This article seeks to show how Brazilian courts’ unwillingness to perform judicial review over the merits of administrative refugee status determination (RSD) decisions is both founded on unfounded premises and incompatible with Brazil’s obligations under international law. To that effect, the article promotes an analysis of the case law issued by Brazilian appellate courts on this issue until April 2024. These courts have overwhelmingly held that RSD decisions are political acts over which the executive branch of government holds absolute discretion and are thus excluded from judicial review. Nevertheless, this reasoning is based on misconceptions about the normative refugee protection framework and is inconsistent with the declaratory nature of refugee status. Lack of a review of the merits of RSD decisions also goes against the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, ultimately voiding the right to asylum in its Article 22(7) for many asylum-seekers. This article finds that Brazilian courts’ erroneous conclusions about the nature of RSD decisions compromise effective refugee protection in the country, essentially subsuming this protection into a policy choice.