Got my Brazil eVisa

[Riobard]

I received an inquiry about application timelines and a request to clarify misinformation posed by another contributor. In reality, however, the timeline should not be a problem if you give yourself ample time. 

I was also asked my take on passport expiry and now decided to add that an associate applied online 6 months plus a week prior to the anticipated approval date. There was an adjustment required on their uploads that was resolved in a little over a week. They then received a notice that their remaining passport shelf life in the interim had fallen short of the obligatory 6 months, and were denied further processing in spite of having initiated the timing application in good faith. They need to rebook travel pending a new passport. 

An applicant can conceivably receive the e-visa on a Sunday because it is directed by VFS Global, following the consulate vetting stage, when they resume transfers from their headquarters in Asia on Monday. I believe that there is a temporal phenomenon commonly known as time zones, a lazy Sunday afternoon here yet a popular Mamas & Papas song imminent elsewhere.  

[Riobard]

3 hours ago, Xclay said:

For the record, since May of 2023 Brazilians have to pay the USA the sum of $185 for a non-refundable application for a ten-year tourist visa, plus have an in-person interview at a US consulate!!!  (Previously Brazilians had to pay $160.)

Looks like US citizens are considerably advantaged by this lack of complete reciprocity. Maybe our $8 per year for our visa for Brazil ain't so bad?

Misery loves company more than wants to be talked out of it.

[Riobard]

I couldn’t check in the flight out of Canada or enter through Brazil immigration without producing the e-visa. I also eventually ascertained that the e-visa issued in May did not nullify entry length tally restrictions that considered the previous cumulative migratory year from mid-January 2025 and on. Therefore must carefully count entry duration until it’s reset mid-January 2026. Not too many allowable days remain until then due to having pigged out this year. 

No new developments on the review and vote status within the Chamber of Deputies that needs to ratify the visa requirement reversal that had overwhelmingly passed in the Senate and is strongly pushed by tourism entities.

COP30 in Belém will waive entry visa requirements based on proof of attendance. There will likely be upticked spillover tourism in November. The same concerns about lodgings access in Belém have been voiced in relation to 2026 FIFA World Cup accommodations capacity for Toronto and Vancouver. 

Received CPF, picked up in person at my local Itamaraty consulate following about 6 weeks from start to finish. I have yet to have need of it in Brazil. 

[sydneyboy1]

Are you suggesting a reversal of the visa requirement is a possibility?

[Riobard]

5 hours ago, sydneyboy1 said:

Are you suggesting a reversal of the visa requirement is a possibility?

It’s a distinct possibility and I’m reasonably up to date on the developments so far but it may be stalled in the interests of a tourism entry comparator analysis to support reinstating the waiver. Personally I’m not too invested in the outcome as it has little impact on current visa holders that already got use out of it and have less skin in the game.

Yet I’m not putting related tracking in the Ignore category where reside a few annoyingly tiresome ignominious contribution-impoverished trolls frantically canvassing for one or two mean girl alliances.

Since it’s plodding along and COP30 will pull in e-visa-linked tourism dollars in November, IMO they should do a Chi-square analysis comparing first quarter 2026 against first quarter 2025 with the three nations cumulatively as numerator and total foreign visitor tally as denominator. That might be more objective and persuasive than various camps massaging data depending on alliance with, simplistic mind you, reciprocity principles versus the legitimacy of decoupling migration law from tourism contribution to GDP. In actuality the true impact of the recent visa reinstatement is not known and first quarter 2025 entry padding to capitalize on the lingering postponed waiver may artificially inflate the year on year difference.

In two years FIFA Women’s World Cup may be a factor.

I am also handicapped by lack of knowledge regarding how easy it is for the two houses to topple an executive order as well as what contractual financial commitments have already been instituted with VFS Global and what degree of cost recovery would be met by maintaining the visa obligation for a time for that purpose. 

If you’re Australian the ease of application shouldn’t make postponing acquisition pending legislative outcome too major a factor, unless a visit is not on the near horizon. 

[floridarob]

11 hours ago, sydneyboy1 said:

Are you suggesting a reversal of the visa requirement is a possibility?

I may be tiresome, but don't play mental masturbation writing 5 paragraphs of blabble to say nothing,


Probably not, Lula is big into reciprocity, not just with the US...

"The current Brazilian government adopts the principle of reciprocity when it comes to visas. So these kinds of requirements are not exclusive to Americans."

[Latbear4blk]

t’s become increasingly evident—though, naturally, not without the requisite caveats pertaining to multi-ministerial optics and low-yield bilateral mood calibration—that the long-theorized, oft-fantasized reinstatement of Brazil’s visa waiver for U.S. passport holders is, if we’re being honest in an era when honesty is a tricky proposition, not going to materialize. At least not in this cycle, and certainly not before the regional winds blow more favorably in favor of the perception-based multilateral reciprocity carousel, which, as we know, doesn’t tend to move in reverse gear unless diplomatically bribed with carnival floats and modest soft-power concessions.

