The Nation Newspaper

Tag: visa bond

  • U.S. $15,000 visa bond requirement for Nigerians, others begins Jan 21

    U.S. $15,000 visa bond requirement for Nigerians, others begins Jan 21

    The United States government has introduced a new visa bond policy that may require Nigerians and other foreign nationals applying for B1/B2 business and tourist visas to post financial guarantees of up to $15,000 (N21,354,300).

    The policy, announced by the U.S. Department of State, is part of tightened entry conditions for travellers from countries classified as high-risk. It will take effect from January 21.

    According to information published on the Department’s website, Travel.State.Gov, visa bonds are financial guarantees required from certain applicants who are otherwise eligible for B1/B2 visas. The bonds, set at $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000, will be determined during visa interviews and do not guarantee automatic visa issuance. The Department also noted that fees paid without the direction of a consular officer are non-refundable.

    The new requirement follows the introduction of partial U.S. travel restrictions on Nigeria and several other countries a week earlier. Of the 38 countries listed under the visa bond directive, 24 are in Africa, including Nigeria. The affected countries have varying implementation dates, with Nigeria’s set for January 21, 2026.

    Read Also: Nigeria can earn $10bn yearly from cashew industry, says NCAN

    Other countries on the list include Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, The Gambia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, among others. The Department stated that nationals from these countries have been identified as requiring visa bonds due to immigration compliance concerns and security-related challenges.

    In Nigeria’s case, the US cited the presence and activities of radical Islamic terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State in parts of the country, which it said pose “substantial screening and vetting difficulties.”

    The Department also referenced Nigeria’s visa overstay rates 5.56 per cent for B1/B2 visas and 11.90 per cent for F, M, and J visas as justification for its inclusion.

    Under the directive, applicants required to post a bond must submit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Form I-352 and agree to the bond terms through the U.S. Treasury’s Pay.gov platform. The requirement applies regardless of where the visa application is submitted.

    The policy further states that visa holders who post bonds must enter the United States through designated airports, including Boston Logan International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, and Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.

    The Department of State added that visa bonds will only be refunded if the Department of Homeland Security records the traveller’s departure on or before the expiration of their authorised stay, if the applicant does not travel before the visa expires, or if the traveller applies for and is denied admission at a U.S. port of entry.

  • FULL LIST: Countries affected by US visa bond requirement

    FULL LIST: Countries affected by US visa bond requirement

    The United States has introduced new visa restrictions that may require Nigerians applying for B1/B2 (business and tourism) visas to post a bond of up to $15,000, as Washington expands measures aimed at curbing visa overstays.

    According to the U.S. Department of State, the policy applies to nationals of 38 countries, 24 of which are in Africa, including Nigeria. The bond requirement, which takes effect on different dates depending on the country, applies to applicants who are otherwise found eligible for B1/B2 visas but are assessed as requiring additional assurances.

    For Nigeria, the visa bond requirement will take effect on January 21, 2026. The State Department stressed that the bond does not guarantee visa issuance and that payments made without the instruction of a consular officer will not be refunded.

    Read Also: Visa restrictions ‘ll address U.S.-Nigeria mutual security concerns – Envoy

    Here is the full list of countries affected by the U.S. visa bond requirement and their respective implementation dates.

    Countries affected from January 21, 2026

    1. Algeria

    2. Angola

    3. Antigua and Barbuda

    4. Bangladesh

    5. Benin

    6. Burundi

    7. Cabo Verde

    8. Côte d’Ivoire

    9. Cuba

    10. Djibouti

    11. Dominica

    12. Fiji

    13. Gabon

    14. Kyrgyzstan

    15. Nepal

    16. Nigeria

    17. Senegal

    18. Tajikistan

    19. Togo

    20. Tonga

    21. Tuvalu

    22. Uganda

    23. Vanuatu

    24. Venezuela

    25. Zimbabwe

    Countries affected from January 21, 2026

    26. Bhutan

    27. Botswana

    28. Central African Republic

    29. Guinea

    30. Guinea-Bissau

    31. Namibia

    32. Turkmenistan

    Countries affected from October 23, 2025

    33. Mauritania

    34. São Tomé and Príncipe

    35. Tanzania

    Countries affected from October 11, 2025

    36. The Gambia

    Countries affected from August 20, 2025

    37. Malawi

    38. Zambia

  • Senate defers debate on £3,000 visa bond

    Senate defers debate on £3,000 visa bond

    The Senate on Thursday postponed debate on the proposed imposition of £3,000 “Visa Bond” on Nigerians traveling to the United Kingdom.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator Matthew Nwagwu, had brought a motion urging the Senate to condemn and reject the proposal.

    Nwagwu noted that Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) expressly forbids discrimination against any Nigerian for whatever reason.

