Can You Re-enter Guatemala After Being Deported or Refused Entry? The Published Ban Is 2 Years, or 5 After a Court-Ordered Expulsion

Four different things get called being banned from Guatemala, they are governed by different instruments, and they carry different periods — including two that are written down and almost never quoted. This page separates them, quotes what each instrument says, and — where the published record is silent — says so instead of filling the gap with a number.

This page reports what published Guatemalan instruments do and do not say. It is not legal advice, it is not a prediction about any individual case, and it does not tell anyone how to deal with an immigration officer.

In short: the re-entry prohibition is published, in the Reglamento General del Código de Migración (Acuerdo de Dirección General IGM-017-2023, approved by Acuerdo AMN 002-2023 of 14 March 2023) — the reglamento the Code’s Art. 64 delegation points at. Its Art. 24 sets two years from the date of expulsion where the expulsion followed a suspension of stay or a breach of the Code and Reglamento, and five years from the date of expulsion where a Guatemalan court imposed expulsion as a pena accesoria. Its Art. 23 lists nine grounds for prohibiting entry, two of which are a prior expulsion (judicial and administrative). A refusal of entry at the border (“rechazo”), on its own, carries no published period. A separate 12-month clock attaches to a tourist/traveller visa that was refused, denied or cancelled (Acuerdo IGM-015-2025, Art. 30). In the CA-4 region the published consequence of prior irregularity is a shortened stay (ADE/RESERVA), not exclusion.

Four events, four rules

Everything below expands one row.

The headline finding: two years, or five after a court-ordered expulsion

This is the whole reason the page exists, and it is the part almost every English-language write-up gets wrong — including, until this revision, ours. The rule is written down.

Step 1 — the Code delegates the question. Decreto 44-2016, Art. 64, second paragraph:

“Los criterios que deben aplicarse para prohibir el ingreso, la suspensión de permanencia y el rechazo de solicitudes de ingreso serán regulados en el reglamento del presente Código.”

The criteria for prohibiting entry, suspending a stay, and rejecting entry applications are to be regulated “en el reglamento del presente Código” — in the Code’s own reglamento, singular. That instrument exists.

Step 2 — the reglamento the delegation points at is the Reglamento General del Código de Migración. It is Acuerdo de Dirección General IGM-017-2023, dated 14 March 2023, approved the same day by Acuerdo de Autoridad Migratoria Nacional No. 002-2023, and it is listed on IGM’s own marco-legal index as “REGLAMENTO GENERAL DEL CÓDIGO DE MIGRACIÓN Y SUS REFORMAS.” Here is every instrument in that index’s LEGISLACIÓN MIGRATORIA NACIONAL block, in the order IGM lists it, plus the acuerdo published further down the same page. Each verdict below is based on reading the instrument, not on reading its title — the “Read?” column says which, and one of them could not be read at all:

Step 3 — Art. 24 is the answer, and it has three limbs. Read them separately.

“ARTICULO 24. Plazo para la prohibición de Ingreso al territorio guatemalteco. En caso la permanencia en el territorio guatemalteco fuera suspendida por cualquiera de las disposiciones establecidas en el Código de Migración y este Reglamento, a la persona extranjera se le podrá prohibir el reingreso al territorio nacional. En caso la persona extranjera haya sido expulsada por criterios de suspensión de la permanencia o por infringir las disposiciones del Código de Migración y este Reglamento, se prohibirá el ingreso al territorio nacional por un plazo de dos años contados a partir de la fecha de expulsión. En caso la persona extranjera haya sido condenada en Guatemala bajo pena accesoria de expulsión, se prohibirá el ingreso al territorio nacional por un plazo de cinco años contados a partir de la fecha de expulsión.”

1. Stay suspended, no expulsion: re-entry “se le podrá prohibir” — may be prohibited. Discretionary, and no period is stated for this branch.
2. Expelled for suspension criteria or for breaching the Code and Reglamento: “se prohibirá” — mandatory, two years from the date of expulsion.
3. Expelled as a pena accesoria of a Guatemalan criminal sentence: “se prohibirá” — mandatory, five years from the date of expulsion.

