas are built on the assumption that a worker’s place of performance and place of residence are intentionally aligned but that this has a variance from the location of employer incorporation. In other words, these visas allow a person to live and work in the host country, but only work for a foreign labour market. Typically, digital nomad visas: 1) explicitly permit remote work for foreign employers or clients; 2) require a minimum level of foreign income and, in some cases, proof of a foreign employer; and 3) provide a single, clear immigration status that authorises both residence and the remote work activities. These visas are often (although not always) of temporary duration and accompanied by income tax incentives/concessions/exemptions – the primary objective is to promote the country of residence benefitting from an individual’s engagement in the local community and economic contribution via their expenditure on leisure, hospitality and services.
This article reviews several jurisdictions that offer digital nomad or similar visas, compares their approaches, and outlines alternatives in countries that do not have purpose-built digital nomad schemes.
Spain’s Digital Nomad Visa
In Spain, the international teleworking visa, commonly known as the “digital nomad visa”, was introduced under Law 28/2022 (the Startup Act) to attract international talent and promote the digital economy. It is aimed at non-EU nationals who wish to reside in Spain while working remotely for companies located/registered outside the country, enabling lawful residence without full integration into the local labour market.
The scheme covers both employees and self-employed individuals. Employees must demonstrate an existing relationship with a foreign employer and authorisation to telework. Self-employed applicants may serve international clients and, to a limited extent, Spanish companies, provided the latter do not account for more than 20% of their total professional activity.
Applications may be submitted from abroad via a Spanish consulate or from within Spain after a lawful entry as a visitor. The initial visa is valid for one year and may be converted into a residence authorisation of up to three years, renewable for a total stay of approximately five years, offering a clear pathway to longer-term residence.
Applicants must demonstrate:
- a monthly income equivalent to at least 200% of the Spanish national minimum wage,
- a prior professional relationship of at least three months with their employer or clients, and
- that the foreign company has been operational for a minimum of one year.
In addition, they must hold a university degree or have at least three years of relevant professional experience. The visa also permits family reunification: spouses and dependent children may accompany the main applicant, subject to additional financial requirements.
Overall, Spain’s digital nomad visa offers a relatively flexible and competitive framework that reflects the broader global trend of adapting immigration systems to attract highly skilled remote workers.
Portugal’s Digital Nomad Visas
In 2022, Portugal introduced a specific regime for digital nomads, commonly referred to as the “D8 Visa”. The regime provides for two distinct modalities.
The first is the temporary stay visa, which is designed to allow entry into, and stay in, a Portuguese territory for a period of less than one year for the purpose of carrying out employed or self-employed professional activity, performed remotely for individuals or legal entities with their domicile or registered office outside Portugal. The visa is granted for the duration of the intended stay and is valid for multiple entries. The period of stay may be extended for up to a total of one year.
The second is the residence visa, which is granted to employed workers and independent professionals for the purpose of carrying out professional activity performed remotely for individuals or legal entities with their domicile or registered office outside Portugal. The applicant must demonstrate the existence of an employment relationship or service agreement, as applicable. This visa is designed to allow initial entry into a Portuguese territory for the purpose of then applying for a residence permit on arrival. The visa is valid for two entries. It also entitles the holder to remain in Portugal for a period of four months.
Once granted, the temporary residence permit is valid for two years, renewable for successive periods of three years. Under both modalities, the applicant must demonstrate sufficient means of subsistence, as defined as four times the Portuguese national minimum wage, as well as valid health insurance.
Poland’s Remote Worker Scheme
Unlike some European jurisdictions, Poland has not yet introduced a separate digital nomad visa. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to work remotely from Poland for foreign entities. The current legal system provides for several alternative routes to regularise residence and professional activity, although these were not designed with mobile remote workers in mind.
The key factors are having an appropriate basis for residence and regularising employment. As a rule, obtaining a temporary residence and work permit requires a link to a Polish employer. However, this structure does not correspond to the specific nature of digital nomads, who are usually employed by foreign entities or provide services to clients outside Poland. In practice, this necessitates an indirect adjustment of legal status.
In recent years, an increasingly common basis for residence has been the conduct of business activity in Poland (so‑called self‑employment). Foreign nationals typically use a type D national visa to enter the country and commence business activity, and then apply for a temporary residence permit for the purpose of conducting that activity. Obtaining such a permit requires, among other things, demonstrating the viability of the business, possession of financial resources, and the generation (or potential to generate) of sufficient income.
A foreign national may run a sole proprietorship or operate through a company and apply for regularisation of their stay on this basis. This model allows for the provision of services to foreign clients but entails tax and social insurance obligations, as well as the requirement to actually conduct business activities within Poland.
Alternatively, citizens of selected countries may benefit from visa‑free travel or short‑term visas allowing stays of up to 90 days within any 180‑day period (e.g. type C). It should be emphasised, however, that these grounds for residence alone do not, as a rule, entitle the holder to work in Poland without obtaining the appropriate permit.
