Brazil Investor Visa

The threshold for this route is the acquisition of real property located in an urban area with a total value of 1,000,000 reais or more, and that figure sits in Normative Resolution No. 36 of 9 October 2018 of the National Immigration Council, not in Decree 9,199. The decree states only which instrument sets it.

Article 151(4) provides that an application for a residence authorisation for the purpose of making an investment shall follow the conditions laid down in a joint Act of the Minister of Justice and Public Security and the Minister of Foreign Relations, after hearing the other interested ministries.

That paragraph has itself just been amended, and this is the part to read closely: the earlier version left the matter to a resolution of the National Immigration Council, while Decree No. 12,657 of 2025 moved the power to the inter-ministerial act.

Both versions of paragraph 4 now sit on the same consolidated page, so a figure found in an older source may have changed instrument rather than merely changed value.

Resolution No. 36 attaches the real estate route to the opening sentence of Article 151 and sets the specific conditions itself: the property may be completed or under construction; the minimum may be up to 30 percent lower for purchases in the North and Northeast, which puts the floor at 700,000 reais, a figure the resolution does not itself print; the value of more than one property may be added together to reach the minimum; and only the part above the minimum may be financed.

The three forms of investment in a legal entity in Article 151(1) belong to a parallel route, investment in a company under Normative Resolution No. 13 of 12 December 2017 with a general threshold of 500,000 reais, a floor of no less than 150,000 reais for investors in innovation or in scientific or technological research, and an indefinite residence term from the outset; none of that applies to the real estate route on this page.

The two levels in the options table, 1,000,000 reais and 700,000 reais, are read from the consolidated text of Resolution No. 36 as amended by Resolution 46 of 2021 and Resolution 49 of 2024, published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security.

Decree No. 12,657 of 7 October 2025 moved the power to set the requirements to a joint instrument of two ministries but did not revoke Resolution No. 36, and on 15 October 2026 the Ministry of Justice still lists the resolution among the normative resolutions on its labour immigration portal. Decree No. 12,657 also revoked Decree No. 9,873 of 2019, which Resolution No. 36 cites as the source of its authority, and it contains no transitional clause mentioning the National Immigration Council or its resolutions. The lists of joint instruments for 2025 and 2026 on the same portal contain none on investment. The two figures are therefore the levels the Ministry of Justice currently publishes, and no instrument provides that they remain in force until a joint instrument replaces them.

The decree says twice, at two points more than a hundred articles apart, that owning property in Brazil confers no right in itself. Article 11: possession or ownership of property in the country shall not confer the right to obtain a visa.

Article 123(2) repeats it for residence: possession or ownership of property shall not confer the right to obtain a residence authorisation.

Both times the sentence carries exactly one reservation — save for what is provided about the route for making an investment.

Buying property therefore opens the route only when it is done within the frame of the investment route, and for this route that frame is set by Normative Resolution No. 36 of 9 October 2018 of the National Immigration Council: the Ministry of Justice and Public Security may grant residence under the opening sentence of Article 151 of the Decree to a natural person who, with their own funds of external origin, makes a real estate investment in Brazil.

The opening sentence of Article 151 is written for an investment in a legal entity in the country, in a project with potential to generate employment or income in Brazil. The three forms of investment in a legal entity in paragraph 1 and the rule for administrators in paragraphs 2 and 3 belong to the parallel route of investment in a company under Normative Resolution No. 13 of 12 December 2017, not to the real estate route on this page.

How durable the outcome is depends on the resolution and on the last two paragraphs of Article 151 together. Resolution No. 36 grants an initial authorisation of four years, after which it may convert to an indefinite term if the holder files documents showing the investment conditions are still maintained; Article 151(5) is the basis for that indefinite term.

Paragraph 6: that authorisation may be declared lost under Article 135(I) where the immigrant has not executed the investment plan on which it was granted.

The term may become indefinite, but the investment condition runs throughout: Article 6-B of the resolution allows the authorisation to be declared lost under Article 135(I) when the ground for the grant ceases, whether during a fixed or an indefinite term.

The decree sets deadlines at almost every step, but read closely those deadlines all fall on the applicant, not on the authority — and that is the most important point in this cell.

No provision requires the authority to decide within any period.

The only date attached to a decision comes after a refusal. Article 134 allows an appeal against a decision refusing a residence authorisation within ten days from the date the immigrant learns of it, guaranteeing the adversarial principle and full rights of defence.

It applies Law No. 9,784 of 29 January 1999 subsidiarily, the general administrative-procedure statute, which is where one must look for any deadline to decide.