Three details in the wording do real work. The verb changes from podrá (may) in the first limb to se prohibirá (shall be prohibited) in the other two. Both periods run from the date of expulsion — not from the date you left, not from the date of notification. And neither period attaches to a rechazo at the border; Art. 24 speaks only of suspension and expulsion.

Step 4 — the criteria the delegation asked for are published too. Art. 23 of the same reglamento:

“ARTICULO 23. Criterios para prohibir el ingreso al territorio guatemalteco. De conformidad con el artículo 64 del Código de Migración, se establecen los siguientes criterios para prohibir el Ingreso al territorio guatemalteco: a. Tener alerta nacional o internacional; b. Cuando la persona fue condenada en Guatemala bajo pena accesoria de expulsión y solicite nuevamente Ingresar al país; c. Cuando la persona fue expulsada por razones administrativas y solicite nuevamente ingresar al país; d. Cuando el pasaporte u otro documento de identidad y de viaje contemplado en arreglos internacionales de los cuales el Estado de Guatemala sea parte, presente señal o marca o alteración que lo invalide tales como perforaciones, tachaduras, manchas de tinta u otro material o cualquier otro daño que presente, que dificulte o imposibilite su lectura; e. Cuando medien disposiciones de salud, seguridad u orden público; f. Cuando la persona no porte certificado de vacunación internacional en caso de provenir de un país con alerta sanitaria; g. Cuando medien disposiciones emanadas del Organismo Legislativo; h. Los establecidos en arreglos internacionales de los cuales el Estado de Guatemala sea parte; i. Otros establecidos en disposiciones internas autorizadas por el Instituto o la Autoridad Migratoria Nacional.”

Literals b and c are the ones to notice: a prior expulsion is an enumerated ground for refusing entry — literal b for a court-ordered expulsion, literal c for an administrative one. That is exactly where the Code’s Art. 66 preamble (“Además de las disposiciones administrativas que se dispongan por el Instituto Guatemalteco de Migración”) and its Art. 64 delegation put it. Literal i keeps the list open at the bottom, so the nine are a floor and not a ceiling.

Step 5 — the third limb of the delegation: when a stay can be suspended in the first place. Art. 62 of the same reglamento (not to be confused with Art. 62 of the Code, which is about a foreigner’s general obligations):

“ARTICULO 62. Criterios para suspender la permanencia en territorio nacional. De conformidad con el artículo 64 del Código de Migración, la permanencia en el territorio nacional podrá suspenderse a las personas extranjeras por circunstancias propias del estatus migratorio que ostente. Para el efecto, las Subdirecciones de Extranjería, de Atención y Protección de Derechos Fundamentales de los Migrantes o Control Migratorio del Instituto deberán emitir resolución razonada. En caso surja la necesidad de suspender la permanencia en el territorio nacional por razones de soberanía, seguridad nacional o pública, se emitirá resolución por autoridad competente, haciendo constar dicho extremo. Además de lo anterior, son criterios para suspender la permanencia a las personas extranjeras en el territorio nacional los siguientes: a. Cuando atente contra las buenas costumbres y la moral; b. Cuando atente contra el orden público; c. Cuando medien razones de salud pública; d. Cuando medien disposiciones emanadas del Organismo Legislativo; e. Otros establecidos en disposiciones internas autorizadas por el Instituto.”

Step 6 — the register exists; the lookup does not. IGM’s entry checklist carries item 6, verbatim, “NO TENER RESTRICCIONES DE INGRESO”, and the reglamento says where that condition is recorded:

“Toda resolución de expulsión ejecutada por el Instituto deberá ser ingresada a las listas de control migratorio a efecto de establecer la alerta migratoria correspondiente.” (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 31)

So the register is a published legal obligation — listas de control migratorio, carrying an alerta migratoria — and Art. 23 literal a makes “Tener alerta nacional o internacional” a ground for refusal in its own right. What is not published is a route for a traveller to query it. The closest published things are three priced services that touch a person’s own migratory record, and none of them is described as an entry-restriction check:

The right of access behind the last one is in the reglamento: “El movimiento o flujo migratorio podrá ser certificado por la Subdirección de Control Migratorio a requerimiento del titular, representante legal o mandatario” (Art. 33).