    He also noted that Article 5 Paragraph (m) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 to which both Nigeria and Britain are signatories specifically forbids “a sending state party to the Convention from performing functions objected to or prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving state party.”

    He added that Nigeria and Britain are signatories to the 1979 Lusaka Declaration of the Commonwealth on racism and racial prejudice.

    The lawmaker said that he is aware that the two countries are signatories to the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination 1963, as well as the UN Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination of 1966.

    Nwagwu expressed his dismay that in spite of the laws and Conventions to which the UK is signatory, the same UK Government has announced the imposition of a £3,000 “Visa Bond” on Nigerians citizens traveling to Britain for the first time.

    He described the imposition as selective, discriminatory, obnoxious, vexatious and unprecedented.

    He said it is capable of negatively affecting the existing relations between the two countries.

     

     

     

  • UK deputy PM to stop £3,000 visa bond

    UK deputy PM to stop £3,000 visa bond

    Hope rose yesterday for Nigerian first time visitors to the United Kingdom, who may be affected by the planned introduction of £3,000 (about N700,000, (visa bond as British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg vowed to block the implementation of the policy.

    The British Government plans a new visa policy that will see some “high risk” first time visitors deposit £3,000 in bond before being given visas.

    The deposit will be refunded on departure from the UK within the stipulated period but forfeited if the applicant overstays the visa.

    The pilot project is planned to start in November in six countries, including Nigeria where there has been outrage from the government and the people.

    Some lawmakers have even urged the Federal Government to consider a retaliatory approach should the UK go ahead with the bond policy.

    The other countries targeted for the pilot scheme are Ghana, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

    Clegg said yesterday he would try to block any attempt to make foreign visitors routinely pay a security deposit to come to the U.K.

    Officials and business people in other affected countries have condemned the proposal, and the British government has not said how many visa applicants will have to pay the bond.

    Clegg said his Liberal Democrat party and its Conservative coalition partners had “differences of emphasis” on the plan, and details were still being discussed in government.

    “I am absolutely not interested in a bond which becomes an indiscriminate way of clobbering people who want to come to this country,” Clegg told the BBC. He said the bonds “are certainly not going to go ahead” on that basis.

    “Of course in a coalition I can stop things,” he added.

    Immigration is a sensitive political issue in Britain, especially with the unemployment and austerity measures brought on by the economic crisis. Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to cut net immigration from 252,000 a year in 2010 to below 100,000 a year by 2015.

    While that plays well with the Conservatives’ right-of-centre supporters, it has been trouble for the centrist liberal Liberal Democrats, who are holding their annual conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

    The party is sagging in opinion polls, 18 months ahead of a national election, and many members have expressed unease about the compromises involved in coalition government. Earlier this month, one of the best-known Lib Dem lawmakers, Sarah Teather, said she was quitting because she felt the party no longer fought for social justice and liberal values.

    Clegg defended his party’s participation in the coalition, saying it had made the government fairer and more liberal.

  • UK £3,000 visa bond to begin in November

    UK £3,000 visa bond to begin in November

    Despite British Prime Minister David Cameron’s assurance that he will not sanction the controversial 3000 pounds visa bond, his government last weekend insisted it would begin the trial this November. The visa is to restrict some visitors from India, Nigeria, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    They will have to pay the cash bond in return for visitor visas that allow them to stay in the UK for up to six months.

    At the height of the controversy, David Cameron’s administration assured that he would not sanction the policy. But last weekend, FT said: “Britain is pressing ahead with its trial of a scheme to make visitors from six countries pay a £3,000 bond, despite an international backlash and complaints from businesses. The government said it would begin a pilot in November to impose visa restrictions on six Commonwealth nations, including India and Nigeria, even though David Cameron poured cold water on the scheme in June after it provoked uproar in Delhi.”

    “The Prime Minister has not cleared this policy. He doesn’t want to do anything that cuts across the message he took to India,” an ally of Mr. Cameron had told The Financial Times at the time.

    The British government has reportedly decided to go ahead with it though the Home Office insisted that it was meant to target only “high-risk” applicants.

    An official told media that the scheme would be “highly selective”, targeting only “suspicious” applicants.

    Under a “pilot” scheme, to be introduced in November, first-time visitors from six non-white Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, will be required to deposit a cash bond of £3,000 for a British visa. It will apply only to those seeking a six-month visitors’ visa.

    According to the government, these six countries pose the “most significant risk of abuse’’ of visas by their citizens.

    “In the long run, we are interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services,” the Home Office said.

    The move comes barely weeks after Mr. Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg were reported to have refused to clear the scheme in its present form, fearing that the backlash in India and Nigeria threatened to damage bilateral relations at a time when Britain is desperately trying to woo Indian investors and tourists.