Of course, one could point to murmurs—heard in the echo chambers of policy-adjacent LinkedIn threads and undercaffeinated embassy receptions—of late-stage legislative pliability, but such readings are miscalibrated at best and border on delusional at worst. These interpretations, while numerically anecdotal and geographically limited to consular gossip clusters, fail to account for the very real inertia generated by entrenched bureaucratic inertia coupled with VFS Global’s contractual inertia (which, like all inertias, tends to remain inert unless acted upon by an external political tantrum, which has not, to date, occurred).

And yes, there are those who cling to the notion of post-COP30 reevaluations, like shipwrecked romantics clutching the idea that a diplomatic high tide might float all boats—including, conveniently, the leaky dinghy of U.S.-Brazilian visa leniency. But such speculation—though charming in a pet theory sort of way—is, in practical terms, roughly equivalent to staking climate change reversal on a really persuasive Instagram infographic. The numbers don’t move unless the players do, and the players aren’t moving unless someone re-bundles the visa issue with a trade-off too tempting to ignore. So far, no bundling is evident.

Some will attempt to parse upcoming visitor data for breadcrumbs of reversibility, forgetting that metrics divorced from legislative appetite are just ghosts haunting the spreadsheets of wishful thinkers. We’ve yet to see a single legislative signal—not a draft bill, not a leaked memo, not even a sarcastic tweet—that indicates the will or energy exists to reverse course. Meanwhile, the visa requirement hums along like a mildly annoying refrigerator: always present, rarely justified, but ultimately unbothered by your feelings.

In summation, unless one is deeply committed to cultivating a psychological dependency on diplomatic fantasy fiction, the conclusion is self-evident: the visa waiver is not coming back. Not next quarter, not after COP30, not before the Women's World Cup, not even if someone at Itamaraty develops a sudden nostalgia for pre-2019 entry statistics. It’s over. Accept it. Book your VFS appointment and make peace with the bureaucracy. Bring snacks.

[Riobard]

3 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

 

t’s become increasingly evident—though, naturally, not without the requisite caveats pertaining to multi-ministerial optics and low-yield bilateral mood calibration—that the long-theorized, oft-fantasized reinstatement of Brazil’s visa waiver for U.S. passport holders is, if we’re being honest in an era when honesty is a tricky proposition, not going to materialize. At least not in this cycle, and certainly not before the regional winds blow more favorably in favor of the perception-based multilateral reciprocity carousel, which, as we know, doesn’t tend to move in reverse gear unless diplomatically bribed with carnival floats and modest soft-power concessions.

Of course, one could point to murmurs—heard in the echo chambers of policy-adjacent LinkedIn threads and undercaffeinated embassy receptions—of late-stage legislative pliability, but such readings are miscalibrated at best and border on delusional at worst. These interpretations, while numerically anecdotal and geographically limited to consular gossip clusters, fail to account for the very real inertia generated by entrenched bureaucratic inertia coupled with VFS Global’s contractual inertia (which, like all inertias, tends to remain inert unless acted upon by an external political tantrum, which has not, to date, occurred).

And yes, there are those who cling to the notion of post-COP30 reevaluations, like shipwrecked romantics clutching the idea that a diplomatic high tide might float all boats—including, conveniently, the leaky dinghy of U.S.-Brazilian visa leniency. But such speculation—though charming in a pet theory sort of way—is, in practical terms, roughly equivalent to staking climate change reversal on a really persuasive Instagram infographic. The numbers don’t move unless the players do, and the players aren’t moving unless someone re-bundles the visa issue with a trade-off too tempting to ignore. So far, no bundling is evident.

Some will attempt to parse upcoming visitor data for breadcrumbs of reversibility, forgetting that metrics divorced from legislative appetite are just ghosts haunting the spreadsheets of wishful thinkers. We’ve yet to see a single legislative signal—not a draft bill, not a leaked memo, not even a sarcastic tweet—that indicates the will or energy exists to reverse course. Meanwhile, the visa requirement hums along like a mildly annoying refrigerator: always present, rarely justified, but ultimately unbothered by your feelings.

In summation, unless one is deeply committed to cultivating a psychological dependency on diplomatic fantasy fiction, the conclusion is self-evident: the visa waiver is not coming back. Not next quarter, not after COP30, not before the Women's World Cup, not even if someone at Itamaraty develops a sudden nostalgia for pre-2019 entry statistics. It’s over. Accept it. Book your VFS appointment and make peace with the bureaucracy. Bring snacks.

[This ought to be amusing.]