IGM also publishes a catalogue of everything it will certify, and an entry-restriction check is not in it. The Reglamento para la emisión de certificaciones y constancias, Art. 3, lists certificaciones “a. De arraigo; b. De movimiento migratorio; c. De estatus especiales; d. De estatus migratorio; e. De expediente en trámite; f. Del registro ordinario migratorio; g. Otras que el IGM autorice” and constancias “a. De autenticidad, historial y razonamiento de pasaporte; b. De emisión de documento especial de viaje para extraditados y refugiados; c. De estatus de permanencia provisional; y, d. Constancia de estatus migratorio; e. Constancia de garante; y, f. Otras que el IGM autorice.” Neither list contains an alerta-migratoria or entry-restriction check — though both close with “Otras que el IGM autorice”, so the catalogue is open at the bottom and this is an absence from the enumeration rather than a prohibition.

The accurate statement is therefore narrow: the periods and the criteria are published, the register is published, and no published procedure exists for asking whether an alerta migratoria is recorded against you.

What the Code does publish about expulsion and leaving

Every article in this table is from Decreto 44-2016, the Código de Migración. Watch the numbering: the Code’s Art. 62 (a foreigner’s obligations) and the Reglamento General’s Art. 62 (criteria for suspending a stay) are different provisions in different instruments.

Three things in that table change how you read everything else:

1. Art. 195 caps the abandono-inmediato order at ten days, and that order says nothing about the future. But it is not the only, or the heaviest, named administrative sanction. Expulsion is separate and heavier — Art. 64 of the Code provides for it (“o en caso justificado determinar su expulsión”), and the reglamento defines it: “La expulsión es la sanción administrativa ejecutada por el Instituto mediante la cual se ordena la salida del territorio nacional de una persona extranjera cuando se decrete como pena accesoria en una resolución judicial, se le suspenda la permanencia en territorio guatemalteco o incurra en responsabilidad administrativa mediando para el efecto causa justificada” (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 31). It is expulsion — not the abandono order — that triggers the Art. 24 re-entry prohibition.
2. Only IGM may impose it. Art. 192 is explicit. The police detain (Art. 168); IGM sanctions. The reglamento adds that IGM “podrá solicitar el acompañamiento de la Policía Nacional Civil para su traslado al puesto de control migratorio correspondiente” (Art. 31).
3. The criminal track is a different body of law. Art. 197 keeps them apart, and the migration offences do not live in Decreto 44-2016 at all — they survive in Decreto 95-98, Ley de Migración, whose Título X Capítulo I was left out of the Code’s derogation list (Art. 241) and whose Arts. 103, 107 Bis and 108 were later reformed by Decreto 5-2022 (its Arts. 1, 2 and 3 respectively). Two bodies of law, two authorities: IGM for the administrative side, the criminal courts for the other.

The overstay fine itself, the extension route and where you pay are covered on the CA-4 border run page and the IGM immigration hub — this page does not restate those figures.

The one published waiting period: 12 months, and only for a visa

Acuerdo IGM-015-2025, Art. 30, headed “Plazo para solicitar Visa de Turista o Viajero cuando fue rechazada, denegada o cancelada”:

“Cuando la solicitud de Visa de Turista o Viajero fue rechazada por alguna misión Diplomática o Consular y denegada o cancelada por el Instituto Guatemalteco de Migración podrán realizar una nueva solicitud hasta dentro de los 12 meses posteriores a la fecha de notificación del motivo de rechazo, denegatoria o cancelación, según corresponda.”

