Section 30(1)(h) of the Immigration Act of South Africa and Regulation 27(3) of the Immigration Regulations.
A person will be declared ‘undesirable’ and will receive a ban regardless of the reason for the
overstay. The ban applies to any person who has overstayed, adults and children. The ban and
being declared ‘undesirable’ also affects people who leave South Africa while their application for a visa (or visa extension) is pending, if their current visa has expired.
what happens if i overstay my visa?

In 2014, the Department of Home Affairs introduced new immigration regulations, which
effectively 'ban' foreign nationals who overstay in the Republic from re-entering South Africa fora set period of time.
The immigration laws in South Africa state that a person who overstays in the Republic after the expiry of their visa will be declared as 'undesirable'. This person would receive a document, confirming them to be an 'undesirable' person, when they exit South Africa. Their passport is also stamped. The document 'bans' them from re-entering South Africa. The length of time that you are banned for depends on how long you have overstayed your visa.

Persons who overstay their visa for a period of less than 30 days will be declared
‘undesirable’ and banned for a period of 12 months. This means that this person will not
be allowed to re-enter South Africa for 12 months.
Persons who overstay their visa by more than 30 days will be declared ‘undesirable’ and
banned for a period of 5 years. This means that this person will not be allowed to reenter
South Africa for the next five years.

WHAT CAN I DO IF I RECEIVE A BAN?
You are able to appeal a ban. The Immigration Act allows for people to lodge a formal appeal
request to the Department of Home Affairs if they have been declared ‘undesirable’ and received a ban. The appeal must be submitted within ten working days of the day that you received the
ban. To submit an appeal, you must email your request to the Department of Home Affairs,

Written representations/letter with clear reasons for overstay,
A copy of the document declaring you 'undesirable' (you would have received this at
the border upon leaving South Africa, and a stamp in your passport),
A copy of your passport: the information page and other relevant pages, such as
pages with your South African visa(s), stickers or stamps,

If your visa has expired and your application for extension is still pending, do not leave
South Africa unless travel is absolutely necessary. Contact a reputable immigration advisor or
attorney should you have to travel.

My ban has finished - can i return to south africa?

No You can only return to South Africa once you have applied to the South African Department of Home Affairs for the ban to be lifted as it is not automatically removed from the system. You must apply for the ban to be lifted. If you do not, you will be refused entry into South Africa at the Port of Entry.
.
HAS THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IMPACTED THIS?
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the South African government implemented a nationwide
lockdown as well as a closure of its borders. This meant that many people were unable to return to their country of origin before their visas expired.

Any person who did receive a declaration of undesirability during this period, should have that ban set aside. You should contact the email address provided above to clarify this situation and ensure that any ban that may have been noted, is removed.

How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com whatsapp me 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
Alternatively , please contact us on :

Whatsapp Tel No : +27 (0) 82 373 8415

Tel No office : +27 (0) 82 373 8415 ( Whatsapp )
Tel No admin : +27 (0) 64 126 3073
Tel No sales : +27 (0) 74 0366127
Fax No : 086 579 0155

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


Get More Info By Following Our Page: https://www.youtube.com/@samigration

The Director-General of Home Affairs may withdraw an asylum seeker visa if the applicant is or becomes ineligible for asylum. Ineligibility includes the commission of a schedule 2 crime in South Africa, the re-availment of the asylum seeker to the protection of his or her country of origin or the participation in political activities in South Africa. The asylum seeker may make written representations within seven working days following the notification of the intention to withdraw. The Director-General must, after consideration of these representations, furnish the asylum seeker with a final decision regarding the withdrawal of the asylum seeker visa.