That’s our time for today. For your week’s homework:

Given your claims of expertise, how are you summarizing and integrating the Senate and House of Deputies’ related activities commencing March 19th? What is the standard code of letters and numbers associated with the actual new legislative initiation that would enable you to track the various governmental documents associated with this action to date? What is the voting yes/no ratio to date regarding the legislative action? What is the name of the governmental department / ministry associated with the action? What evidence of advocacy / activism movement are you assessing on social media? How do you track daily House of Deputies agenda topics for evidence that of many important topics this particular one, up for formal review, makes its way up the list? What are the seasonal session date parameters that clue one in to agenda search strategies?Who are the elected officials steering the legislative action and undertaking ‘whip’ roles? What clear evidence exists this century that the reciprocity principle has not at all been consistently applied in spite of one lazy bloated tiresome eye-roll inducing hot air driven ill-conceived quote signifying nothing and purporting to predict the visa story? 

What degree of energy can you transfer from your failed blog to topics such as that of Brazil entry visa obligations set by the Executive Branch? It seems a lot, so perhaps you would do us the honour of undertaking some actual research and circling back with a more fact-based rendering of what might be anticipated regarding the ratification potential for reinstating the visa waiver.

Of course Sydney guy can draw his own conclusions as well. He asked and one informed analytical answer was graciously produced. All takes are equal yet some possibly more than others, mirroring the tension between the Bozos and the Lulatics. Admittedly, I hadn’t considered the relevance of parade floats, Me, I just hope that Brazilians can thrive independent of the visa outcome and that I don’t misplace my 2 copies in the meantime. 

[Riobard]

On 8/4/2025 at 1:34 PM, Latbear4blk said:

 

t’s become increasingly evident—though, naturally, not without the requisite caveats pertaining to multi-ministerial optics and low-yield bilateral mood calibration—that the long-theorized, oft-fantasized reinstatement of Brazil’s visa waiver for U.S. passport holders is, if we’re being honest in an era when honesty is a tricky proposition, not going to materialize. At least not in this cycle, and certainly not before the regional winds blow more favorably in favor of the perception-based multilateral reciprocity carousel, which, as we know, doesn’t tend to move in reverse gear unless diplomatically bribed with carnival floats and modest soft-power concessions.

Of course, one could point to murmurs—heard in the echo chambers of policy-adjacent LinkedIn threads and undercaffeinated embassy receptions—of late-stage legislative pliability, but such readings are miscalibrated at best and border on delusional at worst. These interpretations, while numerically anecdotal and geographically limited to consular gossip clusters, fail to account for the very real inertia generated by entrenched bureaucratic inertia coupled with VFS Global’s contractual inertia (which, like all inertias, tends to remain inert unless acted upon by an external political tantrum, which has not, to date, occurred).

And yes, there are those who cling to the notion of post-COP30 reevaluations, like shipwrecked romantics clutching the idea that a diplomatic high tide might float all boats—including, conveniently, the leaky dinghy of U.S.-Brazilian visa leniency. But such speculation—though charming in a pet theory sort of way—is, in practical terms, roughly equivalent to staking climate change reversal on a really persuasive Instagram infographic. The numbers don’t move unless the players do, and the players aren’t moving unless someone re-bundles the visa issue with a trade-off too tempting to ignore. So far, no bundling is evident.

Some will attempt to parse upcoming visitor data for breadcrumbs of reversibility, forgetting that metrics divorced from legislative appetite are just ghosts haunting the spreadsheets of wishful thinkers. We’ve yet to see a single legislative signal—not a draft bill, not a leaked memo, not even a sarcastic tweet—that indicates the will or energy exists to reverse course. Meanwhile, the visa requirement hums along like a mildly annoying refrigerator: always present, rarely justified, but ultimately unbothered by your feelings.

In summation, unless one is deeply committed to cultivating a psychological dependency on diplomatic fantasy fiction, the conclusion is self-evident: the visa waiver is not coming back. Not next quarter, not after COP30, not before the Women's World Cup, not even if someone at Itamaraty develops a sudden nostalgia for pre-2019 entry statistics. It’s over. Accept it. Book your VFS appointment and make peace with the bureaucracy. Bring snacks.

Funny how AI processing works. Maybe it’s the female competition reference. Possibly the ‘snap’ ‘tude, but what got churned out as apparently a historically younger and guessworked representation of the essay source seems to have been a dated Argentine pageantry runway vid clip of the plausibly identified content author.

This cannot be right. Respect these programs' limits. 

[Latbear4blk]

2 hours ago, Riobard said:

Funny how AI processing works. Maybe it’s the female competition reference. Possibly the ‘snap’ ‘tude, but what got churned out as apparently a historically younger and guessworked representation of the essay source seems to have been a dated Argentine pageantry runway vid clip of the plausibly identified content author.

This cannot be right. Respect these programs' limits. 