Four things about this, stated carefully because it is the only number on the topic:

1. It attaches to a visa decision, not to a border event. Its subject is “la solicitud de Visa de Turista o Viajero” — refused by a diplomatic or consular mission, or denied or cancelled by IGM. A refusal of entry at a migration post is a different act, governed by Arts. 65 and 66, and no waiting period is attached to it.
2. The wording is ambiguous and we will not resolve it for you. “hasta dentro de los 12 meses posteriores” can be read as not until 12 months have passed or as within 12 months. The article’s own heading calls it a “Plazo para solicitar”. We quote it and flag it.
3. It reaches people who need a visa. IGM’s entry checklist notes that “están exentos de visa para ingresar a Guatemala la categoría (A)”. We did not retrieve the current per-nationality category list in this research pass, so this page states no nationality’s category. Check yours against IGM directly.
4. Cancellation is a live risk, not a theoretical one. The same reglamento states that when an already-extended stay runs out, IGM “podrá imponer la sanción justificada de expulsión del territorio nacional y cancelar la Visa otorgada, esto sin perjuicio de la aplicación de la multa por exceso en permanencia” (Art. 15). So an overstay can produce a visa cancellation, which then feeds into Art. 30.

Two neighbouring deadlines from the same reglamento, because people conflate them with Art. 30:

• Art. 31: an approved tourist visa lapses if not issued in time — “el extranjero tendrá un plazo de 6 meses posteriores a la fecha de notificación de la resolución de autorización, para que sea emitida la misma por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores a través de las misiones diplomáticas o consulares. Una vez transcurrido el plazo establecido y si no fuere emitida la misma, perderá vigencia la resolución de aprobación.”
• Art. 34: a pending application must be completed within “un plazo no mayor de 30 días contados a partir del día siguiente de la notificación”.

A visa is not admission, and admission is discretionary

This is the sentence that resolves most “but I had a visa” confusion, and it is written into the reglamento itself.

• Acuerdo IGM-015-2025, Art. 3: “Las visas guatemaltecas aprobadas a las personas extranjeras no implican su admisión incondicional en el territorio de la República de Guatemala.”
• Decreto 44-2016, Art. 65: “Las personas que se presenten a los puestos migratorios de puertos marítimos, aeropuertos y fronteras terrestres sin los documentos oficiales requeridos les podrá ser negado el acceso al territorio nacional.”
• CA-4 manual, Sección III (closing sentence): “Las Dirección Generales de Migración y Extranjería podrán negar o permitir el ingreso a un extranjero que carezca de algunos de los requisitos y disposiciones de ingreso establecidos en el presente Manual.”

And the right that all of this limits, with its own limitation clause:

• Art. 1: “El Estado de Guatemala reconoce el derecho de toda persona a emigrar o inmigrar, por lo cual el migrante puede entrar, permanecer, transitar, salir y retornar al territorio nacional conforme la legislación nacional.”
• Art. 59: “Se limita el derecho a migrar únicamente en los casos que dispongan el presente Código y sus reglamentos, de igual forma cuando medien disposiciones de salud, seguridad u orden público, seguridad de las personas y por orden o sentencia judicial.”

Read Art. 59’s opening limb, not just its list. It limits the right to migrate first in the cases set by the Code and its reglamentos — “únicamente en los casos que dispongan el presente Código y sus reglamentos” — and then, additionally, on grounds of health, security or public order, personal safety, and judicial order or judgment. That first limb is the one that carries the weight: the reglamento cases are Arts. 23, 24 and 62 of the Reglamento General, quoted above. And “health” is not decoration either: see the MSPAS example further down, and Art. 23 literals e and f.

The CA-4 layer: the published consequence is a SHORTER stay, not exclusion

The regional instrument IGM applies is the Manual Regional de Procedimientos Migratorios de la Visa Única Centroamericana CA-4. The manual names the four member states itself, in its opening recital: the “Convenio de Creación de Visa Única Centroamericana, para la libre movilidad de extranjeros entre las repúblicas de El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua” (ANTECEDENTES; repeated at Sección I, numeral 1.c, which dates the Convenio to 30 June 2005). Its Sección IX is where the consequences of irregularity live, and none of them is a multi-year exclusion.

