Streamline unjust visa procedures

This letter is written to highlight the draconian and unethical visa procedures adopted by some embassies/countries perpetrating gross injustice, especially on genuine travellers who apply for visas through reputed tour operators for periods less than two weeks.

Recently, my sister employed in a reputed state-owned bank, her retired husband and unmarried, employed son who all had a great desire to visit a highly-developed country with astounding scenic beauty, applied to participate in a 12-day sightseeing group tour. After obtaining the necessary data/information and having charged a substantial handling fee from them, the tour operator had filled and prepared the necessary forms on their behalf for the embassy which gave a date for its usual personal interview.

At the time of perusal of the relative forms prepared by the experienced tour operator (who arranges more than two tours per annum to this developed country), the document checking officer at the embassy counter had castigated the three applicants in a very discourteous manner stating that the forms have been filled incorrectly. Thereafter, he had re-filled/rectified some forms and finally the three applicants were summoned for the interview as a family.

The visa officer having asked a few general questions had nonchalantly handed over a letter indicating that the visa had been rejected. Given to understand that reasons for visa rejections are not disclosed by this embassy, the thoroughly disappointed applicants had returned home. It is pertinent to mention that if the embassy had reservations about approving visa for the young member of the family, they could have approved visa for the parents without confiscating the entire visa fee of three persons.

The insult to injury was that the family finally had to undergo a substantial financial loss of Rs. 87,500 (Rs. 71,100 as visa fees and Rs. 16,400 as handling charges of the tour operator) for no fault of theirs.

About two weeks before the departure date of the tour, my sister’s husband was informed by the tour operator that two other participants, whose visas were initially rejected, had got their visas approved on re-application with fresh visa fees and handling charges  being paid and  that if my sister’s family wishes they could similarly arrange to reapply. However, my sister’s husband had not agreed to pay visa fees and handling charges for a second time and risk rejection again.

Now, any rational person will agree that this whole visa application/approval procedure is a highly preposterous ‘gamble’ where one pays a substantial sum of money without any guarantee of the desired objective being achieved and finally losing the entire amount of money without knowing any reasons.

Our contention is that, primarily, in a so-called ‘Global Village’ as postulated by the advanced, superpowers, why should member countries of the UN adopt double or different standards when permitting other global citizens to enter their so-called land, particularly for reasons of sightseeing for periods less than a month? Presently, hundreds and thousands of ‘otherwise ineligible’ persons are entering the territories of developed countries for good, in the guise of refugees, asylum seekers and green card holders. What hypocrisy is this? It is ironic that genuine sightseeing visa applicants are confronted with red tape and paper pushing. Despite the paper work, the EU has at least worked out a common visa procedure for all its member countries through the introduction of ‘Schengen Visa’.

In a scenario where countries are increasingly allowing visa-free and on-arrival visas to enter their land, we urge the UN to persuade its member countries to abolish this daylight money plundering and redundant visa procedures and adopt a more simplified and a just method to attract those genuine sightseeing travellers to their countries at least for periods less than one month. Meanwhile, we hope that the Right to Information Act would require disclosure of reasons for visa rejections when the law is passed shortly.

Finally, we appeal to the tour operators to be more compassionate and refund at least a reasonable percentage of the handling charges paid by those dejected applicants whose visas are rejected.

We invite all concerned parties to address this solvable issue with a view to enabling those genuine travellers to see the world and trust that they will consider this ‘whistle-blowing’ in the correct context and spirit.

Bernard Fernando

Moratuwa