The Polish approach therefore remains conservative and does not yet align with the global trend of creating specialised programmes to attract remote workers. As a result, digital nomads must adapt to the existing, more formalised legal framework, which does not always correspond to the specific nature of the mobile working model.
Ireland’s Remote Worker Scheme
Ireland similarly does not offer a digital nomad visa, despite a 2022 Eurofound case study indicating that it recorded the third‑highest share of remote working in the EU following the pandemic. Nonetheless, remote workers retain a number of options should they wish to relocate there.
EU, EEA and Swiss citizens face the easiest route, thanks to freedom of movement arrangements established under the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht. The gradual phasing out of internal borders within the EU under principles established by that Treaty was initiated under the Schengen Agreements and culminated in the adoption of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU. On this basis, EU, EEA and Swiss citizens can live and work in Ireland without a visa or work permit.
Non‑EU citizens, on the other hand, face a more complicated route to working remotely in Ireland. One option is Stamp 0, a temporary residence permission for individuals who wish to live in Ireland without taking up local employment. To obtain this permission, applicants must apply to Irish Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) before entering the country and demonstrate: a minimum annual income of €50,000; private medical insurance valid in Ireland; proof of remote employment; a written commitment not to take up work in Ireland for Irish employers; and evidence of accommodation. Stamp 0 is usually granted for one year and can be renewed.
It is also possible to apply for a tourist visa (short stay C), which allows a stay of no longer than ninety days. Although remote work is not officially recognised on this visa, many short‑term visitors continue their foreign employment while in Ireland. Alternatively, where an applicant works for a global company with an Irish presence, it may be possible to qualify for an intra‑company transfer permit.
Although Ireland does not have a dedicated digital nomad visa, it therefore remains possible for some remote workers to establish a lawful and reasonably stable base in the country.
The United States – the Most Restrictive Jurisdiction
The United States does not have an official digital nomad scheme. Remote workers are constrained by the U.S. definition of “employment”, which covers “any service or labour performed by an employee for an employer within the United States”. In practice, this means that any labour (even de minimis) performed physically in the U.S., regardless of the location of the employer or where payment is made, is prohibited without proper authorisation. The consequences for remote workers can be severe, including loss of status, future inadmissibility, and bars to re‑entry. In short, there is no purpose‑built remote worker visa in the U.S.
Travellers often turn to visitor visas (B‑1) or, for eligible nationals, ESTA under the Visa Waiver Program. However, these categories do not permit ongoing, productive work. They are intended for narrowly defined business activities such as attending meetings, negotiating contracts, and participating in conferences or seminars, or for functions that are necessary and incidental to international trade.[4] Moreover, admission as a visitor is highly discretionary. It is up to the individual U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the port of entry (typically the first arrival airport in the U.S., a pre-clearance inspection location, or a land border) on each trip to determine whether the traveller’s proposed activities and length of stay are permissible. In practice, B‑1 status or ESTA may be the “least bad” option used by some digital nomads, but they are not a correct legal fit where someone is performing ongoing, productive work while in the U.S. True digital nomad schemes, by contrast, eliminate this ambiguity.
Other options require a significantly greater commitment from international employers and may not align with typical digital‑nomad business models, including:
- L‑1 intracompany transferee visas, which require a qualifying U.S. company in a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or branch relationship and prior non‑U.S. employment with that corporate group.
- E‑1/E‑2 treaty trader or investor visas, available where the nomad is from a treaty country and is willing to create, capitalise, and actively direct a real U.S. business engaged in substantial trade or investment that is at least 50% owned by nationals of that same treaty country.
- O‑1 extraordinary ability visas, which can accommodate project‑based or entrepreneurial work at a high level but always require a U.S. employer or agent.
- Other common work visas (such as H‑1B), which require a bona fide U.S. job offer from a U.S. employer, with defined duties and, often, a minimum or prevailing wage, conditions that do not typically match a digital nomad’s independent remote work for foreign employers.
As recently as 2023, CBP has indicated that the Department of Homeland Security is considering policies regarding incidental employment (for example, remote employees checking emails or influencers entering the U.S. in B‑1 status). However, the current U.S. policy environment is unlikely to produce a more permissive scheme in the near term. Until any such changes materialise, remote workers need to be exceedingly careful when travelling to the U.S. while engaged in work, even for non‑U.S. employers.
The United Kingdom (U.K.) – Slightly More Forgiving
Unlike many European countries, the U.K. has not introduced a standalone immigration route for remote workers employed overseas. Instead, it relies on its existing visitor and work visa framework, supplemented by limited concessions for incidental remote working.