The ADE/RESERVA is the practically important provision on this page, and almost nobody writes about it. It is the published regional answer to a history of border-hopping: the officer shortens the number of days granted, and the measure goes into a border register kept “para cualquier consulta posterior”. That is a real, published, recorded consequence — and it is a shorter stay, not a years-long exclusion. Note the manual’s own inconsistent labelling: ADE/RESERVA in the heading and body, SDE/RESERVA in E.4. We report both as published.

On whether an expulsion from Guatemala reaches the other three states: no provision was found saying so. C.4 and D address the inverse (transit of an expelled person; each state’s reserved right of admission under its own law). We do not extrapolate. The regional mechanics of the 90-day clock are worked through on the CA-4 border run page.

⚠ Where the 3 months in the previous 6 and previously expelled phrasings come from — Spain, not Guatemala

Searching the CA-4 manual for prohibición turns up the phrases “Son Causas De Prohibición De Entrada: A) Haber Sido Previamente Expulsado O Devuelto” and a “3 meses de estancia en los 6 meses anteriores” rule. That text is not Guatemala’s rule. It sits under entry no. 59, España, of the manual’s “QUE PAISES REQUIEREN (EXIGEN) VISA A GUATEMALTECOS” table, under the heading “REQUISITOS DE ENTRADA EN TERRITORIO ESPAÑOL” — a country annex reproducing the requirements for Guatemalans entering Spain. The surrounding text cites “Orden PRE/1282/2007”, “62,40 Euros Por Día”, the “Ministerio Del Interior” and the “S.I.S.”. It is Spanish law, printed in the manual for reference, and reading it as Guatemalan is an easy and consequential mistake.

Two limits on how far that explanation reaches, stated so it is not over-used. It explains the three months in the previous six framing and the “previamente expulsado o devuelto” wording that circulate in English-language write-ups. It does not explain the five-year figure — that number is published in a Guatemalan instrument, Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 24, for expulsion imposed as a pena accesoria by a Guatemalan court.

Who pays when someone is refused entry: the airline, not the traveller

This is the most concrete money on the page, and the direction of the charge surprises people.

The reforming acuerdo states its own reason: “El aumento significativo de la migración irregular, principalmente de personas extrarregionales que utilizan la conexión vía aérea para transitar con destino a otros países de la región…”.

Why this matters to a reader: the published financial exposure for a refused passenger sits on the carrier, per passenger, on a three-day clock from notification. Carriers are also written into IGM’s entry paperwork: “Las empresas de transporte de personas y de mercancías Internacionales serán dotadas con boletas de control migratorio con la finalidad de establecer el motivo de ingreso de las personas al territorio nacional. Esta boleta deberá ser presentada en el puesto fronterizo migratorio con su documento de identidad y de viaje” (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 18). And note the named authority: the Subdirección de Control Migratorio, through its delegations, issues the resolution.

How IGM has described carrying out an expulsion

IGM published its own account of one operation. It is dated 17 June 2022 and is presented here as a dated account of that operation, not as current practice:

“Luego de haber localizadas por Policía Nacional Civil en diferentes puntos del país y ser trasladadas al Centro de Atención Migratoria -CAMIEX- del Instituto Guatemalteco de Migración, este día se procedió a la expulsión de 90 personas migrantes.”

The item adds that those affected were Venezuelan and Cuban nationals, that after humanitarian attention “se determinó que deberían abandonar el país por no contar con los documentos migratorios requeridos”, and that MINGOB and PNC handled “el traslado de las personas hacia el Puesto Fronterizo de Agua Caliente”.