On the applicant's side every date carries a money penalty. Article 307(iii) imposes a fine for failing to register within ninety days of entry where civil identification is compulsory.

Article 307(iv) imposes a fine per day of delay where the immigrant fails to register for the purposes of a residence authorisation within thirty days after being directed to do so by the competent body.

And Article 130(2) states plainly that applying for a new residence authorisation after the previous one has expired brings with it the sanction in Article 307(ii), namely a fine for each day of excess plus deportation if the person does not leave the country or regularise their migratory situation within the period set.

This route does carry a minimum number of days of presence, and it comes from the resolution rather than the decree: Article 6 of Normative Resolution No. 36 requires the real estate investor to remain in Brazilian territory for at least 14 days, consecutive or interspersed, in each two-year period counted from registration with the Federal Police. There is in addition an absence ceiling and a reporting duty running for as long as the authorisation is in force.

Article 135 lists three cases in which a residence authorisation is declared lost: first, cessation of the ground on which it rested; second, obtaining a residence authorisation on a different ground; and third, absence from the country for more than two years without presenting a justification.

That last clause repays close reading: the two years are not an absolute ceiling but a ceiling on unjustified absence — present a justification and the provision does not bite. For the real estate route, the sole paragraph of Article 6 of the resolution adds that a holder who meets the 14 days is not subject to loss of the authorisation for absence under Article 135(III).

Paragraph 1 adds an active duty: the immigrant must notify the Federal Police whenever they cease to hold the conditions that grounded the authorisation, at any point during its validity.

Paragraph 2 leaves an exit: losing the ground under the first case does not prevent an application on another ground.

For this route it is that first case, rather than the two-year ceiling, that is the dangerous door: Article 6-B of the resolution provides that cessation of the ground for the grant, found during a fixed or an indefinite term, is a ground for declaring the authorisation lost under Article 135(I), and the ground for this route is the real estate investment.

The periodic review sits at the four-year mark: Article 5 of the resolution allows the initial authorisation to convert to an indefinite term only when the holder files documents showing the investment conditions are still maintained, together with the National Migration Registry Card and criminal record certificates. Article 6-A lets a holder who misses the 14 days or the deadline to convert apply for a new four-year authorisation, provided the investment is kept.

Finally, Article 137 requires every declaration of loss or cancellation to pass through an administrative procedure observing the adversarial principle and full rights of defence.

Nothing in the resolution creating this category addresses dependants:

Normative Resolution No. 36 of 9 October 2018 does not mention dependants, family, spouses, children, partners, reunion, ascendants, descendants or siblings.

Relatives use the general family reunion route, and this is a join to two other instruments.

Article 37 of Migration Law 13,445 of 2017 grants a visa or residence authorisation for reunion to a spouse or partner without any discrimination, and to a child of an immigrant holding a residence authorisation.

The same article covers ascendants and descendants to the second degree, siblings, and a person who has a Brazilian in their care or custody.

Article 153 of Decree 9,199 of the same year details eight groups, in which ascendants to the second degree means parents and grandparents and descendants to the second degree means children and grandchildren.

An economic dependency test is imposed on one group only: paragraph 3 requires a sibling over 18 to prove economic dependency on the sponsoring relative, while children, spouses, parents and grandparents are not so required.

The decree states no age limit for children. The sponsored relative permission expires on the same date as the sponsor permission, and where the sponsor holds indefinite residence the dependant does too.

Applications may be filed together but are granted only after the sponsor has been granted. The dependant may undertake any activity including paid work on the same footing as a Brazilian; and a person holding residence by reunion may not in turn sponsor another.

There is no additional financial threshold per dependant in any of the three instruments.

The status this programme grants, whether a visa or a residence permit, does not replace the holder's passport. The holder still travels on the passport of their own country, so the figure below belongs to the Brazil passport and becomes the holder's only once they are issued a Brazil passport.

According to the Passport Index of Prosperous Intelligence, on data dated 30 September 2026, the Brazil passport reaches 180 destinations without applying for a consular visa in advance. The figure combines three forms of entry and does not count an e-Visa that must be obtained beforehand:

It is therefore a measure of how easily the holder travels, not a count of visa-free countries in the narrow sense.

For comparison, on the same source and the same method of counting, the Vietnamese passport reaches 44 destinations. The two lists of destinations do not nest inside one another, so the difference is an indication rather than a list of places newly opened.

Prosperous Intelligence dates its data and advises checking with the destination’s official authorities before travelling.

The resolution that creates this category says nothing whatever about tax. The consolidated version of Normative Resolution No. 36 of 9 October 2018, as amended by Resolution 46 of 2021 and Resolution 49 of 2024, does not use the tax terms tribut, imposto, fiscal, renda or Receita Federal.