    Cameron was reported as saying that he would “not sanction’’ any policy that was likely to undermine his push for investment.

    The Financial Times said that the u-turn had provoked anger in Britain’s business circles, who described the plan as an “insulting deterrent” to wealthy tourists from countries like India and Nigeria.

    “They are urging the government to drop the pilot, saying the restrictions will damage their business if Commonwealth tourists, particularly Nigerians, now the sixth biggest spenders on luxury goods in Britain, are put off,” it said.

  • Visa bond: Before casting the first stone

    Visa bond: Before casting the first stone

    Nigerian leaders should fix their country instead of blaming Britain for protecting its own interest

    Last Sunday, I had taken on Mr David Cameron, the British Prime Minister on this same page when he said that Britain plans to consult with its Nigerian counterpart to ensure that the anti same-sex bill passed by the National Assembly does not become law. I had said then that Mr Cameron and Britain should not turn Nigeria into Sodom and Gomorrah; and that we have values that run counter to what the Britons want us to embrace. In short, I had referred to them as interlopers. Then, I did not know I would have a return match this early.

    But here I am, and so soon, taking sides with the Britons today. Reports that Britain is planning a scheme that will force visitors from 18 years and above from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana whose nationals are deemed to pose a “high risk” of immigration abuse, to provide a cash bond of three thousand pound sterling ($4,600; 3,500 euros) (about N750,000) before they can enter Britain have sent the Nigerian elite throwing brickbats at the British authorities. The scheme, according to The Sunday Times newspaper which broke the news, will take effect in November and covers a six-month visit visa. The weekly paper said the move by Home Secretary Theresa May is designed to show that Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party is serious about cutting immigration and abuses of the system. Cameron wants annual net migration down below 100,000 by 2015.

    May was quoted as saying that “This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain”. She added: “In the long run we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.” A Home Office official said the six countries highlighted were those with “the most significant risk of abuse”. Now, this is something that is still in the works; and many of our elites are already losing sleep. They cannot even wait for the policy to take off before taking on the British authorities.

    Well, unlike my position last week, that I did not see how our rejection of same-sex marriage could have affected Britain to make that country’s prime minister see in that decision a need to seek a change of position by the Federal Government, today, I say unambiguously that Britain is right in taking whatever measures it deems fit to protect its interest. If we do not know what our interest is, not to talk of how to protect it, we should not blame another country that is fastidious about its. As a matter of fact, my position is strengthened every minute by the fact that none of those who have criticised the proposed scheme has adduced any genuine reason why Cameron should not restrict the number of people coming into Britain, despite that country’s own serious economic challenges. Even the Federal Government that has also threatened to retaliate measure-for-measure has not given any convincing reason on how the proposed measure will affect it or affect Nigerians. The best everyone criticising the British has said is that the proposed measure is ‘discriminatory’. For God’ s sake, what does that mean? I don’t know how something that is only ‘discriminatory’ can jeopardise the interest of Nigerians or that of their government. It is a say-nothing reason that we are adducing.

    If you ask how many people are in a particular street anywhere here, it is unlikely you’ll get anything close to the appropriate number. This has been the way we run our own lives; unfortunately, this is not how things are done in better organised countries. At any time, they want to know how many people enter their country and how many people leave, at least for the purposes of planning. Here, we plan in a vacuum and because we fail to plan, or because we plan blindly, we keep experiencing a situation whereby we march forward to the past. Do we want Britain to become the way we are? A jungle where everything goes?

    If you like, you may brand me an unpatriotic citizen for taking this position; I have no apologies for that. But, before those who might want to cast the first stone at me do, they should sincerely ask themselves whether we would have been where we are today if successive governments in the country had been patriotic. When I was a child, I had relatives who travelled to Britain then and they never went with the intention of staying there permanently. They either went to study or they went on holiday; and they were always eager to return to Nigeria. I remember some of our musicians sang about the cold in London and about how and why our students who went there must face their studies in spite of the cold. One of such songs was ‘Ilu Oyinbo dara, ore mi o dun pupo’, etc.,(UK is good, my friend it is a sweet place, etc). Sweet as the UK was then, our people never went there with the intention of staying. As a matter of fact, even if they wanted to stay put there, there was another song to remind them about home, sweet home, where there is never a place like (Ile o labo sinmi oko)’.

    So, what is it that is now making Nigerians flee from their country to go stay and die abroad? In the good old days that I am talking about, the University of Ibadan, for instance, was recognised as a standard university worldwide. Our most sought-after universities can no longer find space among the first 1,600 in the world, according to the January 2012 report of Webometrics, a world tertiary education ranking institutions organisation, Those who ran the universities and other institutions aground are the ones now shouting that Britain should not ‘discriminate’ against Nigerians, even when that country has made it clear that Nigeria is one of the countries with. “the most significant risk of abuse” of British immigration laws. And this is a thing we all know.

