Court dismisses US national’s plea for visa extension

Legal Correspondent

Shimla, May 21

The HP High Court has dismissed the petition filed by an American citizen against the rejection of his application for extension of visa by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

While dismissing the petition last week filed by M Alexander, a Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “Neither does the Constitution nor the statute confers any right upon a foreigner to endlessly remain on the soil of this country, save and except under the procedure established by law.” It held that “Law does not authorise a foreigner to remain on the soil of this country any moment longer than the period so authorised, in accordance with law, be it for whatever purpose.”

Alexander came to Dharamsala on October 25, 2011, and got himself registered in the office of Foreigners Registration Officer, Dharamsala. Since then he is staying in and around Dharamsala. He has filed this petition against the rejection of his application for extension of visa.

It was contended in the petition that his application was rejected by the ministry on January, 17, 2017. It was contended that on January, 16, 2017, he requested for extension of his visa for the reason that his presence was required to take care of his ailing adopted son. It was contended that he made another request on February 16 to allow him to continue to reside in India on “humanitarian grounds”.

However, the state alleged that the petitioner had been abusing his liberty. Ever since his arrival in Dharamsala, there are complaints of his causing disturbance to the public. He did not pay rent to his landlords, whose premises he had been occupying. On the contrary, for vacating the rented accommodation, he had been extorting money. It was contended on behalf of the authorities that his visa stood expired on December, 31, 2016, and he has been asked to leave India on May, 16, 2017.

While rejecting the petitioner’s plea, the court observed: “Applying the statutory provisions with regard to the stay of foreigners in India and the facts and circumstances of the case, the only conclusion which one can arrive at is that the petitioner’s presence in India, subsequent to the expiry of his visa and the period so prescribed in the notice, is not lawful. There is no rule which prescribes automatic extension of visa.”