Two observations, both narrow: the operational chain IGM describes is PNC locates → CAMIEX → transfer to a land border post, consistent with Art. 168 placing detention with the police and with the reglamento’s Art. 31 (“El Instituto podrá solicitar el acompañamiento de la Policía Nacional Civil para su traslado al puesto de control migratorio correspondiente”). And the news item itself does not mention the Art. 24 prohibition — which is what a press release usually looks like, and is not evidence either way about whether the two-year period applied to those 90 people. The instrument governs; the news item only shows the mechanics.

“Restricciones de ingreso” has also meant a health measure from a different ministry

Checklist item 6 — “NO TENER RESTRICCIONES DE INGRESO” — reads like it is about individuals. The one published example we found of IGM applying it was about countries, and it did not originate with IGM at all.

In an item dated 26 November 2021, IGM published:

“El Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social, ha notificado a las autoridades del Instituto Guatemalteco de Migración sobre las restricciones de ingreso para personas procedentes de los siguientes países:”

— followed by Sudáfrica, Namibia, Botsuana, Mozambique, Lesoto, Zimbabue, Egipto and Esuatini, with the note that “La medida aplica para personas cuya procedencia sea de 14 días previo al viaje en esos países.”

The notice’s next paragraph carves out Guatemalans and residents, and it must be read with the country list, not after it:

“Guatemaltecos, residentes temporales y permanentes así como cuerpo diplomático acreditado en el país, cuya procedencia original en los últimos 14 días previos al ingreso al país sea de los países mencionados podrán ingresar, sin embargo deben cumplir con los requisitos establecidos por el Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social.”

So even at its widest, the measure was not a blanket bar: Guatemalan nationals, temporary and permanent residents and accredited diplomatic staff “podrán ingresar”, subject to MSPAS’s own requirements. The notice closes: “La medida entra en vigencia a partir del 26 de noviembre del año en curso, hasta nuevo aviso.”

This is historical and is labelled as such. We found no IGM publication lifting, renewing or replacing it; we assert neither that it is in force nor that it was lifted. Its value here is the mechanism: an entry restriction Guatemala applies can originate with MSPAS, a different ministry, and be applied by IGM at the post. That is also the “disposiciones de salud” ground written into Art. 59. Two authorities, one entry decision — so does a restriction apply to me is not necessarily a question only IGM’s records can answer.

Residents: the published rule is about absence, not about a ban

The shape of that: for a resident, the published risk of a long absence is losing the status, not acquiring a ban — and IGM publishes both a pre-authorisation route (US$25) and a priced route for justifying an absence after the fact (US$20). What IGM’s re-entry checklist asks residents to present at the border is covered in do you have to carry your passport in Guatemala, and the residency categories themselves in Guatemala residency.

What no instrument addresses (and what we searched)

We read the full text of the Código de Migración (Decreto 44-2016), the Reglamento General del Código de Migración (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023 and its reforms by Acuerdo IGM-027-2023), the Reglamento de Visas Guatemaltecas (Acuerdo IGM-015-2025), the Reglamento de Residencias Guatemaltecas (Acuerdo IGM-016-2025), the Reglamento de Registro del Estatus Ordinario Migratorio (Acuerdo IGM-017-2025), the Reglamento de Tarifas por Servicios Migratorios (Acuerdo IGM-029-2023 with its reforms), the Reglamento Interno de Funcionamiento de la Autoridad Migratoria Nacional (Acuerdo 01-2018), the Reglamento del procedimiento para el reconocimiento del Estatuto de Refugiado (Acuerdo 2-2019), the Reglamento Orgánico Interno (Acuerdo 2-2020), the Disposición para la obtención del pasaporte en el exterior (Acuerdo 06-2021), the Reglamento para la emisión de certificaciones y constancias, the 2024 budget acuerdo (Acuerdo 06-2023), IGM’s published entry-requirements page and both live fee lists, and the CA-4 manual, and searched IGM’s own site for “restricciones de ingreso”. Two items on IGM’s index were not covered: the Política Migratoria and the acuerdo approving it were not read, and Acuerdo IGM-040-2025 could not be read because IGM’s posted PDF is an image-only scan. Nothing below is asserted about those three. In the documents we did read:

1. No period is stated for the first limb of Art. 24 — the discretionary prohibition that may follow a suspension of stay without expulsion. The two-year and five-year periods are written for expulsion only.
2. No published procedure for a traveller to query the register. The register itself is published — expulsion resolutions go into the “listas de control migratorio” as an alerta migratoria (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 31) — but nothing published tells you how to ask whether one is recorded against you. The nearest priced services are a Constancia estatus migratorio (US$30.00), a Certificación de estatus migratorio (US$25.00) and a Certificación de movimiento migratorio (US$10.00), none of which is described as an entry-restriction check — and IGM’s own catalogue of certifications and constancias (Reglamento para la emisión de certificaciones y constancias, Art. 3) enumerates no such check either, though it closes with “Otras que el IGM autorice”.
3. No provision found stating that a refusal of entry (rechazo) at the border, on its own, creates any future consequence for the traveller. Art. 24’s periods run from an expulsion; a prior rechazo is not among Art. 23’s nine criteria nor among Art. 66’s four impediments. The only consequences the instruments attach to a rechazo fall on the carrier.
4. No provision found stating whether an expulsion from Guatemala affects entry to the other CA-4 states.
5. No published waiting period attaching to an order of abandono inmediato under Art. 195 standing alone. The separate 12-month period attaches to a visa decision (Acuerdo IGM-015-2025, Art. 30).
6. No provision found on whether the two-year or five-year period can be waived or shortened, or appealed separately from the expulsion resolution itself. Art. 196’s recurso de reposición addresses the sanction; nothing found addresses the period.
7. Not retrieved in this pass: the current per-nationality Categoría A/B/C list. This page states no nationality’s category.

And the correction this page owes its readers, stated plainly. Earlier versions of this page said no Guatemalan instrument published a re-entry-ban duration. That was wrong, and it was wrong because the search set left out the one reglamento that governs the question — the Reglamento General del Código de Migración — even though it sits on the same IGM index the page cited. The accurate position: two years and five years are published, in Acuerdo IGM-017-2023, Art. 24, both counted from the date of expulsion. What is not published anywhere we could find is a range — no instrument says one to five years or three to five years, and those framings are not Guatemalan law. The three months in the previous six and previously expelled or returned phrasings that circulate alongside them come from the Spain annex inside the CA-4 manual, as set out above.

Related

• CA-4 border run vs the prórroga — the 90-day clock, the overstay fine, and how the region’s rules interact
• IGM immigration hub — the office, procedures and fee tables
• Do you have to carry your passport in Guatemala? — the entry checklist, and the Q200 fault for not presenting the document
• My passport expires while I’m in Guatemala — the two clocks, and the two IGM tariff lines that sit closest to the question
• USA to Guatemala visa requirements — entry terms for US travellers
• Guatemala residency — categories, income thresholds and costs
• IGM section hub — everything IGM on this site

Sources

Reform check: IGM’s hosted copy of Decreto 44-2016 carries no reform annotations. Decreto 5-2022 amends Arts. 103, 107 Bis and 108 of Decreto 95-98, Ley de Migración (its Arts. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) — the criminal-offence articles that survived because Decreto 44-2016’s derogation list (Art. 241) omits Título X Capítulo I of 95-98 — and does not touch Arts. 64, 66, 192-197 or 213 of Decreto 44-2016. In the Reglamento General (Acuerdo IGM-017-2023), the document carries exactly three reform annotations, all of them by Acuerdo IGM-027-2023 of 5 May 2023: Art. 27 and Art. 74 were reformed (by that acuerdo’s Arts. 1 and 2), and a new Art. 75 BIS, “Requisitos para la extensión de vigencia”, was added (by its Art. 3). Art. 76 carries no annotation. Arts. 16, 17, 23, 24, 31, 33 and 62 carry no reform annotation. Acuerdo IGM-015-2025 states at its Art. 40 that it derogates Acuerdo IGM-044-2023, the previous visa reglamento.