Most digital nomads enter the U.K. under a Standard Visitor visa or, for visa‑exempt nationals, with an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA). Within this framework, visitors may undertake incidental remote work such as checking emails, attending virtual meetings, and handling tasks linked to overseas employment. However, remote work cannot be the primary purpose of the visit. Individuals must not enter the U.K. intending to work full‑time, even for a non‑U.K. employer. Stays are limited to a maximum of six months, with no in‑country extension available under this route.
The visitor framework has several defining features. Stays are short‑term, typically capped at six months and subject to restrictions on frequent and/or repeat visits to prevent de facto residence. There is also a clear limitation on purpose: remote work must remain incidental to the visit, not the main reason for being in the U.K.
Permitted activities must fall within delineated categories, similar to the U.S. visitor rules. These include general business activities such as attending meetings, conferences and interviews; negotiating and signing contracts; and carrying out site visits and fact‑finding exercises. Intra‑corporate activities are also allowed, including advising or consulting with a U.K. branch and troubleshooting or sharing expertise within a corporate group. Work‑related training is permissible in certain limited circumstances, including receiving training from a U.K. company or delivering limited training where it forms part of an overseas contractual arrangement.
There is also a specific category relating to the manufacture and supply of goods. This includes installing, dismantling, repairing, servicing or advising on machinery, equipment, computer software or hardware, as well as training U.K.‑based workers to deliver these services. Such activities require the existence of a formal contract of purchase, supply or lease with a U.K. organisation. Additionally, the overseas employer must be either the direct manufacturer or supplier, or bound by a contractual after‑sales or warranty agreement established at the time of the original sale or lease. Sub-contracted installation and maintenance service providers can rarely benefit from this category creating challenges with compliant UK entry.
In conclusion, the U.K. does not offer a digital nomad visa. Remote workers must rely on visitor permissions, which limit both the duration of stay and the scope of permitted work. For those seeking flexibility and short‑term access, the visitor route may be sufficient, but it does not provide a long‑term solution for digital nomads.
Conclusion
Digital nomads sit at the intersection of mobility and work, illustrating how modern careers no longer fit neatly within a single country’s borders. For governments, they are not a loophole to be feared but a resource that, if channelled through clear and lawful frameworks, can bring skills, spending and cross‑border connections without displacing local labour. The jurisdictions that will benefit most are those that recognise this flexibility, accept that “work” now travels with the worker, and design visa options that harness, rather than ignore, the digital nomad reality.
AI DISCLAIMER:
Parts of this article were drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. All legal analysis, citations, and conclusions have been independently reviewed and verified by human attorneys before publication, and any errors are the responsibility of the authors, not the AI.
[1] Katarzyna Gospodarowicz is Attorney-at-law and Partner co-managing the labour law department at Schampera, Dubis, Zając i Wspólnicy sp. j., a law firm operating within the international Schindhelm network. Her expertise focuses on advising businesses on the design and optimisation of employment structures, as well as compliance with labour and social security law. She also advises on HR compliance and matters relating to global mobility. She supports businesses during inspections by the National Labour Inspectorate and the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), represents them in court proceedings, conducts audits and training sessions, minimising legal risks and supporting the achievement of business objectives. Furthermore, she is the author of numerous publications on labour law and co-author of books on whistleblower protection. She also contributes to Poland’s leading newspapers, such as Rzeczpospolita, Puls Biznesu and Gazeta Prawna.
[2] Claire S. Pratt is Principal & Managing Attorney at Jewell Stewart Pratt Beckerson & Carr PC in San Francisco, California, USA. She is certified as a Legal Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California. She practices primarily business- and employment-related immigration, representing a variety of clients from Silicon Valley startups to public companies. Claire is an invited speaker at regional, national, and international conferences and has written several published articles in her 20 years of practice. She currently serves on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Department of State Liaison Committee as Vice Chair, is Past Chair of the Northern California Chapter of AILA, and previously served as AILA NorCal’s liaison to the USCIS San Francisco Field Office for many years.
[3] Special thanks to these IAG members for their contributions to this Case Study: Donal Boylan, Boylan & Dodd (Ireland), Adam Haines, Aaron & Partners, LLP (U.K.), Fernando Lozado, Inva BPO (Spain, Portugal). Additional thanks to the IAG Board and Sacha Wooldridge, Birketts LLP, for their editorial review.
[4] This article does not delve into the B-1 sub-category of “B-1 in lieu of H” which is controversial and disfavoured, but may offer an additional path under the right circumstances. See 9 FAM 402.2-5(F) (U) Applicants Normally Classifiable H-1 or H-3 (B in Lieu of H); see also Chris Beckerson, Implications of the Infosys settlement for B-1 visas (2013) (available at https://jspvisa.com/2013-11-11212013-implications-of-the-infosys-settlement-for-b-1-visas/) and Claire Pratt, Business Travel After the Hyundai Factory Raid: Lessons for Employers and Business Travelers (2026) (available at https://jspvisa.com/2025-9-10-business-travel-after-the-hyundai-factory-raid-lessons-for-employers-and-business-travelers/).