|
What do we mean by border hopping? - What do we mean by border hopping? - What does the legislation say? - Conclusion There is a new pattern emerging at the borders of South Africa, and it's important that people who frequently come to South Africa in our summer months take note of the following changes. The Department of Home Affairs is now following legislation more closely than before. Previously, someone holidaying in South Africa on a 90-day visa wanted to stay longer than the allocated time, they could exit the country, drive to Namibia for a few days, and return, hoping to have another 90-day visa granted. In the past, this worked quite well, and the visa was often regranted, especially for European passport holders. What does the legislation say? The legislation never specifically allowed this, but the DHA seemed to often grant the extra 90 days. However, we have received a large amount of client feedback saying that this does not work anymore, and that the border posts of Home Affairs are more closely following the legislation. This is completely within their right, in accordance with Regulation 11.5, which states if you come to South Africa on the 90-day visa, exit and re-enter, you should only be granted another 7 days. To get another 90 days, you must return to your home country. |
|
1. Why Being Legal is Your Best Business Strategy Being legal isn't just about following the rules—it's about building a successful, long-term business. Here's why: - Customer Trust: Riders and customers feel safer with drivers who are licensed, insured, and legal. This means better ratings, more repeat business, and higher earnings. - Platform Benefits: Apps like Uber, Bolt, and inDriver reward legal drivers with promotions, surge pricing, and priority bookings. If you're not legal, you risk being deactivated. - Exclusive Opportunities: Companies like Checkers 60/60 and Pick n Pay ASAP only work with drivers who have the right permits. Being legal opens doors to these high-paying gigs. 2. Immigration Laws: Protect Your Income and Future Why It Matters: - Work Visa/Status: If you're a foreigner, you need a valid work visa to drive or deliver in South Africa. Without it you face : - Arrest : As an illegal foreigner you will only be brought to court in 48 hours and will remain in jail until court process - Court Process : Could remain in custody up to 3 months either in prison awaiting deportation bus or finalisation of court process - Deportation: You could lose your income and be banned from returning to South Africa. - Vlist Home Affairs : one can be declared a prohibited or undesirable person which means you cannot get a visa or permit or enter South Africa for 5 years - Blacklisting: Platforms like Uber and Bolt will block your account permanently. - Reputation Damage: Customers may report you, harming your driver profile and future opportunities. How SA Migration Can Help: - Expert Guidance: With 25 years of experience, SA Migration ensures your visa application is accurate and approved quickly. - Full Compliance: We are registered with the Department of Home Affairs, Labour, SAPS, and Courts, so you can trust us to handle your case professionally. - Peace of Mind: Focus on your business while we handle the paperwork, ensuring you stay legal and avoid risks. 3. Traffic Laws: Keep Your Business Running Smoothly Why It Matters: - Valid Driver's License: You must have the correct license for your vehicle. Without it: - Accidents: You'll pay for damages yourself, risking bankruptcy. - Platform Suspension: Uber, Bolt, and others will deactivate your account immediately. - Roadworthy Vehicle: Your car or scooter must pass inspections. If it doesn't: - Fines: Up to R1,500+ per violation. - Downtime: Impounded vehicles mean no income for days or weeks. How SA Migration Can Help: - Compliance Support: We guide you on the documents needed to stay legal, so you avoid fines and keep working. - Business Growth: Being legal lets you access loans for vehicle upgrades or even rent additional scooters to expand your business. 4. Operating Permits: Unlock More Opportunities Why It Matters: - Professional Driving Permit (PrDP): Required for e-hailing drivers. Without it: - Platform Ban: Uber, Bolt, and others will block your account. - Fines: Up to R2,500+ under the National Land Transport Act. - Municipal Permits: Scooter delivery riders (e.g., Checkers 60/60) may need local operating licenses. How SA Migration Can Help: - Permit Assistance: We help you apply for the correct permits, ensuring you qualify for corporate contracts and exclusive gigs. - Brand Partnerships: Use your legal status as a selling point when pitching to local businesses (e.g., "Fully licensed & insured for your peace of mind"). 5. Risks of Not Being Legal - Financial Loss: - Fines (R1,000–R10,000+), impound fees, or deportation costs. - Lost income during suspensions or vehicle seizures. - Reputation Damage: - Negative reviews (e.g., "Driver had no license") destroy your rating. - Platforms like inDriver penalize low-rated drivers with fewer ride requests. - Legal Blacklisting: - Immigration bans or traffic violations stay on your record, blocking future opportunities. 6. How SA Migration Helps You Succeed 1. Visa and Permit Applications: - We handle all paperwork, ensuring your work visa, PrDP, and other permits are approved quickly. 2. Compliance Checks: - We review your documents to ensure you meet all legal requirements, avoiding fines or bans. 3. Business Growth Support: - With your legal status secured, we help you access loans, partnerships, and exclusive job opportunities. Conclusion: Partner with SA Migration for a Legal, Successful Business In South Africa's competitive e-hailing and delivery market, being legal is your strongest advantage. By partnering with SA Migration, you: - Avoid costly penalties and downtime. - Build trust with customers and platforms. - Unlock premium opportunities (corporate contracts, surge pricing, promotions). Don't risk your income or future—let SA Migration help you stay legal and grow your business. 🚗 Call to Action: Contact SA Migration today to schedule a free consultation. With 25 years of experience and full compliance with the Department of Home Affairs, Labour, SAPS, and Courts, we're here to ensure your success. 📞 WhatsApp: +27 82 373 8415 📧 Email: info@samigration.com 🌐 Website: www.samigration.com Your compliance is our priority—let's build your future together |
