Change to tourist visa rules re multiple entries - 60-day-out rule scrapped

You were not refused boarding due to a stamp on your single entry visas, you were refused boarding because you had a single entry visa which was invalid, as it had already been used for one single entry.

Did you think it would not count as an entry into India because you did not stay in India for long?

You would have had to wait two months to re-enter India, but no you would not have had to apply for a new visa.

Well done, it often takes several days. Terrible really, but that's Indian bureaucracy for you.

I really don't understand what you have to complain about.

You had a single entry visa.

You entered India one single time.

Then you tried to use it again.

Did you think your visa would somehow regenerate after you had left India?

At that time, when the new rules were brought in, yes there was a lot of confusion on the ground. The Indian authorities handled it badly, and a lot of people lost out as a result.

No. The law was mainly brought in to stop people living in India full time, by just nipping across a border every 180 days. Many people who do this have ten year visas, so you see if the rules only applied to new visas, they would take on average five years to take effect.

No.

Not even the press would be interested.

Not going to happen.

Especially as, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, it was your fault.

You had a single entry visa and you used it for a single entry.
Then you tried to use it for another entry and were refused boarding.

Who exactly do you think is to blame for that?

They are wrong. See the MHA FAQ which clearly sets out the new rules. Link is on Post #1 of this thread.

After 2 months, you can apply for a new tourist visa without going home.

Not at first, but they can now. Tourists can read this thread, or if they want to do it the easy way they can get the advice direct from the Indian government. See the MHA FAQ Post #1 of this thread.

Yes, it could be the case. Usually you only qualify for the full length of visa appropriate to your nationality if you apply in your country of origin.

Six months is the usual length of tourist visa issued to Brits by the HCI London, though many people including myself have also managed to secure one year tourist visas. If you submit your application in person it only takes 2-3 working days; if you are visiting the UK at some time in the future it may be worth your applying for a longer visa while you are here.

QUOTE from mariska2002: "Now wondering what visa i would have recieved if i'd sent it to the IHC in London."

Let's also not forget that people applying for Indian visas in the UK don't send them to the HCI any more, but rather have to apply via VFS outsourcing. And applying while you are there is the key. You can't do it by sending your stuff to a VFS office in the UK when you are actually somewhere else. The visa application form requires the applicant to state that he/she is present in the UK when the application was made ("I also declare that I am present in the UK on the date of making this application and that all the information given here by me is true, accurate and complete"), so the application can't be sent to the UK for processing if the applicant is in some other country (not that the applicant would want to be outside the UK without his or her passport anyway, which would have to be sent to VFS along with the visa application. So, no, sending it to London would not have worked.

Just want to say thanks for the info guys and gals.
It beats me why they got to make things sooo complicated though.Hard to see the reasoning behind that one.
Looks like i'll have to go back to blighty next time or else...get mother to forward a certain envelope..nah

Thanks for picking that up, it had not occurred to me that mariska2002 was asking about posting the application direct to the HCI from Finland, rather than visiting VFS and having them send the application on to the HCI!

Doing so would not only be against the rules, but also (in my personal view) parting with a passport and entrusting it twice to international postal services would be slightly silly.

Are you kidding? If you think this is complicated, you should try being an Indian trying to get tourist visa to the UK or the U.S.. Both countries require a lot more information from Indian applicants (including financial information - India certainly doesn't ask for that!) and the U.S. -- I don't know about the UK -- requires a personal interview with someone at a U.S. Consulate - and the interview must be by appointment and they can take a long time to schedule!

HAYLO: I am fully aware of my lack in seeing the "SINGLE" on the visa. I am however surprised at the lack of competence when I specifically applied for a double or Multiple visa and received the opposite. I do not think it is solely my fault.

It, in my view, is pretty much the same thing. In fact possibly EASIER and FASTER to get a new visa compared to getting a re-entry permit from within a foreign country.

Thanks... Unfortunately I saw the reality of things and how they can degenerate and become worse.

No, I am not complaining about my single entry visa.

I'm complaining about the fact that it would have been the same if we had had the correct visa.

I'm complaining about the misinformation given to me by the visa office in Milan a month after the new laws have been implemented.

I'm also complaining about the fact that I applied (like many others) for a multiple entry visa and was issued a single entry visa.

I'm also hoping that with some press coverage (which I do not know will be possible, but am hoping) others can avoid similar problems. I met husbands and children who had been separated from their wives still in India with other children on multiple entry visas.

Just to think that the laws are clear and now implemented, I think that the consulate and visa offices should be EXTREMELY clear on the dangers of traveling to India with plans to leave the country and re-enter. While on the contrary they are telling people that there are no problems whatsoever.

I've noticed. But it was not just "at that time", it is also NOW. I got back last Friday and the offices in Italy are still giving the wrong information so this will continue.

As far as I have heard from the press, the reason is not principally the people living in India full time, but it is to avoid people using India as a layover for other Asian countries as well as trying to avoid terrorists like the chap David Coleman Headley, who used India as a multiple entry point.

I'll let you know on that one.

I don't expect to get anything back from this, I'm hoping simply to get some press coverage... perhaps others can avoid similar or worse problems.

I agree that it was my fault that I didn't see the single entry visa... But I still don't totally agree that the whole ordeal was just my fault, but if you insist.


You're starting to convince me that I didn't apply for a multiple entry visa.

As far as I and other Italians are concerned, the Indian Consulate and visa office in Italy were ONLY issuing SINGLE entry visas. THIS IS A PROBLEM.
It is now a FURTHER PROBLEM that they are issuing Multiple entry visas without warning that there is a waiting period of 2 months before re-entering the country.