Travel Document
Recognized refugees are entitled to a South African travel document to allow to travel outside South Africa, except to their country of origin. In Anshur v Minister of Home Affairs [unreported], the North Gauteng High Court ordered the Department of Home Affairs to issue travel documents to the applicant pursuant to the Passport and Travel Documents Act, 4 of 1994. An application for a travel document must be accompanied by (1) a copy of the applicant’s certificate of recognition as a refugee, which must be valid for a period not less than 180 days at the time of submission of the application for a refugee travel document, (2) a copy of a valid identity card or document issued to the refugee, and (3) the biometrics of the refugee. An application for a refugee travel document by a person who is under the age of 16 years, must be made with the assistance of the applicant’s parents or legal guardian and must be accompanied by (1) where applicable, a copy of the birth certificate of such person, (2) a copy of the certificate of recognition of refugee status which was issued to that person, and (3) the biometrics of the refugee.

Marriage
In Ochogwu, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the ineligibility of asylum seekers, whose status has not been determined, to marry, whilst lawfully residing in South Africa, was inconsistent with the law. This means they can marry .
If you find yourself in this situation let us assist you .
How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com or whatsapp message me on: +27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com

Pending the decision on the asylum application, the extension of an asylum seeker visa must be made at the Refugee Reception Office where the application was submitted. However, in Nbaya, the Western Cape High Court ordered Cape Town RRO to renew or extend asylum seekers’ section 22 permit even though the permit holder had originally applied for asylum at a RRO other than Cape Town. An application for asylum will be deemed to be abandoned if the asylum seeker did not renew his or her asylum seeker visa within 90 days after it has expired: Provided that the asylum seeker advances valid reasons for the non-renewal of the asylum seeker permit.

Abandoned Asylum Seeker
The abandonment provisions provided that in the event that an asylum seeker fails to renew their asylum visa timeously, their applications for asylum are deemed abandoned. Arrest and deportation would follow for individuals with valid and undecided claims for asylum; back to countries of origin where they could face death, torture, sexual violence, and other forms of persecution from which they originally fled, or to countries experiencing grave disturbances to the public order. Only where an asylum seeker has a compelling reason (and proof thereof) for delaying to renew a permit following a lapse (such as hospitalisation or imprisonment) can the Department of Home Affairs pardon the late renewal.

This is deeply problematic as it means that refugees can be returned to face persecution, without ever having the substantive merits of their asylum application determined. It also leaves asylum seekers vulnerable in South Africa as essentially undocumented foreigners who will struggle to access health care, employment and education while they await the decision of whether their reason for late renewal meets the Department of Home Affairs high threshold.

The reality for asylum seekers is that they are frequently required to renew their asylum visas. In the renewal process, they experience extraordinary delays caused by the administrative failures of the Department of Home Affairs. These are often exacerbated by socio-economic factors such as not having the means to travel to far away Refugee Reception Offices as frequently as is required, waiting in long queues at the Refugee Reception Offices, facing corruption from officials who refuse to renew visas without bribes, or the general inefficiency of the Refugee Reception Offices that are over-worked but under-staffed
On in January 2020, Legal practitioners expressed deep concern over the Refugee Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2020. This Act came into force upon the signing and Gazetting of the Refugee Regulations. Several aspects of the new law undermine asylum seekers' and refugees' rights.

Of particular and urgent concern are the so-called 'abandonment clauses'. We are challenging the constitutionality of Sections 22(12) and (13) of the Refugee Amendment Act and Regulation 9 of the Refugee Regulations.

These sections of the Refugee Amendment Act and Regulations effectively mean that the claim of an asylum-seeker in South Africa 'must' be considered 'abandoned' if their asylum seeking visa expires for 30 days or more. If there are no 'compelling reasons' around why an asylum seeker holds and expired permit, these persons would be treated as 'illegal foreigners' and risk facing arrest and deportation. The Refugee Amendment Act also prevents that person from re-applying for asylum in South Africa – which seems to run against international refugee law.