|
Clerical officers at the Cape Town Home Affairs Department have been described as "gatekeepers" for turning away citizenship applicants with documentation that they perceived to be defective. Clerical officers at the Western Cape's Home Affairs Department have been described as "gatekeepers" who have acted unlawfully, as they refused to accept citizenship applications at the offices in Cape Town. De Saude Sadat Darbandi Immigration Attorneys (DSD Law) represented seven applicants who alleged they had problems associated with the submission of application forms in which Department of Home Affairs officials (screeners) refused to accept their applications, which they perceived to be defective. According to the applicants who have attempted to apply for citizenship, screeners insist on documents that are not prescribed by law; they are unreasonable, superfluous, or simply impossible to provide. The applicants, in their arguments, submitted that the "gatekeeping" renders the "application process arbitrary, unpredictable and capricious, as one cannot foresee which officials will demand what document before an application will be accepted". The applicants also further argued that the officials' manner of conducting the screening process increased the risk of corruption, as department officials may exploit the prospect of gatekeeping to extract bribes from desperate applicants. Among the applicants was a woman who was denied the opportunity to file her application to register her birth. She was informed that only individuals with a South African parent could apply. Another applicant, who has dual citizenship in Namibia and South Africa, was turned away when he went to apply for an issuance of a certificate confirming his South African citizenship, but was told he was "an illegal foreigner". Further to their submissions to the court, the applicants said they were never provided with any evidence that the officials in Cape Town are authorised to make final decisions on applications under the Statutes but that the decision-making authority is located in Pretoria. The Home Affairs Department, in rebutting the applicants' version, said that screeners have other functions that include attending to queues and interviewing the potential applicants in terms of Batho Pele policy principles. "These functions are referred to as ‘walkabouts' by the (department). According to the department, these walkabouts entail asking individual applicants as to what assistance they require, to ascertain if they are queuing in the correct line, and prior to handing in the forms to check if the applicant is in possession of the required documents. "It is contended on respondents' behalf that if proper screening of applications prior to posting is not done, the officials at the hub in Pretoria will be overwhelmed with incomplete forms. It is also asserted on respondents' behalf that the department processes vast volumes of matters which involve members of the public. If the public is allowed to abuse the system by insisting that their non-compliant applications be taken in, that would result in undesirable outcomes for both the applicants and the department," the judgment noted. Department spokesperson, Siyabulela Qoza said: "The Department is studying the judgment." DSD Law attorney, Stefanie de Saude Darbandi, said they are pleased with the court's decision. "It represents an important step toward ensuring that applicants aiming to comply with our relevant birth, identification, immigration, and citizenship laws are treated fairly and justly. The judgment addresses the unlawful practice of Department of Home Affairs officials refusing to accept applications without proper justification, thereby denying applicants the opportunity for due process. "The practice of turning away applicants without accepting their applications not only infringes upon their rights but also prevents them from accessing administrative justice. Such actions bypass the proper adjudication process and deny individuals the opportunity to receive written reasons for rejections, leaving them without recourse to challenge these decisions," said De Saude Darbandi. High court judge Constance Nziweni said the screeners acted beyond their powers (ultra vires) and proposed a list of guidelines to the department to ensure procedural fairness. Nziweni ordered that the applications of the applicants be accepted at the Cape Town offices and to take the necessary steps to transfer such applications to the appointed adjudicators within the department. "The moment a public official acts ultra vires, that process becomes tainted as it is not transparent and affects procedural fairness that result in exclusionary practices. "According to the applicants' argument, the officials at the department offices who refuse to accept applications serve as extra-legal ‘gatekeepers'." Among the guidelines Judge Nziweni proposed to the department were that: - If, after the screening process, an applicant does not meet the criteria specifically in the Statutes or Regulations, and the screener is not to place the application on the list of applications that are to be dispatched to the Pretoria hub; the applicant should be advised of the deficiency or deficiencies in the application. - In the event that an applicant disagrees with the screening results and insists that the application should be forwarded to the Pretoria hub, notwithstanding the deficiency or deficiencies, such an application should be dispatched to the Pretoria hub to a specific point that handles applications that are primarily viewed as being non-compliant. - This point may be regarded as a verification point and should be mandatory once the applicant, after an unsuccessful screening process, persists that an application should be dispatched to the hub in Pretoria. - If the verification point does agree and concludes that the application is deficient, it can require further information and dismiss the application if the required information is not provided within a specified time. |
|
- While the South African passport has improved in global rankings, it still requires visas for most high-demand destinations. - For those without ancestral citizenship or familial options, several countries offer second passports through investment - at a significant cost. - Here are some countries that offer passports for purchase - and how much you can expect to pay. If there's one thing South African travellers love to complain about, it's visas. And with good reason. Although the Green Mamba has climbed a few places in global passport rankings, it still requires holders to overcome frustratingly high entry barriers for many sought-after destinations. For this reason, securing a passport from a country with greater visa-free access is the ultimate travel hack. The only catch? Unless you have ancestral ties to a country like the UK or, increasingly, Lithuania, your options are limited to marriage - or paying a significant sum of money. While the number of countries offering citizenship-by-investment has declined, and costs have risen, a few viable options remain. This process essentially means if you contribute enough money to a country's economy and meet their programme requirements, you'll be granted citizenship and a passport in return. Unlike residence-by-investment schemes, such as those famously offered by Portugal and Cyprus, there's also usually no requirement to relocate or even visit the country. Meet the requirements, pay the cash, pledge allegiance, and you should, in theory, get your hands on a new passport. A second passport can open doors to visa-free travel in Europe, the UK, and beyond. But with complex regulations and ever-changing rules, it's worth consulting an investment migration firm to ensure eligibility and access to the most up-to-date information. Here are some of the most popular second-passport options currently available in Europe and the Caribbean: Europe Malta Cost: R11.9 million Access: The Maltese passport is one of the world's most powerful, offering visa-free travel to approximately 190 countries. North Macedonia Cost: R4 million Access: Provides visa-free access to Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Türkiye, and Europe's Schengen Area. Türkiye Cost: R7.3 million Access: Grants visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 110+ destinations, including Japan, South Korea, and much of South America. Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda Cost: R4.2 million Access: Includes visa-free travel to the UK, Europe's Schengen Area, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Dominica Cost: R3.7 million Access: Offers access to more than 130 countries, including Europe's Schengen Area. Grenada Cost: R4.3 million Access: Grants visa-free access to approximately 130 countries, including Europe's Schengen Area. St Kitts and Nevis Cost: R4.6 million Access: Includes visa-free entry to the UK, Singapore, Ukraine, and the Schengen Area. St Lucia Cost: R4.4 million Access: Offers visa-free travel to around 140 destinations, including Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, and the Schengen Area. |
|
The Western Cape High Court ruled on Thursday that ‘screeners' at the Cape Town Home Affairs offices cannot refuse to accept the public's application forms that they believe are defective. The Western Cape High Court has ruled that screeners at Home Affairs offices who turn people away and refuse to take applications that they deem to be defective are acting unlawfully and outside the scope of their jobs. The case before court was brought by De Saude Sadat Darbandi Immigration Attorneys and a number of their clients who were turned away from Home Affairs offices. The applicants challenged a practice by the Department of Home Affairs to screen and then bar access to people who wish to file applications in terms of the Citizenship Act and/or Births and Deaths Registration Act. The focus of the case was specifically on Cape Town Home Affairs, but in her ruling, Judge Constance Nziweni said the general question was whether the department's screeners could turn people away if they believed their application was defective. Aggrieved members of the public, the lawyers and the Home Affairs officials all agreed that people are frequently turned away. The legal argument on behalf of the aggrieved members of the public was that Home Affairs screeners are not legally authorised to make any decisions on these applications. "The application is strenuously opposed by [Home Affairs]. The department refers to the process as a ‘screening' of applications prior to their acceptance, capturing and dispatching to the Pretoria hub. The department maintains that the screeners in Cape Town perform a bureaucratic or administrative function of screening applications in terms of checklists," Nziweni said. According to papers before court, attorneys from De Saude Sadat Darbandi alleged that each and every time it takes clients to file applications at the Cape Town office, officials at that office have irregularly and arbitrarily refused to accept the applications. This is not done in writing and only informal reasons are offered, which are “difficult to comprehend". They further argued that the screeners' job is to give advice on how to remedy a defective application. Arbitrarily turned away One of the applicants who was turned away was trying to do a late registration of her birth, but she was told only people with South African parents could apply. A man who held dual citizenship in Namibia and South Africa was turned away with claims that he was an illegal foreigner. Another man was turned away for not providing additional verification of his permanent residence permit. This