What Foreign Employees Should Know After an Unjustified Rejection Under Law 18.156

Foreign professionals and employees who contributed to a Chilean AFP often assume that a rejection issued by the Chilean AFP companies is the end of the process. Fortunately, that is not always the case.

When an AFP repeatedly rejects a payout application - despite the affiliate meeting the legal requirements established in Law No. 18.156 - Chilean law provides a constitutional mechanism to challenge arbitrary or illegal decisions, the so-called Recurso de Protección (Constitutional Protection Action).

When can a "Recurso de Protección" be appropriate?

Law No. 18.156 establishes the legal requirements allowing certain foreign employees to recover the pension funds accumulated in Chile instead of remaining within the Chilean pension system.

In practice, however, some AFPs reject applications based on administrative interpretations or internal criteria that are not expressly established by law. Examples include:

• Requesting legal documents not required by Law 18.156.

• Applying inconsistent standards between similar cases (legalization process).

• Imposing additional evidentiary burdens beyond the legal requirements.

• Repeatedly requesting new documentation without a legal basis.

• Converting administrative guidelines into mandatory legal requirements.

When these actions effectively prevent an eligible foreign worker from recovering their own pension savings, it may constitute an arbitrary or illegal administrative act affecting constitutional rights. Recent judicial decisions have recognized that AFPs cannot create additional legal requirements beyond those established by the legislature.

Which constitutional right is being protected?

A "Recurso de Protección" is based on Article 20 of the Political Constitution of Chile, which allows any person whose constitutional rights have been unlawfully or arbitrarily affected to seek immediate judicial protection.

In AFP withdrawal cases under Law 18.156, the legal argument is generally focused on the violation of the applicant's constitutional right to property over their pension funds (Article 19 No. 24 of the Constitution), rather than simply disagreeing with the AFP's administrative reasoning.

The courts are not asked to reinterpret pension policy. Instead, they are asked to determine whether the AFP acted arbitrarily or illegally by refusing to recognize rights that the law already grants.

You do not need a lawyer to file the action

One fact that surprises many applicants is that a lawyer is not legally required to submit a "Recurso de Protección".

Although professional legal assistance can be valuable—particularly in complex cases involving repeated AFP objections—the action may also be presented personally by the affected individual.

Applicants generally have two practical options:

• Submit the filing electronically through the Chilean Judiciary's online platform using their ClaveÚnica issued by the Civil Registry (Registro Civil).

• Send the filing by email to the Court of Appeals (Corte de Apelaciones) with territorial jurisdiction according to the affiliate's last registered address, following the instructions published by the corresponding court.

This makes constitutional protection accessible even to applicants who no longer reside in Chile.

The 30-day deadline is critical

Perhaps the most important aspect of a "Recurso de Protección" is its strict filing deadline.

The action must generally be filed within 30 days from the most recent AFP rejection or from the act that gives rise to the constitutional infringement.

Waiting too long may result in the court declaring the action inadmissible solely because the legal time limit has expired, regardless of the merits of the case.

For this reason, anyone receiving a new rejection should carefully preserve:

• the AFP rejection letter;

• the notification date;

• all supporting documents previously submitted; and

• the chronology of communications with the AFP.

What should the court evaluate?

The central question before the Court of Appeals is usually not whether the AFP prefers additional documentation.

Instead, the court evaluates questions such as:

• Did the applicant satisfy the legal requirements established by Law 18.156?

• Did the AFP rely on requirements that are not contained in the law?

• Was the AFP's decision reasonable, lawful and properly justified?

• Has the AFP's conduct unlawfully interfered with the applicant's constitutional property rights?

If the court concludes that the AFP acted arbitrarily or illegally, it may order the AFP to adopt the measures necessary to restore the applicant's constitutional rights. Chilean appellate decisions have emphasized that AFPs cannot replace statutory requirements with internally created conditions or unsupported assumptions.

Every rejection deserves careful legal analysis

Not every AFP rejection automatically justifies a constitutional action. Some applications are denied because essential legal requirements have not yet been demonstrated.

However, where the applicant has complied with Law 18.156 and the AFP continues to impose additional administrative obstacles, a "Recurso de Protección" may become an effective judicial remedy to protect constitutional rights.

For that reason, each rejection should be analyzed individually, paying particular attention to:

• the legal grounds cited by the AFP;

• whether those grounds actually appear in Law 18.156;

• existing judicial precedents; and

• the 30-day filing deadline.

How MEFE Consult Can Help

At MEFE Consult, we specialize in assisting foreign professionals seeking the recovery of their AFP funds under Law 18.156.

We help clients:

• evaluate whether the AFP's objections have a legal basis;

• determine whether constitutional rights may have been affected;

• organize the documentary evidence needed to support a judicial action; and

• coordinate the preparation of a Recurso de Protección when appropriate.

If your AFP payout application has repeatedly rejected despite meeting the legal requirements, the administrative process may not be the end of the road. Chilean constitutional law provides a judicial mechanism designed to protect individuals against arbitrary administrative decisions—and strict deadlines make early action essential.