Asylum Seeker Visa Withdrawal
The Director-General of Home Affairs may withdraw an asylum seeker visa if the applicant is or becomes ineligible for asylum. Ineligibility includes the commission of a schedule 2 crime in South Africa, the re-availment of the asylum seeker to the protection of his or her country of origin or the participation in political activities in South Africa. The asylum seeker may make written representations within seven working days following the notification of the intention to withdraw. The Director-General must, after consideration of these representations, furnish the asylum seeker with a final decision regarding the withdrawal of the asylum seeker visa.
How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com or whatsapp message me on: +27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com

South Africa is the destination of choice for many people from the continent and the world. As a result of this the country’s ports receive millions of travellers annually entering for various reasons. However, on occasion a traveller is refused entry having been deemed ineligible for entry into the Republic for one or more reasons. Often persons who find themselves in this position are summarily sent back to their country of embarkation without being informed of their rights if any under our law and how to exercise these rights. In this week’s piece we will explore what the Immigration Act provides for persons in this position as well as what our courts have concluded in cases involving persons who have been refused entry.
Section 8(1) of the Immigration Act regulates what happens to a person who has been refused entry at a port of entry. Section 8(1) provides “An immigration officer who refuses entry to any person or finds any person to be an illegal foreigner shall inform that person on the prescribed form that he or she may in writing request the Minister to review that decision and-
1. a) If he or she arrived by means of a conveyance which is on point of departing and is not call at any other port of entry in the Republic, that request shall without delay be submitted to the minister; or
2. b) in any other case than the one provided for in paragraph (a), that request shall be submitted to the minister within three days after that decision.
Two key rights are expressed in this section, the first one is the right to be notified of the reasons for being denied entry and secondly the right to make an appeal to the Minister to review the decision. The Act also makes provision for a time frame of when the appeal should be made in these two instances when entry has been refused. The first arises when the conveyance is set to depart and will not call upon another port of entry in which case that appeal must be made immediately. The second instance is when conveyance is not at the point of departing, in which case the appeal must be made within three days from the act of being refused entry.
In section 8(2) the Immigration Act goes on to provide that if any person is refused entry or found to be an illegal foreigner as contemplated above, who has requested a review of such decision but is on a conveyance that is set to depart as contemplated in section 8(1)(a) shall depart on that conveyance and shall await the outcome of the review outside the republic. In a case arising under section 8(1)(b) , where the conveyance is not at the point of departure and the person has lodged an appeal with Minster the Act provides that this person Shall not be removed from the republic before the Minister has confirmed the relevant decision. Here is where the problems tend to begin, firstly most are not informed of their rights as required by the Act but where they are informed there seems to be a concerted effort by the Immigration officials to secure the immediate removal of the person notwithstanding the protections afforded to the person.
The right to review and to reasons are hallmarks of our administrative law and are enshrined in the section 33 of the Constitution which vests everyone who is at the receiving end of an adverse decision by the state the right to appeal that decision and the demands that the public official must provide reasons of their decision in writing. Our law recognises that the right to Just administrative action has two key aspects, the first one being the substantive aspect encapsulated in the statement the administrative action must be lawful or put differently it must be in line with an empowering legislation and the constitution. The second relates to the procedural fairness, the conduct or act must conform to procedural prescripts of the Act. Meaning where the Act says the official must inform the person by issuing a form 1, the failure to issue that form renders the action unlawful.
In the past when Home Affairs has been challenged on actions its officials have taken to deny a person entry they have put forward two principal arguments, first that have stated that once they have denied some one entry that person is no longer their responsibility but that of the conveyance as contemplated in section 35(10) of the Immigration Act. The have also argued that technically persons in the arrivals area at the port of entry who have not been formally admitted into the republic are not in the republic and therefore not subject to the protections afforded to them by the Act and the constitution. A final argument has been that in cases where a person has lodged an appeal in terms section 8(2)(b) wherein the Act provides that person shall not be removed from the republic, that person is not deprived if freedom as contemplated in section 12 of the constitution while also arguing they cannot be allowed to await the Ministers decision in the republic as doing so would be detrimental to their immigration enforcement efforts.
All these arguments have been dismissed out of hand by the courts. In Lawyers for Human rights & another// the Minster of t Home Affairs & another 2004 (4) SA 125 (CC) the Constitutional court held that “The denial of these rights to human beings who are physically inside the country at sea or airports merely because they have not entered South Africa formally would constitute a section of the values underlying our constitution”
In other Judgments in the SCA and High court this argument was dismissed as pure sophistry which ought to be disregarded offhand and that our courts would have jurisdiction to intervene in these matters in the same manner as they would be expected to intervene in a case involving the murder of a person at a port or entry. In Abdi V the Minister of Home Affairs (734/10) 2011 ZASCA 2, the Supreme court of Appeal found that Home Affairs remained the responsible authority when a person has been refused entry and they do not at any point abdicate that responsibility to the conveyance
As to whether a court can order the release of an inadmissible foreigner from an inadmissible faculty pending the outcome of a review of the decision the courts appear divided with judgements for and against the release. In Chen v the Director General of Home Affairs 2014 ZAWCHC 181, the court having assessed the conditions of the holding facilities at the airport concluded that these holding facilities were in fact detention facilities that had the effect of violating a person’s fundamental right to dignity and the right to freedom and security of person and her right to freedom of movement. The court went on to order the release of the person pending the minister’s decision but left it to the DHA to determine the conditions of the persons release.
As a final note for the airline industry who often find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place in these situations. It is worth noting the judgment of the High Court in Lin & Another v the Minster of Home Affairs & others. The court made several adverse findings against the airline in that case including punitive orders for contempt of court against certain employees of the airline. The airline had argued that their function was to merely carry out the orders of the Home Affairs in this case however the court found them wanting and essentially stating that where the airline has been advised of the persons rights it has a duty to ensure that they do not participate in the violation of that persons rights by observing the letter of the law and not blindly follow the instruction of DHA which often have been found to be unlawful.
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