is in spite of the fact that a copy of his permit was included in his application, and an original verification of the permit obtained from the department. Another person was turned away when an official stated she needed fingerprint clearance from the South African Police Service for her application, even though the law does not stipulate this. Two others were turned away after officials claimed that their parents wrongfully and fraudulently obtained permanent residence and/or citizenship. They were informed that they were illegal foreigners and were refused help. Another applicant was turned away when officials claimed she needed to bring a DNA test proving that her father is South African and a form signed by her father. Yet another was prohibited from submitting his citizenship application when an official told him that an investigation against him was under way, which rendered his application ineligible. It was alleged that he was not given the details of the investigation. It is also alleged that to this day, he has not been able to apply for citizenship. Home Affairs defends practice According to the department's court papers, the screeners are fully fledged Home Affairs officials who can perform these duties and also do walkabouts to ask if anybody needs help. According to Home Affairs, the existence of gatekeeping in Western Cape is necessary and a “rational practice that is intended to conserve time and resources for both the department and the public". Home Affairs also argues that it is legal for screeners to ensure applicants comply with checklists. The Home Affairs legal team said screeners play an important role in preventing officials in Pretoria from becoming overwhelmed with incomplete forms. “If the public is allowed to abuse the system by insisting that their non-compliant applications be taken in, that would result in undesirable outcomes for both the public and the department." Nziweni unpacked the justification for Home Affairs' use of screeners at its offices. “The department is an administrative authority that is responsible for a number of governmental and public functions. Conversely, the Constitution vests a responsibility to the courts to protect rights that are enshrined in our Constitution and to scrutinise government policies and procedures to ensure that they are predicated on constitutional values." She said it was undeniable that the department receives an overwhelming number of applications. “The screeners mitigate the burden by limiting the number of applications that may be presented to the Pretoria hub. The screeners are necessary and perform a valuable, sensitive and extremely important service to the department and members of the public. Screening is intended to enhance the quality of services and increase efficiency, among other objectives. “Due to the early elimination involved in the screening process, significant time and costs are saved and not expended on a defective application. This does not imply, however, that the screening process should be a mechanism that creates a barrier to the accessibility of the public services system," she said. “The aim of the screening process is to verify whether an application satisfies all the checklist requirements prior to its submission to the Pretoria hub. Similarly, it entails making sure that members of the public have access to the services offered by the department's Pretoria hub. Thus, it is imperative that the screening should be administered by skilled officials. “In the context of this case, the screeners are intended to act as an intermediary between an applicant and the Pretoria hub to prevent and curtail unnecessary delays. Accordingly, this necessitates a process of screening through numerous applications. “In doing so, the officials are, in effect, the principal screeners determining what applications should or should not advance. Therefore, as mentioned previously, they wield considerable authority, insofar as it pertains to the determination whether or not applications of persons would be accepted, processed and reach their intended destination [Pretoria hub] for a decision." Unlawful screening Nziweni said it was of great concern that the screeners in Cape Town did not merely offer advice but took decisions to refuse applications. She pointed out that Home Affairs did not deny that its screeners were refusing to take forms from members of the public as they believed them to be non-compliant. Nziweni ruled that while the screening process might help with the early identification of defective applications, the screeners do not have the final word as to whether an application should be accepted for submission to the Pretoria hub. She pointed out that affidavits before court demonstrated that the screeners in Cape Town lacked certain levels of expertise to make decisions. She added that there is no legal explanation of whether a screener can refuse to take an application if it doesn't comply with their checklists. “Refusal to accept an application would be unfair and violate the rules of natural justice as it does not provide an applicant with an opportunity to respond to the screening officer's concerns. “Thus, it is pertinent to note that the screening officials have no discretion with respect to accepting or refusing the applications. Moreover, the negative effect of the refusal to dispatch the application to the Pretoria hub, is that the screening official does not owe the applicants any procedural fairness," Nziweni said. “The practical and functional advantages of having a screening body cannot be understated. Notwithstanding that, the officials cannot usurp the power that they do not have," she added. Nziweni suggested that when a screener finds an application to be defective but the member of the public disagrees, the application should be dispatched to the Pretoria hub, to a specific point that handles applications that are primarily viewed as being non-complainant. She made an order that officials' refusal to accept applications they deemed to be defective is unlawful. |