    If you are in doubt, listen to Ambassador Patrick Olusola Onadipe, Deputy Chief of Mission in the Nigerian Embassy in China: “But I hope we will not be overwhelmed because a lot of Nigerians coming here have no business here, if I have to be very frank. This is because when they come they are misinformed.

    “A lot of them probably think they will get jobs here. But when they get here, there is no job. So, they don’t want to return home.

    “Less than 10 per cent of them have visible means of income; others don’t. So, they resort to anti-social activities, like pushing drugs, doing 419, yahoo-yahoo, Internet fraud, armed robbery, rape and even murder.” That is straight from the horse’s mouth and that is the way it is all over the world. Nigerian prostitutes are now hot cakes in Russia. That is how bad things have gone in the country.

    Rather than wish other countries should descend to our depth, we should aspire to their heights. If Nigeria feels sufficiently strong about the proposed British measure, it should reciprocate measure-for-measure when it takes off because I do not think the British should back down on this since it touches on their very soul. Let the legislators crying foul legislate truly for good governance; let the judiciary adjudicate professionally and let the government govern responsibly, such that 16 would not be greater than 19 in a simple arithmetic. When we all do our bit, Nigerians would find little cause to travel abroad in search of greener pasture. And whatever the British do with their immigration laws would not be our headache.

  • UK plans £3,000 visa bond for Nigerians, others

    UK plans £3,000 visa bond for Nigerians, others

    Britain is planning to ask visitors from Nigeria and five other countries whose nationals are deemed to pose a “high risk” of immigration abuse to provide a 3,000 pounds (about N750,000) bond before they can enter the country.

    Home Secretary Theresa May said the David Cameron administration is serious about cutting immigration and abuses of the system.

    The Sunday Times said from November, a pilot scheme would target visitors from Nigeria, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Pakistan and India.

    Visitors aged 18 and over would be forced to hand over £3,000 ($4,600, 3,500 euros) from November for a six-month visit visa.

    They will forfeit the money if they overstay in Britain after their visa has expired.

    The Federal Government last night said although it had not received any communication to that effect, such a policy, if implemented, would be discriminatory.

    Foreign Affairs Minister Olugbenga Ashiru said: “We have not received any communication from the British Government on this policy. I cannot comment on it now.

    “When we are communicated, we will react appropriately. I don’t believe so. That policy will be highly discriminatory. “

    Initially, the scheme will target hundreds of visitors, but the plan is to extend it to several thousands, according to the broadsheet’s front-page report.

    The populist United Kingdom Independence Party has been encroaching on the Conservatives’ traditional core vote in recent months.

    Cameron wants annual net migration down below 100,000 by 2015.

    “This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain,” May was quoted as saying.

    “In the long run, we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.”

    A Home Office official said the six countries highlighted were those with “the most significant risk of abuse”.

    Critics have warned that the move could backfire, with other governments retaliating and asking British visitors to pay bonds before they are allowed into their countries.

    They also say it would be impractical because it would require a new bureaucracy to enforce it.

    Twenty-six Nigerian convicts are on death row in China and Indonesia and may be executed soon.

    Deputy Chief of Mission in the Nigerian Embassy in China, Ambassador Patrick Olusola Onadipe, told reporters in Beijing that 366 Nigerians are in Chinese jails, mostly for drug trafficking.

    Of the 366 in jail in China alone, Onadipe said 120 of them are awaiting trial.

    The envoy said four of those sentenced to death are in China while the remaining 22 are in Indonesia.

    According to him, those on death row were convicted mostly for drug trafficking.

    Onadipe said: “It is those who are bringing drugs that are really in the majority, and the trend is worrisome.

    “We have four Nigerians on death row in China. In Indonesia, there are 22 on death row. So, it is really a trend that needs to be looked into.”

    Onadipe said the embassy is coping with traffic from Nigeria to China.

    He added: “But I hope we will not be overwhelmed because a lot of Nigerians coming here have no business here, if I have to be very frank. This is because when they come they are misinformed.

    “A lot of them probably think they will get jobs here. But when they get here, there is no job. So, they don’t want to return home.

    “Unofficial population of Nigerians in China is about 25,000 and 90 per cent of this is in Gwang Dong Province.

    “We don’t have the accurate figure. But there are over 12,000 Nigerians in Gwang Dong Province alone. What are they doing there?

    “Less than 10 per cent of them have visible means of income; others don’t. So, they resort to anti-social activities, like pushing drugs, doing 419, yahoo-yahoo, Internet fraud, armed robbery, rape and even murder.”

    On what Nigeria can gain from the growth and development in China, Onadipe said: “Agriculture. This is because it would provide jobs for Nigerians…”