Get More Info By Following Our Page: https://www.youtube.com/@samigration

HARARE- Zimbabwe has launched a new online visa application system aimed at streamlining immigration procedures and enhancing the country’s appeal to international visitors and investors. The platform, which is part of the broader Online Border Management System (OBMS), allows travellers from visa-required countries to apply for entry electronically—marking a significant shift from the previous paper-based system.

The OBMS, first rolled out in 2024, now includes e-visas, e-permits, and digital travel clearances. These developments form part of the government’s wider digital transformation drive to modernise public services, improve administrative efficiency, and strengthen border security.

Chief Immigration Officer Respect Gono said the new system will make the application process faster, more convenient, and less costly.
“Previously, applicants had to physically visit embassies or consular offices, or send documents by post. Now they can apply from anywhere, at any time,” she told state media. “The major highlights of the OBMS are the e-visas, e-gates, and e-permits.”

The e-visa facility is now fully operational, and citizens of countries requiring prior approval to enter Zimbabwe can access the service via the official immigration website. The platform also allows applicants to track the progress of their applications in real time.

In addition to short-term tourist and business visas, Zimbabwe has expanded the system to support applications for long-term stays. These include residence permits, employment permits, and investment-related authorisations. Gono confirmed that several modules, such as those for temporary employment and investor residence, are already functioning, while others are under development.

The digitisation of immigration services is expected to bring wide-ranging benefits—not only for applicants, but also for government agencies and private sector stakeholders.

“By cutting down processing times and reducing paperwork, the OBMS improves efficiency across the board. It also enhances transparency and allows for better monitoring of border traffic,” Gono added.
Tourism operators and business leaders have welcomed the new system, describing it as a timely and necessary reform that positions Zimbabwe as a more accessible and modern destination.

“We are confident this will have a positive impact on tourism and foreign investment,” said one stakeholder. “Making it easier to visit or invest in Zimbabwe is a crucial step toward boosting economic growth.”
The Zimbabwean government has stated its commitment to continuing the rollout of digital services across sectors, with immigration viewed as a key priority for both national security and economic development.