The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is back in session this Wednesday to tackle a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape Brazil's approach to immigration. At the center of the case is a fundamental question: can migrants and undocumented immigrants detained at São Paulo's Guarulhos Airport legally request asylum within Brazilian borders? The court's decision will have significant consequences for hundreds of individuals and set a precedent for future cases.
The case revolves around a heated dispute between federal prosecutors and public defenders on one side, and the court's own presiding judge, Minister Herman Benjamin, on the other. Back in December 2024, Benjamin made a decisive move, authorizing the deportation of immigrants held at the airport. His ruling effectively overturned a lower court's injunction that had blocked the Federal Police from carrying out deportations. Benjamin also took the strong step of prohibiting future injunctions that would indiscriminately allow people seeking asylum to enter the country.
Benjamin's position is backed by data from the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Police. The numbers paint a stark picture: asylum requests in Brazil skyrocketed from just 69 in 2013 to over 9,000 in 2024. However, of more than 8,300 requests made between early 2023 and mid-2024, only a tiny fraction—117—led to official migration registration. Benjamin argued this pattern suggests Brazil is being used as a transit route for illegal immigration to other destinations, particularly the United States, with Guarulhos as a key stopover.
The minister also raised concerns about the conditions at the airport, warning that prolonged detention could lead to inhumane discomfort and pose security and health risks to the migrants, airport staff, and the terminal itself. He noted the confined space and the unknown health and criminal backgrounds of the individuals. Despite this, Benjamin left a door open, stating that courts could still examine individual cases if applicants could prove ties to Brazil, such as family reunification, and a genuine intention to stay.
Not everyone on the bench agrees. Minister Og Fernandes delivered a passionate dissent, arguing that statistical data alone cannot justify assuming that all migrants will act fraudulently. He warned that Benjamin's approach amounts to a "blank check" for mass deportations without proper case-by-case review. Fernandes emphasized Brazil's international obligations, pointing to agreements like the Cartagena Declaration, which expanded the definition of refugees to include those fleeing widespread violence and human rights violations. He estimated that the original injunction protected about 180 foreigners.
The political backdrop adds another layer of complexity. An expert from PUC-SP university notes that Brazil's traditionally open immigration laws are now clashing with a more restrictive political climate, influenced by global trends. The government, while not publicly vocal, appears to be adopting a tougher stance, possibly due to past criticism over its handling of Afghan refugees in 2024. This shift is reflected in the numbers: asylum requests plummeted by 94% from 2024 to 2025.
The judgment is far from over. The session was paused after Minister Benedito Gonçalves requested more time to review the case. Several other ministers are still waiting to cast their votes, meaning the final outcome remains uncertain. All eyes are on the STJ as it weighs national security, humanitarian principles, and Brazil's role on the global stage.
Based on reporting from g1.