The only financial document required is a statement from an institution authorised by the Central Bank of Brazil attesting to the international transfer of capital; that evidences the flow of funds, not a tax position.

What the resolution does say: the threshold is the acquisition of real property located in an urban area with a value of 1,000,000 reais or more, reducible by up to 30 percent for purchases in the North and Northeast.

Residence runs for four years initially and may then convert to an indefinite term; and the presence obligation is to remain in the national territory for at least 14 days, consecutive or interspersed, in each two-year period.

The regulation to the Migration Law adds that possession or ownership of property in the country does not of itself confer the right to obtain a visa.

One gap belongs in the record because it stops the join to the tax rules from closing.

Migration Law 13,445 of 2017 abolished the concept of the permanent visa outright, and the statute no longer uses the term anywhere. Yet the 2018 income tax regulation still anchors the rule taxing residents from the date of arrival to that very term.

And the 2026 personal income tax question-and-answer manual issued by the revenue authority does not use the phrase autorização de residência at all.

This record therefore does not state that an investor in this category becomes a tax resident from the date of arrival.

The question of when tax residence begins has an official answer for this very route. Solution of Consultation No. 180 of 19 October 2021 issued by the General Coordination of Taxation (Cosit) of the Federal Revenue, published in the official gazette on 10 November 2021, states that Resolution No. 36 is not an instrument governing tax matters, and that a person who enters Brazil on a temporary visa becomes resident on the date they complete 184 days of presence in Brazil, consecutive or not, within a period of up to twelve months, unless they obtained a permanent visa or an employment relationship before that.

An investor in this category coming from abroad enters on a temporary visa, so the 184-day date is the one that applies. Whether an authorisation converted to an indefinite term counts as a permanent visa is a question no instrument has answered.

From the date of tax residence the person is subject to the tax rules that apply to every other resident under Normative Instruction SRF No. 208 of 2002. Income from foreign sources is taxed through the monthly carnê-leão payment and the annual return, and tax paid abroad is creditable only where Brazil has a treaty with that country or there is reciprocity of treatment. The Federal Revenue list of double taxation treaties, updated 28 August 2026, does not include Vietnam.

Two federal charges, each with its own collection code, and the ministry prints both in two separate places on the same page so they cross-check: processing and assessment fee for residence authorisation applications R$ 168.13, code 140066; issue fee for the National Migration Registry Card R$ 204.77, code 140120.

Payment is by GRU bank slip. On renewal of the residence period only one charge remains: R$ 204.77 for the new card — the assessment fee is not levied again. Under Article 131(2) of Decree 9,199 the assessment fee is also not charged to an immigrant holding a temporary visa where the residence has the same purpose as the visa already granted.

What matters before either figure is which authorities the file passes through. The application for this route is addressed to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, but the holder must still register with the Federal Police and obtain the National Migration Registry Card, within 90 days of entry where they arrived on a temporary visa, or within 30 days of the authorisation being published in the official gazette where it was granted while in Brazil. The two-year periods with at least 14 days of presence under Resolution No. 36 also run from that registration.

The page lists six grounds for residence authorisation that must be filed directly with the Ministry of Justice and Public Security through the MigranteWeb system version 2.0, and the third of those six is carrying out an investment.

The fourth is carrying out an activity of economic, social, scientific, technological or cultural relevance.

For the remaining routes, such as study, medical treatment or family reunion, the page directs applicants to the Federal Police. The list of six grounds matches Article 127(1) of Decree 9,199, a paragraph revoked by Decree No. 12,657 of 2025; Article 127 as now in force provides that residence applications are addressed to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. The division on the page is therefore the ministry's intake guidance, no longer a rule of the decree. The two fee figures are the same on both paths, but the receiving office is not.

From Vietnam the sequence has three steps: prior residence authorisation from the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, then a temporary visa IX for investors from a Brazilian consular post, then entry. Under Article 42(4) of Decree 9,199, the grant of prior authorisation does not automatically lead to the issue of the visa. Vietnamese citizens need a visa to enter Brazil, including for a visit; Brazilian visas are never issued within Brazil; and the only Brazilian post in Vietnam is the Embassy in Hanoi.

Normative Resolution No. 1 of 1 December 2017 on procedures requires documents produced abroad to carry an apostille under the Hague Convention and to be translated by a sworn public translator in Brazil. The Convention has been in force for Vietnam since 11 September 2026 and Brazil raised no objection to Vietnam's accession, but the work-visa page of the Embassy in Hanoi, published on 26 September 2025, still states that documents must first be legalised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam.