Yes, based on the Immigration Act of 2002, the Refugees Act of 1998, and key legal precedents, an asylum seeker can transition to a mainstream visa (such as a spouse visa) and may, in some cases, hold both statuses. This position was confirmed in the Constitutional Court case of Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs and further supported by other court decisions.

1. Legal Framework: Immigration Act & Refugees Act

To fully understand why this is possible, we need to examine the key legal provisions in both acts:

🔹 The Refugees Act, 1998 (As Amended)

• The Refugees Act does not prohibit an asylum seeker from applying for a visa under the Immigration Act.

• Section 27 of the Act grants recognized refugees permanent residence after five years, but it does not restrict asylum seekers from seeking other legal pathways.

• Section 22 allows asylum seekers to remain in the country legally while their applications are processed, but it does not prohibit them from applying for other visas.

🔹 The Immigration Act, 2002

• The Immigration Act governs mainstream visas, such as spouse, work, and study visas.

• The Act does not contain any express prohibition preventing an asylum seeker from applying for a mainstream visa.

Prior to legal challenges, Home Affairs routinely rejected applications for mainstream visas from asylum seekers, arguing that asylum seekers were only allowed to remain in South Africa under refugee law. However, the courts have overturned this interpretation.

2.Key Case Law: Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs

Case Citation: Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 39

🔹 Facts of the Case

• Ahmed was an asylum seeker in South Africa.

• He attempted to apply for a visa under the Immigration Act but was denied by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), which argued that asylum seekers must remain within the refugee system and cannot apply for mainstream visas.

• Ahmed challenged this decision in the Constitutional Court.

🔹 The Constitutional Court’s Ruling

The Constitutional Court ruled in Ahmed’s favor, confirming that:

✅ Asylum seekers have the right to apply for mainstream visas under the Immigration Act.

✅ DHA’s policy of rejecting asylum seekers’ applications for mainstream visas was unconstitutional.

✅ There is no legal basis to prohibit an asylum seeker from obtaining a spouse visa, work visa, or study visa.

🔹 Reasoning Behind the Judgment

• The court emphasized that the Immigration Act and the Refugees Act must be read together in a manner that aligns with the constitutional right to dignity and fair administrative justice.

• Nothing in the law prevents asylum seekers from applying for mainstream visas.

• The ruling stopped Home Affairs from blocking asylum seekers from transitioning to other legal statuses.

3 .Additional Supporting Case Law

🔹 Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2019] ZACC 36

• The Constitutional Court reaffirmed the right of asylum seekers to seek alternative legal pathways.

• It confirmed that a refugee or asylum seeker should not be unfairly locked into the asylum system if they have a valid reason to transition to a mainstream visa.

🔹 Tewolde v Minister of Home Affairs [2019]

• The court confirmed that asylum seekers can apply for a spouse or work visa if they meet the requirements of the Immigration Act.

• This ruling emphasized that fair administrative action is required when processing applications.

4 .Can an Asylum Seeker Hold Both Asylum Status and a Mainstream Visa?

Yes, based on legal precedents, it is possible in certain situations.

🔹 Key Considerations

1. An asylum seeker can apply for a mainstream visa while still holding an asylum permit.

2. Once a mainstream visa is granted, the asylum permit may no longer be necessary.

3. If the asylum seeker still fears persecution, they can maintain their asylum status while holding a mainstream visa.

4. However, if they voluntarily renounce their asylum claim, they will fall under the Immigration Act rather than the Refugees Act.

Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs and Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs support the principle that the two legal frameworks are not mutually exclusive, and asylum seekers should be allowed to transition legally.

5 .Why Home Affairs Cannot Block This Process

Despite these legal rulings, Home Affairs has historically attempted to block asylum seekers from obtaining mainstream visas. However, the courts have ruled against this for the following reasons:

🔹 Constitutional Principles

• Right to Dignity & Family Life: Preventing an asylum seeker from applying for a spouse visa violates the right to family unity.

• Fair Administrative Justice: Blanket refusals by Home Affairs violate Section 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees fair administrative action.

• Freedom of Movement & Choice: A person should not be forced to remain in the asylum system if they qualify for another visa category.

🔹 Legal Clarity from the Courts

• The courts have repeatedly ruled that Home Affairs cannot enforce a policy that is not supported by legislation.