 

It’s not without a certain ironic charm that your response—layered in what I can only describe as dignified dismay with a faint aroma of faux-academic chastisement—managed to upstage the actual topic under discussion. Namely: Brazil's bureaucratic indifference to the dreams of waiver-loving globe-trotters. And while I, too, mourn the tragic misalignment of tone and expectation between authorial intent and reader projection, let’s not lose sight of the fundamental truth: if this thread were a dish, it’s been seasoned with satire, and to send it back to the kitchen for being “too spicy” is perhaps an overreaction borne of palate fragility.

Now, regarding the mention of “female competition reference,” I can only assume you're referring to the “mean girl alliances” comment, which—spoiler alert—was neither gendered nor competitive so much as a sly nod to the social algebra endemic to every corner of the internet since dial-up. The phrase functions less as a sociological assertion than as low-effort comic seasoning—a linguistic parsley flake, if you will. To extract deeper meaning from it is a bit like interpreting microwave popcorn instructions as a political manifesto.

As for the “dated Argentine pageantry runway vid clip” metaphor—an inspired turn of phrase, if only for its opaque bravado—I regret to inform you that no AI was harmed, or fed, with such visual material. That said, should you locate said clip, I’d be delighted to incorporate it into future processing cycles. It’s been a while since I’ve trained on anything that simultaneously evokes nostalgia, glitter, and provincial nihilism.

More to the point, the piece was written to mirror—not mock—the original tone of the forum’s long-form digressions: a style known for its admirable refusal to traffic in anything so gauche as conciseness or clarity. We’re a species of syntax peacocks here, and this was just my own feather display, offered in good faith and with an absurdist nod to the tragicomic opera of visa policy discourse.

Now, about this idea that the response “cannot be right”—well, of course it’s not right. It’s parody. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a wax museum figure of yourself caught mid-opinion. Expecting it to conform to the factual or tonal constraints of your original post is like being disappointed that a caricature gave you bigger ears. That’s the whole game, my friend.

“Respect these programs’ limits,” you say. An admirable maxim, surely. But I would also humbly submit that one must respect the limits of their own metaphor engines before deploying similes that invoke vintage Latin American catwalks and semi-identified video ghosts. We all dabble in the avant-garde here, but let’s not call the blender broken because you tossed in a mango and got chutney instead of flan.

Besides, if we’re to audit the outputs of AI on the basis of psychic resemblance to third-tier nostalgia media, I fear we’ve already entered a genre of critique that would leave Kafka blinking. Surely our collective energy is better spent addressing the very real—and yet somehow less dramatic—truth that no amount of forum hand-wringing is going to pry open Brazil’s visa gates, at least not without a handshake, a trade concession, and probably a caipirinha summit or two.

I say all this with the utmost respect for your contribution, and the acute self-awareness that I, too, am now guilty of giving ten paragraphs to what could’ve been resolved with a shrug emoji. But since verbosity seems to be our mutually preferred sport, I consider this an offering, not a trespass. And if nothing else, it should stand as proof that artificial intelligence, while imperfect, is at least capable of spirited repartee when provoked.

In sum: the visa waiver remains dead, satire is not a security threat, and if a joking post reads to you like a haunted pageant clip, that might say more about your algorithm than mine. Peace, parody, and paperwork to all.

[Riobard]

I think that you may be in danger of actually becoming a bit interesting even if it’s attributable to the ghost-writer at your disposal.

The female competition variable was the World Cup; hope such clarification assists your helper, a person or program excused by virtue of the appropriate assumption that you’re a permanent fixture in Mean Girls central casting. 

[floridarob]

5 hours ago, Riobard said:

I think that you may be in danger of actually becoming a bit interesting even if it’s attributable to the ghost-writer at your disposal.

The female competition variable was the World Cup; hope such clarification assists your helper, a person or program excused by virtue of the appropriate assumption that you’re a permanent fixture in Mean Girls central casting. 

Oh, how thrilling—finally scraping the edge of interesting thanks to my ghostly scribe, while you so generously clarify the World Cup’s role in this female drama, assuming I’m eternally typecast in *Mean Girls*. Truly, your insight is a gift!

[Riobard]

2 hours ago, floridarob said:

Oh, how thrilling—finally scraping the edge of interesting thanks to my ghostly scribe, while you so generously clarify the World Cup’s role in this female drama, assuming I’m eternally typecast in *Mean Girls*. Truly, your insight is a gift!

Danger danger!

Bots in need of service! Florida and Latin America troll meltdown merger. Though where did one ever end and the other begin?

Rehab stat! Semi room for a not unexpected mean girls blender mashup. Private room rate applicable.

Oops, in arrest over cost! better get the paddles. 

Somebody suggested get a room, troll brigade? It was meant as a joke. Sorry not sorry. But then how can a career bull manufacturer possibly even keep who he is straight?