Riobard

Got my e-visa earlier in the year. Fast, 2 business days following VFS submission the printed visas in hand, and excellent stage updates from the platform. Final consulate clearance is down on weekends. Any forthcoming changes have no bearing on my visitor privileges. I’m legal, as are my tourism targets in status and appearance. Good night, and good luck with the procedure. *Not returning to this thread* —- If I were to provide a few tips that might be useful in speedy CPF acquisition, these are: My consulate would absolutely not budge in the requirement of a formal birth registration document that included both parents’ names. A legal birth certificate in my country does not include such unless that version is specifically requested. I was able to fast track a certified original copy, with tons more data than the wallet size format, from the relevant national archives for a higher than usual fee. The online CPF application through Itamaraty consular services, for which you register with email and password, is in Portuguese. There are 3 address fields. The expected term might be ‘endereço’ but it translates to public place. That is where you enter your street name only. The second box is to enter street number and the third box for unit number if relevant, or leave blank. You must enable pop-up function on your server. I think I had it disabled for Safari and Chrome without knowing and then toggled the reverse for both for good measure. If it is disabled the application platform won’t yield the electronic document in which your data and application reference code are depicted. It is called FCPF and the reason it relies on pop-up function is that the completed application does not get sent to you by email, in contrast to other types of documents for which you are accustomed to email communication. My consulate requires an in-person appearance to complete and issue the CPF but it happens to be walkable for me. Bonne chance.

As do I, in a bun dance whenever presented, as well as pre and post.

We could ignore too, but it’s just simpler for all if we don’t have to be exposed to endless update bulletins you provide about your private correspondence and how it impacts on your fee-fees within a thread that you purport shouldn’t exist anyway. Perhaps he doth protest much while actually thriving on drama.

Welp you can add your frivolous dig, regarding my desire to correct my misleading statement about visa protocol, to the itty bits of attention you desperately seek on a middling chat board where you absolutely have to consistently crowd the table seating. At the same time you criticize vexatious conflict as boring you have no compunction about instigating and you evidently thrive on it. There’s invariably a you. Swat.

Not relatable to all involved. Now the proof’s in the [enter day of observance] pudding; we know you lack sensitivity around cultural and religious diversity.

Naturally the current hate-on for America dominates news cycles. Be selective in perspective around the full range of dynamics all you like. However, a counter-prevailing very robust trump-lite lobbying by tourism entities is instrumental in the senate having dispatched to the deputies chamber a request to back-pedal the reinstated e-visa decree. Astonishingly, the government itself has projected in its VFS Global platform contract an estimated annual application by 205,000 visitors, based on the full calendar year tally of 2018 wherein the e-visa at that time, later rescinded, had supplanted the more complex consular visa acquisition, yet 2024 saw 735,000 visitors from the 3 affected nations, a full period of e-visa postponement iterations. I think the term here as it relates to the tourism component of GDP is ‘own goal’. If this drags on it will be essential to statistically test the visitor ratios by e-visa against basic passport entry for 1st quarter 2026 compared to 1st quarter 2025, albeit adjusting for the possible 2025 influx based on pre-visa entry opportunity. Or more accurately the two respective 4-month blocks of Dec-March. No elected government official can ignore their sub-constituencies dependent upon tourism. Money is livelihood and those depending on such aren’t tantruming about the impediments to travel abroad. In contrast, ease of tourism access to the 3 nations for Brazilians is convenience not livelihood. Those folks are not organizational entities with a structured lobbying voice. (And need I add … wink nudge … elected government officials are domestic tourists.)

Correction last paragraph upthread: … wherein a duration of time > 365 days from a current migratory year’s commencement has elapsed then resets the next migratory year iteration at such point first visit occurs within said new iteration, with any duration of temporal gaps (> 0 days) possible between migratory year end dates and subsequent commencement dates.

Also escalating tensions is major sporting events this decade in Brazil and North America that will have implications for ease of entry for fans let alone competitors.

That legislation is dated and does not address the nuances of more recent on-again off-again visa requirements. However, it is true that the decree posted above was essentially reinstated when the exemption decree of March 2019 was repealed in May 2023. Yet it does not indicate whether it nullifies the visit days tally leading up to the visa requirements re-instatement per individual finally implemented recently. It’s always been clear it was a rolling yearly timeframe … “migratory year”, not calendar year. My question still stands. The legislation states a tally commencing upon the first arrival subsequent to the visa acquisition. Legislation from 8 years ago wouldn’t be expected to clarify whether an imposed visa obligation established at some point within your current rolling tally in a non-visa (= visa exempt) context (as I made clear in the example where the initiation of a migratory year occurred) essentially resets the rolling count. My interpretation is on the conservative side at this point and caution should be perhaps exercised to set stay boundaries that align with the unformalized assumption that the new e-visa does not wipe the antecedent visit slate clean, a slate reflected in passport stamps. That said, it’s uncertain and may have been overlooked in the planning. I will need to second-guess at this point. If it’s the stricter interpretation then a frequent visitor may wish to strategize their migratory year accordingly based on their seasonal patterns. Reciprocity may impact on the extension allowance of up to 90 additional days. My question is unrelated to that. My question was clearly outlined and speaks to the non-extension aspect of 90 days per year on rolling migratory year basis wherein an absence of > 365 days obviously resets the next migratory year iteration. I will ask Immigration upon my next arrival but that is not imminent. Others may elect to do so and report back.

How are you all interpreting the e-visa start date for 90 allowable days per 365-day period? My consulate wouldn’t answer my query other than to ask why I need to know! Probably they don’t know the regulations and they were dodging. Maybe officers on arrival know the drill. Example, if you visited pre-visa for 65 days in Jan/Feb/Mar beginning Jan 10th, are you tallying those days against your 90 and interpreting you have a balance of 25 days allowable until Jan 9th, 2026, in spite of the subsequent visa requirement? Please, no need to remark on federal police extension prerogative; that does not answer my question and is a separate way to manoeuvre permissible length of stays. Alternatively, do you think that the e-visa is a reset? If you got your e-visa May 1st and visit Brazil July 1st are you tallying your allowable 90 days within the one year so that the period ends June 30th, 2026 and resets at that point, essentially clearing the slate of visits prior to the April 10th visa obligation? In other words, do you think the officer enters your data on arrival as if the day count is set newly at zero onward from the date you first arrive following visa acquisition, or is (s)he looking at the system that presumably has your earlier visits on record and then possibly restricting your allowance relative to your plans? It states multiple entries - 90 days - but I know for sure that does not confer more than 90 days in a one-year period but, rather, 90 days total whether you enter once or 25 times. I do believe with the previous visa exemption from March 2019 the allowance was actually 90 days within a 180 day period, in contrast to the old consular visa that stipulated 90 per year as does the e-visa. VFS Global wasn’t able to clarify either. Please be in the habit of asking when you clear Brazil immigration as I could not find any clarification through other channels. We don’t like surprises.

“Turn turtle”? Them’s fighting words. Learn something new every day.

It’s all ambiguous and I guess you have to be there to figure it out. It doesn’t affect me because I only go for the conventional afternoon early evening periods and the trade will have likely departed by 23:00 hours. But there was some discussion a while back about the reality that your visit may time out at a certain point, at which juncture a new admission fee is imposed. If you want to transition through both operational entities I suggest you inquire upon checking in of an afternoon what the termination time is. You may need to close out your residual bar / optional VIP room tab but not likely be required to get dressed and leave in order to access the Splash Nude Liquid event, basically a bathhouse party without prostitution focus and presumably nudity optional. They’ll likely never put the price rules clearly in writing. It does seem unfair that if you arrive at 20:30 for a trick you would pay again at 23:00 unless you show the flyer I posted above. Moreover, who would be agreeable on a weeknight to attend both operational categories but without the late night fee exemption period that seems to only apply to weekends?

Just so readers here know, that Chat GPT garbage posted above is not remotely sane or scientific, and contradicts the sophisticated analytical Bayesian modeling upon which the NHS is rolling out the gonorrhea vaccine for already established MSM attending for testing minimally, whose baseline risk factors are already high. These models stratify expected absolute decrease in cases according to subpopulations ranging from all males to those with multiple partners and historically screened, many diagnosed. They consider behavioural variables as well as the expected case incidence over time that would occur based on doing nothing, the increased trajectory to date being a major factor in introducing intervention with limited randomized control research data. Simply put, since condom uptake is already low and exposure risk via partner quantity high, the vaccine is a substitute, albeit limited in eradication potential, for condom protection among those targeted for implementation. Obviously, the baselines aren’t already consistent condom use that will lapse or low numbers of partners that will escalate. Moreover, treatment availability has been a key factor in risk behavioural trends. A false sense of security regarding vaccine prophylaxis wouldn’t be expected to impact the breadth of risk that already manifests according to counting on after-the-fact infection management. Why would guys, the same cohort with access to vaccine as well as treatment for breakthrough infection get tested without this expectation? At this point the narrative is two disease mitigation approaches, one with roughly flu vaccine efficacy in a lower efficacy year and the other fraught with growing antimicrobial resistance. There is plenty of logical academic reading available in the public domain on this subject that is not sourced from the Dunning-Kruger afflicted. If you care to think it through rationally rather than manipulate the facts.

It is odd that a true reservation may have jumped companies so that two existed. Content pop-ups seem to occasionally appear out of nowhere in my social media feeds as if the thematic synapses spread to the deep web and boomeranged back. One wonders how the heck did that happen. Never a hot guy ad, though … LOL. I wouldn’t need to unsubscribe to that level of spam. A commodity booking reflecting mitosis seems a step too far and signals a hacking possibility. Thanks for clarifying that the implications of a booking you did not initiate are elusive, as it seems you had no way of determining ahead of time whether you’d have incurred a penalty. Frankly I’m not up on the consequences of a no show even for, say, the booking you did planfully reserve. I’ve heard that rental cars are extremely in demand and assumed a risk of penalties, plus which you indicate Localiza has your card and that may mean getting dinged if you bail. The Hakim’s Razor interpretation is, surely one hopes, Avis would simply have timed out. You may, in fact, have pre-empted future unsolicited bookings by nipping this one in the bud. Fingers crossed no entity will again try to pimp your ride.