India's new visa rules - any advice

[browski]

Guys,

In December, as a response to a recent act of terrorism, India revised their rules for multi-entry Tourist Visas. This amendment included a new clause which requires that a visitor cannot re-enter India until 60 days has passed from their previous exit - like I said, even on multi-entry visas.
However there have been a couple of subsequent clarifications from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, one of which states that:

"If your visit to India includes a return to India on the one itinerary then the traveller is exempt from this rule - the traveller must produce the itinerary as evidence".

Unfortunately Airline Check-in staff are unaware, or have not been informed of the clarifying statements. As such, many travellers are not permitted to check-in; and so must cancel their flights and hope for a refund.

I am about to return to India after visiting there last week - I've made an onward trip to the Middle East and now must return to India to complete the return leg of my journey. I fall into the above category. However, despite carrying printouts of the clarification, I feel uneasy and not confident of convincing the check-in staff of the validity of my visa situation.

Anybody been in a similar situation? If so, any advice on how to bolster my argument and improve my chances of negotiating the Check-in counter?

I have made alternative flight arrangements if I am declined a boarding pass, but I'd like to avoid the hassle of cancelled flights/refunds etc.

 

[one9]

What a stupid rule. Some countries really don't have a clue.

You could also try calling the airline to confirm that you are OK. And note down the name of the person you speak to and try and get a reference number for the call. This way you can inform the check in agent of this if necessary.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What a stupid rule. Some countries really don't have a clue.

Stupid rule only in cases like the OPs.

The reason behind the rule makes perfect sense - too many foreigners were using tourist visas for long-term stays of several months, then just exiting for a day and coming back for several more months.

The US operates in a similar way - you cannot stay for the 90 days and then just go for one day and come back for another 90 days - at least without a very good reason (you'll certainly be pulled up by immigration).

Australia too has a similar entry policy - stay more than one or two times on a visitor visa and they'll question why you have come back again.

The UK is the same in the sense you can't keep coming back for long periods of time (but they fully appreciate the liklihood of people going over to Europe for weekend breaks etc and will allow you back in).

The prevention of 'visa runs' is legitimate - stops illegal workers.

Unfortunately the Indian application of the rule has proven a little harsh in its application - but they have an exemption in place - just it hasn't been well communicated.

 

[docjames]

What about business travellers needing to enter/exit frequently (or do they need a work visa?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What about business travellers needing to enter/exit frequently (or do they need a work visa?

Correct... but I from what I read a business visa is much more difficult to get for India and hence the reason why people were abusing the system.

 

[Chicken or Beef]

.

Unfortunately Airline Check-in staff are unaware, or have not been informed of the clarifying statements. As such, many travellers are not permitted to check-in; and so must cancel their flights and hope for a refund.

Are you assuming here? If you know about it as a single passenger travelling there, don't you think the check in agents, who check in plane loads of people to India would know?

Ultimately, passengers are responsible for doing some research and finding out what they need for countries they intend visiting. It's easy to play the blame game, PA didn't tell me, travel agent never mentioned it blah blah blah . . .

 

[Mal]

Anybody been in a similar situation? If so, any advice on how to bolster my argument and improve my chances of negotiating the Check-in counter?

Take a printout of the rule from the Indian Embassy site. It doesn't help your cause when the IATA Timatic ruling says:

- Holders of multiple entry Tourist Visas (visa type code T )

are required to have at least 2 months between visits. This
will be noted as a stamp in their passport upon their
departure from India. Those wishing to re-enter before two
months have expired must contact an Indian mission abroad to
obtain permission, which if granted will be in the form of a
letter. Within 14 days of re-entry, the visitor is required
to register with the Foreigner's Regional Registration

No wonder airline staff are turning people away as it's their "bible" for immigration requirements.

The prevention of 'visa runs' is legitimate - stops illegal workers.

And other places have restrictions too - eg Thailand cracked down on "Visa runs" over the border, the Schengen restrictions on the number of days allowed every 6 months etc etc etc. Hiding rule changes under the guise of "terrorism" is pathetic though - countries should admit the reasons why the changes are occurring.

 

[MrHyde]

What about business travellers needing to enter/exit frequently (or do they need a work visa?

Business visas are easy to obtain. Just need a letter of invitation from an Indian company with whom you are planning to have business meetings with. Work visas are harder to obtain as they require work contracts and other things.

These new laws did come about due to the Mumbai blasts. It has been alleged that an American citizen made numerous trips gathering intel on the targets within a short period of time. These laws were then enacted to prevent others from re-entering too often. I don't like these type of laws as I don't believe they do much to prevent terrorism, but make it harder for other visitors to come to the country.

 

[one9]

Stupid rule only in cases like the OPs.

The reason behind the rule makes perfect sense - too many foreigners were using tourist visas for long-term stays of several months, then just exiting for a day and coming back for several more months.

The US operates in a similar way - you cannot stay for the 90 days and then just go for one day and come back for another 90 days - at least without a very good reason (you'll certainly be pulled up by immigration).

Australia too has a similar entry policy - stay more than one or two times on a visitor visa and they'll question why you have come back again.

The UK is the same in the sense you can't keep coming back for long periods of time (but they fully appreciate the liklihood of people going over to Europe for weekend breaks etc and will allow you back in).

The prevention of 'visa runs' is legitimate - stops illegal workers.

Unfortunately the Indian application of the rule has proven a little harsh in its application - but they have an exemption in place - just it hasn't been well communicated.

