The Brazilian lawyer André Lima responds every week to a question from DN Brasil readers about immigration.
This week’s question comes from a reader who has already filed a lawsuit and a tacit renewal request, but no response. What can you do now? Lawyer André Lima responds:
A few weeks ago, I posted here on DN Brazil practical guidance that has helped many readers: how to formally notify AIMA when the residence permit process is stopped for an excessive amount of time and, from there, organize the way to invoke tacit approval, when applicable. The logic was simple and very realistic: first, take the case out of “limbo” and create documentary proof of inertia; then, demonstrate that the applicant fulfilled his part, presented the necessary elements, waited the due period and still received no response.
This contextualization is important because now the question that usually comes next has arrived: “Doctor, I notified. And yet AIMA didn’t respond. What do I do?”. And here comes a truth that many people need to hear clearly: when the Administration is silent, citizens do not need to conform.
Notification alone is not a magic wand. It is a powerful tool, but it has a specific role: formalizing billing, setting time milestones and producing proof. If, even after this step, AIMA remains silent, the path stops being just administrative and becomes judicial. In practical terms, when the notification “doesn’t work”, it doesn’t mean you lost; means you have reached the next step.
Click here and follow the DN Brasil channel on WhatsApp
The next step is to ask the Court to force AIMA to decide. The Portuguese legal system does not allow the Administration to push a decision indefinitely. There is a duty to make a decision and, when this duty is violated by omission, the applicant can sue the Administrative Court to demand that the body respond. The most common route, in these cases, is an action aimed at obtaining the Administration’s condemnation to perform the due act, that is, an express decision on the request.
The objective is not to “jump the queue” or ask for privileges. It’s something much more basic: ensuring that the State complies with the minimum, which is deciding. This makes a difference because silence is not neutral. Those who are left without a decision are left without predictability, without security and, often, with their life stuck. Travel becomes compromised, work contracts become unstable, leases become more difficult and even simple everyday situations start to require explanations that no one should need to give all the time. The process cannot become an infinite wait.
In general, this strategy is usually indicated when three factors appear together: relevant deadlines have already been passed, without a decision; formal notification made, with proof of sending and receipt; and persistence of omission, without dispatch, without response or without any useful referral. Each case needs analysis, as there may be pending requirements, incomplete requests or particularities of the procedure that change the strategy.
But the central message is this: notification is the beginning of the test. The Court is the way to go when the evidence does not produce a reaction. If AIMA does not respond, this does not mean that the applicant should wait another six months “to see if things go well”. It means it might be time to demand a response in the right way.
Leave a Reply