Legal Action Against AIMA: When an Injunction (Intimação) Is Admissible

When AIMA does not decide a residence permit application, many Brazilians immediately think of going to court. Until 2025, the most common route was the summary injunction to protect rights, freedoms and guarantees (intimação para proteção de direitos, liberdades e garantias), an urgent proceeding in the administrative courts. Law 61/2025 (Lei) changed this landscape: it added Article 87-B to the Foreigners Act (Lei de Estrangeiros), which restricts the injunction against AIMA. In this article we explain which judicial remedies are available, when the injunction is still admissible and how to prepare the case.

What Article 87-B of the Foreigners Act says

Article 87-B, headed "Judicial protection" (Tutela jurisdicional), applies to AIMA's decisions and omissions under the chapter of the law dealing with residence in national territory, which covers the granting and renewal of residence permits and family reunification. It sets out three rules:

1. The rule is the administrative action. Court actions concerning AIMA's decisions or omissions take the form of an administrative action, without prejudice to interim relief under the general rules (paragraph 1).
2. The injunction becomes exceptional. It is only admissible when, in addition to the requirements of Article 109(1) of the CPTA, AIMA's action or omission compromises, in a demonstrably serious and direct manner, the timely exercise of personal rights, freedoms and guarantees whose protection cannot be effectively ensured by interim measures (paragraph 2).
3. AIMA's capacity may weigh on the decision. In an injunction for failure to act in a timely manner, the judge must consider, if so requested, the number of proceedings pending at AIMA, any abnormal pressure of applications, the human, administrative and financial resources available and the consequences of the injunction for the equitable treatment of all applicants (paragraph 3).

Since when it applies

Law 61/2025 was published on October 22, 2025 and entered into force the following day (Article 9). Article 8 provides that the new rules apply to administrative procedures and court proceedings initiated after its entry into force. Actions filed earlier remain under the previous regime.

What is not covered

Article 87-B is in the Foreigners Act and refers to AIMA. It does not apply to citizenship proceedings before the IRN, whose litigation follows the Statute of Administrative and Tax Courts and the CPTA (Article 26 of the Nationality Act (Lei da Nacionalidade)). For delays in citizenship cases, see our page on urgency in citizenship proceedings.

The three judicial remedies against AIMA

1. Administrative action to compel a decision (ação administrativa de condenação à prática de ato devido)

This is the proper remedy when AIMA has not decided within the legal deadline or has rejected the application. The court is asked to order AIMA to issue the decision within a set period (Articles 66 and 67(1) of the Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts (Código de Processo nos Tribunais Administrativos, CPTA)). The deadlines for filing the action are:

• in case of silence, one year counted from the end of the legal deadline for a decision (Article 69(1));
• in case of rejection, as a rule three months (Articles 69(2) and 58(1)(b)).

AIMA's legal deadlines for a decision are 90 days for a grant, extendable by 30 days in exceptional circumstances, and 60 days for a renewal (Article 82, paragraphs 5 and 6, of Law 23/2007 (Lei), as amended by Law 62/2026 (Lei)).

2. Interim (precautionary) measure (providência cautelar)

It may be requested before or during the main action, to prevent the delay from causing harm that could not later be repaired (Articles 112 and 113 of the CPTA). It is granted when there is a well-founded fear of a fait accompli or of harm that is difficult to repair and it is likely that the main action will succeed, after weighing the public and private interests (Article 120). In situations of special urgency, the judge may order it provisionally within 48 hours (Article 131).

3. Summary injunction to protect rights, freedoms and guarantees

It is an urgent proceeding, which runs even during court vacations (Article 36 of the CPTA). The judge decides within the time needed to ensure its useful effect, up to five days after the necessary steps have been taken (Article 111(1)). Against AIMA, however, it is only admissible under the restrictive terms of Article 87-B(2).

When the injunction against AIMA is admissible

For proceedings initiated after the entry into force of Law 61/2025, the injunction requires, cumulatively:

1. that a prompt decision on the merits be indispensable to ensure, in a timely manner, the exercise of one of the rights, freedoms and guarantees (Article 109(1) of the CPTA);
2. that an interim measure is not possible or sufficient in the specific case;
3. that AIMA's action or omission compromises that right in a demonstrably serious and direct manner;
4. that personal rights, freedoms and guarantees are at stake.

In practice, delay alone is no longer enough. You must show, with documents, which personal right is affected, why the harm is serious, why it results directly from the lack of a decision and why an interim measure would not solve it.

There is also a CPTA rule that weighs on the choice: if the judge considers that the case can be resolved with an interim measure, the judge sets a deadline for the claimant to replace the initial pleading and the case proceeds as an interim measure (Article 110-A(1)). In situations of special urgency, the judge may provisionally order the appropriate measure in the same order (paragraph 2).

If your application is stalled and you do not know which remedy fits your case, send us your case. Our team reviews the dates, the concrete harm and the available evidence before recommending a course of action.

Practical scenarios

Stalled renewal, with a valid receipt

If you have the receipt for your renewal application and continue to work and live normally, the harm tends to be smaller. The most common path is an administrative complaint and, once the 60-day deadline has passed, an administrative action to compel a decision. An injunction is unlikely to be justified without additional concrete harm.

Stalled initial application and imminent loss of employment

If the lack of a decision prevents the signing or continuation of an employment contract, with documentary evidence (a dated job offer, an employer's statement), the case may justify an interim measure and, depending on the circumstances, an injunction. The analysis depends on proof that the harm is serious, direct and cannot be resolved through interim relief.

Family reunification and children separated from their parents

Prolonged separation from minor children may involve significant personal rights, such as family life. Even so, the injunction requires concrete proof of the harm and of the insufficiency of interim relief. See also our page on the D6 visa and family reunification.

Application rejected

Here there is no omission, but an express act. The deadline for the action is, as a rule, three months. The choice of remedy and the calculation of the deadline should be made right after notification.

Before going to court

• Confirm that the legal deadline for a decision has ended. Until the deadline ends, there is no omission (Article 67(1)(a) of the CPTA).
• Consider a complaint for omission. The interested party may request that the act be issued through a complaint (reclamação) addressed to the body responsible for the omission (Articles 184(1)(b) and 191 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Código do Procedimento Administrativo, CPA)). It puts the request for a decision on record, but it does not suspend the deadline for the court action.
• Gather proof of the harm. This is the central point after Law 61/2025.
• Retain a lawyer. In the administrative courts, representation by a lawyer is mandatory (Article 11(1) of the CPTA). As a rule, the action is filed in the court for the area where the claimant resides (Article 16); for the injunction, the rule in Article 20(5) applies.

Document checklist

1. receipt for the application submitted to AIMA, with the submission date and the case number;
2. proof of payment of fees and communications received from AIMA;
3. residence card, visa or renewal receipt;
4. passport and identification documents;
5. proof of the concrete harm: employment contract or job offer, employer's statement, medical records, school enrollment, travel tickets, children's birth certificates, as applicable;
6. a record of contact attempts and complaints filed, with dates.

Common mistakes

• Filing an injunction based on delay alone. After Law 61/2025, delay without concrete, proven harm is unlikely to suffice.
• Ignoring the interim measure. If it is sufficient, the injunction is not admissible.
• Missing the deadline. One year in case of silence; as a rule, three months in case of rejection.
• Confusing AIMA and the IRN. Article 87-B does not apply to citizenship proceedings.
• Making allegations without evidence. The law requires "demonstrably" serious and direct harm.

When it makes sense to consult a lawyer

Whenever AIMA's legal deadline has passed and the delay is causing concrete harm, or when there has been a rejection. The choice between an action, an interim measure and an injunction determines the practical outcome, and choosing wrongly can cost time. Sene & Araújo, with lawyers in São Paulo and Albufeira, assists Brazilians with applications before AIMA and in the Portuguese administrative courts. The decision always rests with the court. Talk to our team or see our pages on residence permits and administrative action against AIMA and the IRN.

• Law 61/2025 of October 22 (Arts. 3, 8 and 9 — addition of Art. 87-B)
• Law 23/2007 — Foreigners Act (Lei de Estrangeiros), consolidated version (Arts. 82 and 87-B)
• Law 62/2026 of September 10 (Art. 4 — Art. 82)
• Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts (Código de Processo nos Tribunais Administrativos) (Arts. 11, 16, 20, 36, 58, 66, 67, 69, 109 to 113, 120 and 131)
• Code of Administrative Procedure (Código do Procedimento Administrativo) — Decree-Law 4/2015 (Arts. 184 and 191)
• Law 37/81 — Nationality Act (Lei da Nacionalidade), consolidated version (Art. 26)

Sene & Araújo Sociedade de Advogados team. Content prepared and reviewed by the firm's lawyers, admitted to the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) and the Portuguese Bar Association (Ordem dos Advogados), with offices in São Paulo and Albufeira. The provisions cited were checked against the official sources listed above. Meet the team.