I don't see any comparison between the rules of other countries. Other countries have rules that prevent people from staying too long in a country (eg. continuous back to back maximum tourist visas). India's rule on the other hand has nothing to do with how many days you spend in the country, but to do with not having more than 1 trip. For example India's rule makes it difficult if you want to have a week in India and then another week in India a couple of weeks later.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't see any comparison between the rules of other countries. Other countries have rules that prevent people from staying too long in a country (eg. continuous back to back maximum tourist visas). India's rule on the other hand has nothing to do with how many days you spend in the country, but to do with not having more than 1 trip. For example India's rule makes it difficult if you want to have a week in India and then another week in India a couple of weeks later.

But that's why you need to look behind the rule. Their stated intention (origianlly) was to prevent back to back stayers from what I have read elsewhere on the web. And in that way it is similar. The discussions on other boards were that too many long term stayers were working or doing business on tourist visas.

The unintended consequence was that everyone has been caught out. It does look like they have now realised this and have put in place an exemption - just it hasn't been communicated properly to airlines etc.

Now I see there is a link to purported terroism prevention. I don't really see how preventing multiple entries stops that - you could do all your planning in a single visit one would have thought.

 

[browski]

Are you assuming here? If you know about it as a single passenger travelling there, don't you think the check in agents, who check in plane loads of people to India would know?

Ultimately, passengers are responsible for doing some research and finding out what they need for countries they intend visiting. It's easy to play the blame game, PA didn't tell me, travel agent never mentioned it blah blah blah . . .

On my entry into India I went to the FRRO in Kolkata and was informed by the immigration officer that the ruling did not refer to me. I asked him for a printout of the ruling (which he had on his desk) but he refused to give it to me - so I printed it from their web site later. The FRRO also informed me that the ruling only referred to 5 and 10 year multi entry tourist visas; not the 6 month visas. I could find no verification of this rule on their web site.
So, if the FRRO officers are unsure of the ruling, I'm confident that the airline check-in staff will have no chance. On my original check-in to India, the check-in staff said their were zero exceptions to the rule. Readiing numerous travel blogs has reinforced the belief that airline check-in staff are unaware of the clarification.
Even this very FF site indicates that passengers are doing their own research and trying to take responsibility for their circumstance. Your contribution has been no help in this matter; might be time for you to up your diet to include fish.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The FRRO also informed me that the ruling only referred to 5 and 10 year multi entry tourist visas; not the 6 month visas. I could find no verification of this rule on their web site.

Ah yes - that rings a bell now you mention it. 5 and 10 year tourist visas. These were the ones people were using to stay and work long term in India (might be a bit hard to argue you're there on a 10 year holiday without funds to support youself )

The terrorism prevention is the new part to me.

 

[Mal]

In a FAQ about the Tourist visa here: http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/FAQ-TVisa311209.pdf it says:

The Immigration authorities in all the Immigration Check Posts may also allow such foreign nationals on Tourist Visas arriving in India without the specific authorization from the Indian Missions/Posts to make two or three entries into the country (need based) subject to production of an itinerary and supporting documentation (ticket bookings).

The may bit is interesting.

You may have to end up getting the endorsement added to the visa (the "permission letter" from an Indian mission. Only issue I see with that is that it's really only meant for "emergency" type situations.

But with everything I've seen so far - getting an airline check-in staffer to agree with your interpretation of the rules may be difficult.

 

[docjames]

Business visas are easy to obtain. Just need a letter of invitation from an Indian company with whom you are planning to have business meetings with. Work visas are harder to obtain as they require work contracts and other things.

.

Thanks for that MrHyde - so it shouldnt be an impediment to all that many really - i cant imagine the majority of tourists go to India repeatedly with <2 months gap (although if doing a tour of the various subcontinental countries and having to transit India > 1x it may be problematic).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have an update of sorts on this. A friend is travelling to India in a couple of months - he is going for three months. He wants to exit for a week to Nepal. The visa service told him he would need a special letter of permission to do this (as outlined above) - and to go to the Indian consulate and they would grant one 'no problems' for a fee of AUD25!!

So maybe this is about revenue??

 

[taswegian77]

Correct... but I from what I read a business visa is much more difficult to get for India and hence the reason why people were abusing the system.

not sure about it now but i had no issue getting a multi visit business visa for india that lasts 1 year in july 09. in fact i remember applying for a single entry visa, explained to them my purpose at the embassy in MEL and they suggested a multi business entry visa which in the end was great as I am headign there again in april and may. the onyl downside is it costs around $435AUD. maybe since then ti has become a lot tougher, lets see hwo i go to renew my visa in july.

 

[moa999]

Why is India not in APEC??

Bring India into club | Courier Mail

 

[browski]

Why is India not in APEC??

........maybe because they reside on the Indian Ocean..........

 

[equus]

........maybe because they reside on the Indian Ocean..........

or possibly they are not co-operative?

 

[browski]

Ok, the situation is still a bit fluid, but I think I see some daylight. As one of the official documents I'll carry, this one seems to have all the official information.

http://www.immigrationindia.nic.in/FAQ-TVis.pdf

Personally, I'll be sweating on the fact the Point 3 Q2.2 gets me a green light in a few days.

To see how fluid the situation is, this article is quite funny:

Govt ready to revisit new tourist visa guidelines

Here's an extract:
Home Secretary Gopal K Pillai said the government has received a number representations requesting it to reconsider the revised guidelines.

"Government makes rules, government makes regulations which may not be correct. But in a democracy there is a system, we correct ourselves if a mistake is made. If error is made, we correct them," he said