Haylo, I think you may have misread my post... try reading it again. Pay more attention to my final questions, rather than the ranting/venting that I unfortunately pressed on this forum.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
I will post an update if any coverage on Italian National TV is obtained. Keeping fingers crossed.

I don't think it has anything to do with competence, or the lack of it. Everybody can apply for any kind of visa - whether they are granted what they want is a totally different matter. Nobody has a legal right to get a particular visa, not for India and probably not for any other country. One applies - and one hopes for the best. I remember reading - previously in the consulate, nowadays in the oursourcing agency's office - that one should check the visa immediately after receiving it to make sure that everything is correct.

That you got only single entry is annoying, of course, but there's nothing you can do. They could have denied you even a single-entry visa and you wouldn't have been able to appeal. And even if you have a valid visa you can be denied entry into India - unlikely but legal.

...someone knows for how many times (obviously waiting each time 2 months outside india in another asian country) would the embassies issue me a new indian visa..
I'm an architect and i need to stay in india for long time to study indian ancient architecture (i'm working on a book...i was in india in 2003 and 2007 for 6 months each time for the same reason...)
do you think that this reason, if well explained in my visa requests, will help me in not having big problems for obtaining 3 visas outside my homecountry (waiting 2 months each time beetween 2 visits)?????

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. You do not buy a visa, nor have a right to whichever visa you apply for, or any visa at all. It is perfectly possible to apply for a one year multiple entry visa and yet be granted only a three months single entry visa.

The bottom line is that when it comes to visas you get what you're given, and if you get less than you wanted, or even no visa at all, you have no right to either a refund or an appeal. Nor does a visa guarantee you entry into a foreign country, or lack of a visa guarantee that you will not be permitted to enter.

No, it would probably not have been the same. If you had a valid visa, you would have been allowed to board your flight.

Once in India you would have had the opportunity to explain the situation to the immigration officer who almost certainly would have allowed you to enter India, as they have the discretion to do under the new rules.

The reason that I am doubtful that you will have any interest from the press is that this is old news. It was splashed all over the international press at the time of implementation. You may get some interest in a "human interest" followup.

Yes, some of the smaller consulates and embassies have extremely poor websites, and continue to give out incorrect advice on all sorts of issues.

Frankly it is a disgrace that so many travellers on this forum are far clearer about what the rules are, than the so-called professionals. Unfortunately, sacking people for incompetence does not appear to be part of the Indian government ethos.

This is why so many people prefer to rely on the official UK and US websites, which are maintained by the two companies that this has been outsourced to, and why this part of the forum is so busy.

We have a whole thread for rants and reasons relating to this new rule, which you may like to post to as well. We're generally keeping this thread to information which may help other applicants.

No, I doubt that repeat applications in neigbouring countries would be accepted for this reason.

Many neigbouring countries do not even allow you to apply for at least a month after your last visit, and even if they did, your application would have to to to the MHA for approval, so goodness only knows how long that would take.

If you are able to speak to someone at your nearest Indian mission, you could ask them whether they would consider giving you a research or entry visa, which the two month rule does not apply to.

Good point - and I am glad that you made it!

I am one of those frustrated by some aspects of how the change in rules has been handled but while one can understand and empathize with Westerners who have been impacted by the new rules and its haphazard implementation, it pales in comparison with the frustrations that Indians - and most citizens of developing countries - go through when they seek a visa to visit the US!

Also, the bureaucracy in just about any country is cumbersome with very little accountability.

Haylo: You are right. I was ignorant of this fact. However, you must admit that issuing solely Single entry visas is a strange procedure. Especially when they sustain that getting back in wouldn't be a problem.
Again, I should have checked the visa before leaving. But if they were issuing only single entry visas, my plans would have been shot anyhow.

"Certainly" seems to be a big word. I'm not sure that the new rules came out in time for us to pass through. There seemed to be a lot of confusion as to who should enter and who not. We tried getting back into India on the 13th of January, I'm not sure when the new rules were revised.

If we had gotten on the flight with a multiple entry visa, and been refused entry in India the situation would have been much worse, considering they would have shipped us back to KL on a flight that we would have had to pay for.

Again, here in Italy there was absolutely no coverage on this, and since the offices are giving incorrect information, I'm hoping that one of the civil service programs might cover and convince the offices to fix their information, at least on the websites.

Duly noted. Sorry yet again for the inconvenience of having posted to the wrong thread. Perhaps, however, my methods in getting a re-entry permit can be used by others. It did seem to work (even if long).

The reason for the request for financial information is that, certainly in the case of the UK, and to a lesser extent in the US, these countries take on some responsibilities for basic standards for ALL people who are in the country, regardless of their status. For example, in the UK you would be eligible for any emergency medical treatment for a condition that needs immediate treatment that cannot wait for 2 weeks, or until your return home, whichever is the shortest. And if, despite checks, people arrive and are destitute then they will be found emergency accomodation of some sort, even if this may be in a detention centre prior to being shipped home again. Social Services are obliged to give practical assistance to any disabled person who is resident in their area, regardless of status. And there are further benefits for people who are given leave to remain in the country. So, it isn't surprising that the UK needs to make some checks on those who wish to come into the country, before issuing visas.
Visitors from other countries to India are entirely self-funding and, in some cases, probably benefit the local economies. Even if they get into dire straits they would not be given any financial assistance by the Indian structure (no criticism, just a statement of fact). So, there is no need to check on their finances before allowing them to come in. Much more on this and it probably will need to go into a different thread though!

The IM was acting up and put irrelevant posts there so I deleted and saved over it..

The problem is that it might have been deliberate instead of incompetance. Visa policy has changed in the last couple of months more than in the previous decade. You just got caught out, life sucks..