• If an asylum seeker meets the requirements of a mainstream visa (e.g., a spouse visa), Home Affairs must process the application fairly.

6 .Conclusion: An Asylum Seeker Can Change to a Mainstream Visa

Based on the Immigration Act, the Refugees Act, and legal precedents, it is clearly possible for an asylum seeker to:

✅ Apply for a mainstream visa such as a spouse, work, or study visa.

✅ Transition out of the asylum system if they qualify for another visa.

✅ Hold both asylum and mainstream status in some cases (e.g., if their asylum claim is still valid).

The Ahmed case and similar rulings confirm that Home Affairs cannot block these applications. Asylum seekers are entitled to fair and lawful immigration pathways like any other foreign national in South Africa.

The requirement for a criminal background check (often referred to as a Police Clearance Certificate or PCC) for a Home Affairs or VFS Global application depends on the type of visa, permit, or citizenship application you are submitting. Below is a detailed explanation of when a criminal background check is required, how to obtain one, and the process for submitting it.

1. When is a Criminal Background Check Required?

A criminal background check is typically required for the following types of applications:

A. Temporary Residence Visas

• Work Visas (e.g., General Work Visa, Critical Skills Work Visa, Intra-Company Transfer Visa).

• Business Visas.

• Study Visas (for long-term studies, usually more than 6 months).

• Spousal or Relative’s Visas (in some cases, depending on the duration and type of visa).

B. Permanent Residence Permits

• All categories of permanent residence applications (e.g., based on work, spousal relationship, or financial independence).

C. Citizenship Applications

• Applications for South African citizenship by naturalization or descent.

D. Other Applications

• Certain long-term visas or permits where the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) or VFS Global deems it necessary.

2. When is a Criminal Background Check NOT Required?

• Short-term visas (e.g., tourist visas, visitor visas, or short-term business visas).

• Transit visas.

• Applications where the DHA or VFS Global explicitly states that a Police Clearance Certificate is not required.

How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com whatsapp message me on: +27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

JOHANNESBURG - More than 6,000 people have been arrested over the Easter weekend for trying to enter or exit the country illegally.

This is an increase of 61% compared to the 2024 Easter period.

Almost 5,000 of those arrested had no documentation, while others were using fraudulent visas.

Border Management Authority commissioner Michael Masiapato, gave an update on Easter operations undertaken between 15 and 24 April.

Masiapato says the majority of those arrested are from Zimbabwe, Lesotho and Mozambique.

The BMA operation includes 'extensive' personnel deployments to enhance visibility, joint law enforcement operations, and using high-tech equipment, including drone surveillance and body cameras, across its 71 ports of entry.

Masiapato has previously highlighted the use of these new technologies to bolster border control and crack down on illegal movement, while enabling real-time surveillance and quicker response from ground teams.

The commissioner also noted an increase in cross-border movements through the 2025 Easter period.

One million movements across South Africa's ports of entry were registered in the period under review.

This is an increase of 8% compared to the 2024 Easter Period, which saw at least 900,000 movements.

Despite this increased activity, Masiapato says these measures put in place across air, land and sea modalities continue to enhance operational stability and traveller safety.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

THE High Court has nullified the re-registration of a birth certificate for a child born out of wedlock, ordering the Registrar-General to strike it from the records.

This ruling declared the birth certificate invalid, questioning the legality of attributing paternity to a deceased man decades after his death.

The dispute arose from a contested inheritance involving the late Lazarus Mkudu’s estate.

Teresiah Mkudu, the applicant, sought a declaratory order to invalidate Ruvimbo Manyonda’s birth certificate, issued nearly 20 years after Mkudu’s death.

Teresiah argued that the re-registration of Ruvimbo’s birth violated the Births and Deaths Registration Act [Chapter 5:02], which permits such re-registration only if the child’s parents subsequently marry.

She contended that this condition did not apply, as no marriage had occurred between Ruvimbo’s mother and the late Lazarus Mkudu.

Ruvimbo, the first respondent, opposed the application and asserted the validity of her birth certificate, relying on section 12(2)(c) of the Act. She argued that the law allows the registration of a father’s name if requested jointly by the child’s mother and a near relative of the deceased father.

