Permanent US Visa Bond: A Measure Against Overstays or an Economic Barrier for Nepali Travellers?

Dragon Media News Desk

The United States has made its visa-bond programme permanent for citizens of countries currently covered by the scheme, including Nepal, raising serious questions about its impact, justification and fairness. Under the final rule issued by the US Department of State, applicants from designated countries seeking B-1, B-2 or combined B-1/B-2 visas for business or tourism may be required to post a bond of 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 US dollars before receiving a visa.

The decision should not be understood as an ordinary increase in visa fees. A visa bond is not a fee and is supposed to be refunded after the traveller leaves the United States within the authorised period. However, the fact that the money may eventually be returned does not make the economic burden insignificant. Applicants must deposit the equivalent of millions of Nepali rupees before travelling, receive no interest on the amount, bear exchange-rate risks and remain unable to use the money for an uncertain period. In practice, the requirement can function as a powerful financial barrier to entry.

The US rule establishes three levels of bond. Consular officers are generally expected to set the amount at 15,000 dollars. A lower bond of 10,000 dollars may be imposed where the applicant has limited financial resources but can still demonstrate the ability to cover travel expenses. A bond of 20,000 dollars may be required where the officer has greater doubts about whether the applicant will depart on time.

According to the rule, the bond decision may take into account the purpose of travel, employment, income, education, professional skills and the applicant’s contacts or relationships in the United States. This gives consular officers broad discretion. Two applicants from the same country travelling for similar purposes may therefore be required to deposit different amounts, raising concerns about consistency, transparency and equal treatment.

Nepal has already been included in the list of countries subject to the visa-bond requirement since January 21, 2026. The latest decision does not place Nepal under the system for the first time. Rather, a mechanism previously applied through a temporary pilot programme has now been institutionalised without a fixed expiry date.

An important distinction must nevertheless be made. The programme itself has been made permanent, but the current list of countries is not necessarily permanent. The US Department of State may add or remove countries depending on its assessment. New additions generally require advance notice, while removals may take effect immediately.

The US government says the principal objective of the programme is to reduce the number of visitors who remain in the country beyond their authorised period. According to the US Department of Homeland Security’s entry-and-exit report for fiscal year 2024, 34,070 Nepali B-1/B-2 travellers were expected to depart the United States during that year. Of them, 1,064 were recorded as suspected overstays or late departures. Nepal’s total overstay rate was reported at 3.12 percent, while the suspected in-country overstay rate stood at 2.62 percent.

There is, however, another side to these figures. They indicate that approximately 96.88 percent of Nepali visitors did not violate their departure requirements. Imposing a financial condition worth millions of rupees on all otherwise qualified applicants because of the behaviour of a small minority appears to be a system of collective risk assessment based on nationality rather than individual conduct.

The Department of State says countries may be selected not only on the basis of overstay rates but also according to the reliability of identity verification, criminal-record sharing, applicant-screening systems, passport security, civil documentation and the capacity of governments to exchange information. Yet no detailed country-specific explanation has been made public identifying the precise grounds on which Nepal was included.

The first question Nepal should therefore formally raise with the United States is whether its inclusion resulted primarily from the overstay rate, weaknesses in document security, inadequate information sharing or a combination of these factors.

Without a clear explanation, Nepal cannot know what reforms are required to secure removal from the list. Rather than treating the matter as a routine consular decision, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should address it as a diplomatic and administrative issue.

The US government has described the pilot programme as successful. According to the final rule, the countries currently covered by the scheme accounted for 45,488 overstays in fiscal year 2024, while fewer than 50 people who travelled after posting a bond were recorded as violators during the first ten months of the pilot.

But another figure must be considered alongside that claim. The number of B-1/B-2 visas issued to citizens of the participating countries reportedly fell by 83 percent during the pilot period. Of approximately 20,000 applicants instructed to post bonds, nearly half did not deposit the money. The decline in overstays may therefore reflect not only improved compliance but also the sharp reduction in the number of people able to travel legally.

In medical terms, such a policy can resemble preventing illness by keeping patients outside the hospital rather than treating the condition itself. If visas are not issued or applicants are required to meet financial conditions they cannot afford, overstays will naturally decline. But lawful travel, family visits, commercial exchanges, academic conferences, cultural programmes and tourism will also be reduced.

The greatest impact will fall on Nepal’s middle- and lower-middle-income citizens. For wealthy families, large business owners and travellers sponsored by institutions, temporarily freezing 15,000 or 20,000 dollars may be inconvenient but not impossible. For ordinary journalists, artists, researchers, small business owners, families visiting relatives and citizens with limited incomes, the required amount may make travel effectively impossible.

The system risks making access to a US visa dependent not only on eligibility and the credibility of the travel purpose, but also on immediate access to large amounts of cash. Two applicants may have equally legitimate reasons to travel, comparable family ties and similar evidence that they will return. Yet one may be able to travel simply because the person can raise the bond, while the other may be excluded because the money is unavailable. Although legally refundable, the bond functions in practice as an economic filter.

Posting the bond does not guarantee that a visa will be issued. Applicants must wait for instructions from a consular officer and deposit the amount only through an authorised US government system. The Department of State has also warned that money paid through fraudulent or unauthorised third-party websites may not be recoverable.

Travellers issued visas under the bond requirement may also be required to enter and leave the United States through designated commercial air routes. Departure by land, sea, private aircraft or chartered services may not be recorded properly and could create the appearance of a bond violation.

The amount is expected to be refunded if the traveller leaves within the authorised period, does not travel before the visa expires or is denied entry at a US port of entry. No interest is paid on the bond. Any loss caused by changes in the dollar exchange rate between payment and refund must be borne by the applicant.

The United States has the sovereign right to enforce its immigration laws and establish standards for admission, security screening and compliance with visa conditions. Every country is entitled to determine who may enter its territory and under what conditions. But it is equally legitimate to ask whether the measure is proportionate to the problem, whether it unnecessarily restricts lawful travellers and whether it creates economic discrimination based on nationality.

Nepal should not respond only with emotional criticism. The government must also examine its own institutional weaknesses. Passport and civil-document security, identity verification, immigration records, criminal-information exchange and public awareness regarding visa conditions all require strengthening.

Many Nepali travellers do not clearly understand that the validity period printed on a visa is different from the period they are authorised to remain in the United States after entry. A visa may remain valid, but staying beyond the period granted by immigration officials can still constitute a violation. The Government of Nepal, the US Embassy, travel businesses and educational institutions should provide clearer public information on this distinction.

At the same time, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs should begin institutional dialogue with the United States regarding the standards, reforms and review process required for Nepal to be removed from the bond list. Since the list can be revised, Nepal is not necessarily condemned to remain under the requirement indefinitely. A credible action plan to reduce overstays, improve document security and strengthen information sharing could create grounds for reassessment.

The permanent visa-bond programme sends a harsh message: for citizens of certain countries, obtaining a US visa is no longer limited to passing a consular interview and demonstrating financial capacity. It may also require the ability to freeze a substantial amount of money simply to gain permission to travel.

Celebrating the measure as though a “fever has finally broken,” or reducing the issue to anti-American rhetoric, would both be inadequate responses. The real questions concern the right of Nepali citizens to travel, the credibility of Nepal’s official documents, the legal conduct of Nepalis abroad and the unequal economic conditions imposed by powerful countries on citizens of developing states.

The United States may claim that the programme has reduced overstays. But it is difficult to present an 83 percent reduction in visa issuance as unqualified evidence of success. Enforcing compliance is legitimate, but reducing the number of people able to travel by imposing financial conditions beyond their means is not necessarily a fair solution.

Nepal must now respond with facts rather than anger, diplomatic initiative rather than silence and a clear reform plan rather than temporary reactions. Otherwise, the bond imposed at the entrance to the US visa system may become more than a refundable deposit. It could become a permanent economic wall separating ordinary Nepali citizens from lawful international travel.