However, Teresiah countered that this provision applies solely to the initial registration of a birth and cannot be invoked posthumously, where the alleged father did not acknowledge paternity during his lifetime.

Justice Maxwell ruled in favour of Teresiah, finding that the Registrar-General’s Office acted beyond its legal authority.

The court held that the re-registration of Ruvimbo’s birth was invalid and declared the birth certificate null and void.

Justice Maxwell stated, “The third respondent (Registrar-General) purported to do that which the law does not entitle it to do. The re-registration was illegal, and the birth certificate issued in favour of the first respondent is null and void.”

The court emphasised the significant impact of this illegality on Teresiah’s inheritance rights.

“The illegality can result in irreparable harm where the first respondent is attempting to claim benefits from the applicant’s deceased father’s estate on the basis of the illegally procured birth certificate,” noted Justice Maxwell.

The ruling underscored the principles of administrative justice.

Citing section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28], the court highlighted the duty of administrative authorities to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly.

Justice Maxwell remarked, “The Constitution guarantees a comprehensive and justiciable right to lawful, efficient, reasonable, proportionate, impartial and fair administrative conduct to prevent abuse of power.”

Delving into section 12 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, the court clarified that the provision for registering a father’s name applies only to the initial registration of a birth.

Justice Maxwell rejected the Registrar General’s reliance on the concept of “legitimation” to justify re-registration, declaring it foreign to Zimbabwean law.

She stated, “The Registrar has improperly imported the concept of legitimation. Section 12 applies only to initial registration, while re-registration is permissible only under section 19 for recognising children as born in wedlock when their parents subsequently marry.”

The court further examined section 19, which governs the re-registration of births.

Justice Maxwell concluded that this provision is explicitly limited to cases where a child’s status changes from being born out of wedlock to being born in wedlock.

She ruled, “Section 19 does not allow the re-registration of a birth for a child born out of wedlock whose parents never married and whose father is deceased. The law does not permit relatives of a deceased father to posthumously acknowledge paternity or invoke legitimation to re-register a birth.”

Affirming that administrative authorities must operate within the bounds of the law, Justice Maxwell reiterated that the Registrar General’s actions in this case were not only unlawful but also posed a direct threat to the rights of legitimate heirs.

The court’s decision invalidated the contested birth certificate, protecting Teresiah’s legal interests in the estate of Lazarus Mkudu.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

The natural annual decrease hit 890,000 last year, up 53,000 from 2023.

TOKYO – Japan’s natural population change has marked its largest ever drop, according to estimates released by the government on Monday. The figure is calculated by subtracting the number of deaths from the number of births.

The percentage of those age 65 or older also reached a record high.

The government intends to continue birth rate measures of a “different dimension,” as set forth by former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and to improve these measures, but it has not been able to effectively deal with population decline, which is advancing at a pace faster than it had anticipated.

“For many people who want to have children, their dream hasn’t come true,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said at a press conference Monday. “We will promote comprehensive measures to realize a society where everyone who wishes to have children can have children.”

The natural annual decrease hit 890,000 last year, up 53,000 from 2023. That total is nearly the population of Akita Prefecture (897,000). A median projection by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, published in 2023, had foreseen a natural decrease of 728,000 in 2024. The institute had estimated that the natural decrease would reach 890,000 in 2035, meaning the rate of decline is about 10 years ahead of schedule.

The government is moving forward with its “acceleration plan,” a three-year plan to intensively address the declining birth rate starting from fiscal 2024, but there have been no prospects of concrete results. The government is expanding child allowances and making it easier to obtain childcare, but the number of births continues to fall. Some within the government have said that government measures will not be enough to change the decisions of those who may give up on marriage and childbirth due to economic conditions and other factors.

There are also concerns about the impact on social security. According to a study of the pension system published by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry in 2024, if the economy continues to look as it has in the past 30 years, recipients of the national pension will receive 30% lower payments than at present. The study was based on the median estimate of births, so payments may be even smaller if births fall faster than expected.

“The effects of child-rearing support have not yet been felt,” said Hisakazu Kato, a professor specializing in population economics at Meiji University. “It is important not only to support households raising children, but also to give young people opportunities to get married and have children, such as by revitalizing local economies.”

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm