New Visa Requirements?
 

Hi,

I am currently in India on a Business Visa. I switched hotels this morning and upon checking in, I was informed by the manager that I will need to leave the country by October 31. I was extremely surprised to hear this, but I reviewed the letter from the government myself, and it is very clear that foreigners on Business Visas must leave by then.

Upon doing some research with my Indian colleague, it seems that the guidelines for Business Visas have changed and now are only valid for certain cases, such as starting a new business / joint venture. For my consulting work, I would need an Employment Visa. Shouldn't be difficult to get, but still somewhat annoying.

Does anyone have any information on this? We have reached out to the consulate as well as our own travel department, but I am looking for all the details I can get my hands on. I was already scheduled to leave on 10/31 (perhaps this is the reason why my flight is completely sold out), but was supposed to return several days later.

-Troy

I have an entire team in the same situation, but trying to get concrete information has been very difficult.

Supposedly the situation (gleaned from newspapers, hearsay, etc) that there was an incident between Chinese and Indian workers, and some people were killed. The govt investigated and found a lot of Chinese workers in India on Business Visas, and the rules were then changed.

The new rules are supposedly that BVs can only be used by "salesy" type people who are here to sell, buy, or set up/establish business. Employment visas are required for all people who are here working on contracts or projects being executed by Indian companies. This affects my team as we're employed by various offices of a MNC but working on an Indian project for our Indian office.

However the fun has started when we tried to establish how to get an Indian employment visa. I'm a New Zealander but live in Singapore, and have established from the NZ Indian High Commission that they think I need to go to NZ to get the visa issued since the rules say they will only issue to citizens in their country of citizenship. The Singapore Indian High Commission hasn't been able to answer the question from our travel agents/immigration consultants/email/phone/PAs going and annoying them in person, so I will have to visit next week when I get back to Singapore.

However, a Belgian colleague who is employed/works in NZ, who spoke to the High Commission in NZ was told he would have to go to Belgium. The Belgian Indian High Commission said he was fine on a Business Visa and didn't need an Employment Visa.

The Australian Indian High Commission has been unable to answer but it seems that a British colleague will need to return to the UK to get his visa. The Swiss Indian High Commission says there have been no changes.... and so on. It's absolute chaos but not surprising. Nonetheless all of us are leaving on the 31st to try and find out from our respective country consulates what the heck we should do!

The hotel we use (Leela Kempinski, Gurgaon) had not heard of the changes and it's a hotel used by many tech/telco companies. I'm surprised yours had said that you must leave -- where are you staying?


http://www.worldwideerc.org/Resource...-20091014.html has a reasonably detailed explanation as does http://www.worldwideerc.org/Resource...-20091009.html

Finally someone who is in the same situation. You are right, no one knows what is going on and it is incredibly difficult to get any reliable information on this.

From the research our team has done, it seems that the requirements for an Employment Visa are a bit more stringent than a Business Visa (which caused this whole problem). At a minimum, it looks like they need a copy of your employment contract, salary details, etc. What's confusing is who this needs to come from. For example, I am employed by a US firm directly who is doing consulting work on behalf of a US client, at their Indian subsidiary, in conjunction with our India firm.

The way I read the requirements, the question is what is considered "doing work for an Indian company" - directly or indirectly?

I was initially information about this by the ITC in Vizag, however I have asked at the ITC Maratha (Mumbai), ITC Maurya (Delhi), and Park Hyatt Goa and none of them knew about this. I would think at least the ITC's in Mumbai and Delhi would be aware of this issue.

Thanks for the links I will check them out.

At the risk of stating the obvious... why not use a tourist visa? They're easily obtained, allow multiple entries and are valid 6 months, and you can get them issued back to back without anybody blinking an eye. Yes, you're not allowed to "work" on a tourist visa... but if you're getting paid at home by the home office, not by an Indian company in India, then you aren't really working in India now are you?

As a data point, I spent over a year (off and on) working... err... attending a project in India on an unholy mix of tourist and business visas, traveling back and forth every month or so, and Immigration never even batted an eyelid.

Oh, how the tables have turned.

Yes, that is certainly a possible option. Problems are twofold - not sure I want to deal with that and more importantly, I don't think my company will let me travel without the appropriate visa (it is a big company with lots of policies/procedures).

Yes - I had been meaning to post a question here (which is why I had glanced at the India forum) and saw yours!

We're still trying to work through this. I'm employed (if all things are equal) by an Australian firm, but live and work in Singapore, andI'm supporting a project in India for the next 12 months on a part time basis (2 weeks on/2 weeks off type thing). I have no relationship with our Indian operations except that there's an internal moneyshuffle to pay for my time. This is the same for every person in my team...

Our HR in India is unsure but are still talking to our advisors (PWC) to try and find out more - if I hear anything I'll post it here. It seems that it will be a letter from the Indian company which explains the project, how you're being funded, why you need to be there, etc.... rather than local employment.

Very interesting. The staff at the Leela were unaware of the change, but they are asking around.

While I doubt immigration cares (several arrivals over the weekend had no comments made on their Business Visas by immigration - although one official commented that the person came to India regularly), it's not something that I'm willing to risk, nor my major MNC employer is willing to risk. The bad publicity and potential backlash to the company and me personally is not something that either want. We want to do the right thing - we just need to know what it is.

The other issue is that I'd be going through pages and pages in my passport very quickly ;).

Whenever I have to visit the offices of one of the state companies as part of my work, as a foreigner I need to show my passport and visa to gain entry. I suspect that if I only had a tourist visa it might cause problems...

We have several people in our office here with the same problem as the OP - employed by the UK office but working on Indian projects in the India office for x weeks / months. Long term expats (like me) are on Employment visas but the short term guys are on Business visas.

For employment visas we have to initially apply in our country of residence (IIRC), but they can be extended at the FRO. We needed a letter from the Indian company stating that we were employed by the UK co etc and wouldn't cost the GOI anything while we were here, plus a copy of our contract.

Good luck!

It's going to be turning more.

For those of South Asian backgrounds, it's probably going to still work out for those in the kind of arrangement you mention because of a presumption of social visit purpose if so declaring that for those with a tourist visa and/or tourist & business visas; for those of other ethnic backgrounds and staying at higher end hotels for long durations, it might become a bit more difficult if the Home Ministry decides to go full force with updated training and implementation at the international ports of entry.

PIO and OCI applications should see a spike due to this too since that's a more predictable -- if not also easier -- process than these contractor/employment-related visa requirements.

Just to add, it is my understanding that if one's South Asian background is Indian, and if one has any Pakistani links, it is still very difficult to obtain any kind of entry visa for India.

Speaking of ordinary visas rather than of something like PIO or OCI, it is often still the way you mention it. However, it's not necessarily obvious to the Indian government who does and does not have any Pakistani links if using a non-Pakistani passport and born outside of Pakistan.

Until recently, I believe that was the case.

However, it seems that over the past five years, there is a perception that applicants with Muslim names and South Asian heritage, even those born outside Pakistan, (but including those born in India prior to 1947), are experiencing extreme scrutiny of, and rejection of visa applications at a high rate. I do know of some cases personally and am a little surprised at the type of people who are experiencing background delays and rejections (i.e., older persons born in India, migrated to Pakistan, then migrated to the USA; or, college age persons born in the USA of Muslim parents from India).

I suspect you are referring to people of third world countries having to change their plans to or in first world countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K. due to rules being changed or at the whims of interpretation of rules by those charged with implementing them. It's an indication of changing economic situation. There is substantial economic activity in India, which of significant interest to western business entities. India, unlike the U.S. the U.K. or western Europe, does not face people trying to get in to India by any means, with the exception of Nepalis or Bangladeshis.

That is the case. I wish it were different. I have any friends who would like to visit India. How is it the other way around? Indians, specifically Sikhs, are allowed to visit Pakistan to visit Sikh shrines as members of organised tours. Their experiences have been positive. Grand parents of one my friends, who are from Rawalpindi got to visit with the family who lived in what was the former's home before the partition. The original porch light fixture that was still there was gifted by the Pakistani famly to them.

It might be expedient, but hardly advisable. I would not do it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do that. :) As far as salary goes, of you are going to be paid in India from Indian sources, it's better to have neither PIO nor OCI.

The above-communicated perception does have a good amount of validity behind it, but generally that is less a matter of Indian Government policy than of the discretion of an individual or group of individuals in the GOI's External Affairs and Home Ministries which may run counter even to what is in Indian law and/or desired by the Cabinet.

The above-communicated perception doesn't align with what I've observed for "college-age person born in the USA of Muslim parents from India" when those applicants have a history of prior visits to India and/or if the visa history begins with a parent applying for the individual as a minor.

hate to gloss over any history (i apolagize if i offend anyone) but my basic understanding is that Sikhs and other Indians who visit Pakistan do not have a history of terrorist acts while on pakistani soil. Pakistanis kill pakistanis without indian interference while....

....people of pakistani origin have plenty of history of terrorism within India and in the outside world and that could be the reason why many people of pakistani origin (despite being born abroad) have trouble getting visas for India.

e.g. london undergound bombings in London, 3 out 4 were british born pakistani origin.

failed trans atlantic bomb plot etc etc

Most of those "people of Pakistani origin" have an Indian origin background that extensively exceeds that of any Pakistani origin.

In any case, I am not going to defend bigotry on the basis of national, ethnic, religious, linguistic or other largely immutable affiliations.

Terrorists to whom you refer are terrorists no doubt. That they are Pakistani nationals is only incidental. Causes of their terrorism lie in additional factors other than their nationality or religious indentification.

When it comes Visa issuance, every country stereotypes. Thats why Indians require visas to visit so many countries because Indians are considered an immigration risk.

Now unfortunately, Pakistanis do not have a good reputation and their citizens are scrutinized more than others. Im not saying all pakistanis are bad but at the current time, their country (maybe not politically but certainly a large proportion of their private citizens) donate money and lend moral support to people who are causing destruction and terror within India.

Now how many Indian organisations are actively funding groups in Pakistan with the aim of destroying it or causing major upheaval.

Now that could be a reason why Indians are hesitant to give visas easily to people of Pakistani nationality or heritage.

There is plenty of precedent in the world where discrimination and profiling is active. Israeli airport security single out arabs or palestinians or those who have been to the west bank/gaza because they have a history of terror against Israel.

Even the Americans do extra checks on citizens of certain countries (especially men), i dont know if any of you ever handle different passports on a regular basis but certain people have an annotation on their American Visas "Security clearance received on xx xxx xx".

Most of the destruction of life and property that takes place in India is committed by Indians. Even of that small proportion of crime which is committed by foreigners in India, most of those criminal acts are committed by persons who have never applied for nor followed the law in applying for an Indian visa.

Back in country on my Business Visa. No questions asked at immigration.

That's very pleasing to hear. I've followed this thread with keen interest. I was suprised that the GOI would take such drastic action which could jeopardise the lucrative foreign investment in India. I'm trying to get more info on what prompted the change - does anyone have anything to go on?

I've heard a couple things, which focus on the government's opinion that non-Indians are filling positions that could potentially be filled by Indian nationals. There is also the issue with Chinese laborers coming into the country on Business visas to do manual / menial type work, which clearly is not in the spirit of a Business visa.

In any case, its a pain and I'm sure there are a lot of people in country on the incorrect type of visa.

Politics, domestic and international. I'd think that it has at least something to do with: responding to complaints from Indian workers about workers coming in from elsewhere (especially East and Southeast Asia) on business visas and "taking away" jobs or promotions from Indians; and to give Indian employers and the Indian government some additional leverage with foreigners and foreign governments.

Think China, for one example.

It doesn't make much sense to view policies re: Pak/BD solely from the perspective of terrorism. These immigration rules have been in existence for half a century. They stem from the unique circumstances surrounding the creation of E & W Pakistan (currently B'desh and P'stan). These nations exist because of an explicit desire on their part not to be part of India. As such, our immigration rules merely work under this political reality, by making naturalisation or even just visa approval a complicated process.

I see nothing particularly wrong with this, and it's better that immigration reforms focus on attracting western and ASEAN/E.Asian business by making the process for business visitors from these places easier, though the visa fees they are charged should be guided by reciprocity and supply/demand.

I'm in Singapore and going through the entertaining process of trying to get an Employment Visa.

Singapore Indian High Commission indicated that EV was required due to the nature of work (project work, training local teams, etc). I'm in the process of collecting all the docs, which so far include:

- Certified copies of our Indian incorporation certificates
- Letters from the various offices of my company that I work for Australia, live in Singapore, and am needed by our Indian group to support the project, but I am not being employed in India. Proof that the company will sponsor me.
- Copy of my employment contract.
- Copy of the relationship between Indian and Singapore offices (in this case, the intra-company Purchase Order).

Then back to the High Commission to get it all stamped as sufficient, then a 5 day wait for the new visa. Yay.

I suspect I could still enter happily on a BV, but our internal directive is to get the EV.

I know of one Chinese firm with some 500 employees they've brought over to Delhi from China. These aren't laborers but high tech workers. The Indian gov't is now cutting back on the visa's this company's employees are able to get.

Indeed this rather sudden adjustment by the Indian government has to do with the higher end of the labor scale of the sort you mention. India's senior politicians and bureaucrats don't normally systematically jump this much to protect the interests of menial labor facing competition -- and this is no exception to that habit.

People wanting to enter India on passports from East and Southeast Asian countries are going to be facing relatively more scrutiny on this front.

PAkistani citizens do visit India for visiting relatives, medical treatment etc. Until recently, I had no specific information about people who were able to obtain a multiple entry visa to India. David Coleman Headley, who changed name (formerly Dawood Gilani), a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin, who was arrested in Chicago lat month in connection with terrorism was one. The other one is Tahawwur Hussain Rana, A Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin, who was also arrested in connection with terrorism. Both have travelled to India, Headley, many times with a multiple entry visa and are suspected t have been involved in planning for 26/11 attacks in Bombay. I suppose, some terrorists do use visas, my earlier statement notwithstanding. Dawood Gilani, aka DAvid Coleman Headley was in correspondence with Lashkar e-Toiba and, possiblly, Ilyas KAshmiri, (LeT contact A).
I would like trade, cultural, social and other contacts between India and Pakistan to increase. But some people do find ways to abuse measures taken to increase contacts between peoples of the two countries.

I thought I'd post an update, now that I've finally resolved this for me.

After 25 days of messing around and supplying mountains of paperwork (as mentioned in a previous post), I received a one-year Employment Visa. I then headed over to DEL and another colleague (who is assigned to our DEL office) asked me if I had completed the FRRO registration, which was something I had not heard about.

It turns out that as a Resident Foreigner you need to register within 14 days of arrival with the FRRO - mandatory for the Employment Visa. I didn't have time to deal with it on my first trip (4 days). Exit immigration asked me for my FRRO registration which I didn't have -- I had a few heart-pounding moments where they lectured me on my "visa not being valid without it" and that I couldn't leave. Ultimately I was allowed to leave.

On my second trip to Delhi I attempted to register with the Gurgaon FRRO, which is an interesting process. You need to fill out an application form in quadruplicate, provide passport photos, a letter of residency (which I took from the hotel), air tickets, etc. After several hours of messing around at the Gurgaon District Court FRRO, I was rejected for registration because I was leaving that day. After that our consultant suggested to stay in Delhi and visit the Delhi FRRO, which I have now done. After approx. 2 hours messing around in lines (get there early, or have a consultant who can get there early and stand in line for you) and Rs 1395 I am finally registered and have my little booklet.

As a side note, I have heard of a few people through the grapevine who have been expelled from India or not permitted to (re-)enter on Business Visas, when they are here for project orientated work, so there is a risk for those still travelling on Business Visas.

I have read in the news that the Ministry of Home Affairs is considering introducing a Project (P) visa which would resolve some of the challenges for those of us who are not relocating to India, but need to "work" here for project work.

It has been my experience as an American living in Italy, that for my Indian visa, I was able to get it in Italy with a copy of my Italian residency permit. It seems that if you have a residency permit from the country where you are living, then India's High Commission or Consulate will process the visas for you without having to return to the country that issued your passport. This information was clearly spelled out on the Indian Embassy's website for Rome and the Indian Consulate's website for Milan. I can only think it would be applicable the same in other countries.

What air tickets did you need?

Primarily may be relevant if staying more than 6 months in India -- as most of those staying less than 6 months don't require doing the FRRO thing.

Here's something interesting about this: people often presume that they would only ask for -- but not necessarily require -- a ticket showing a departure date from India. What the FRRO people want to see at least sometimes for those who mention they are leaving and returning is a ticket showing a return date to India. The FRRO want to make sure how the FRRO thing is relevant to the person and then proceed based on the answer provided. FRRO-processing authorities can be talked out of the ticket presentation demand/request.

This is one of the better summaries of how this goes:

http://american-in-delhi.blogspot.co...nd-trying.html

That's more the norm than it is not for Indian embassies/consulates.

The primary difference in applying abroad -- where and as possible -- is that the local Indian embassy/consulate often has the Indian embassy/consulate in the foreign national's home country do some additional checking.

For Tourist and Business visas, that seems to be correct, but it may depend on how residency is defined (and also, the period of residency). For Employment visas it seems to vary and is up to the individual mission to decide whether they will or not.

I hold a Singapore Employment Pass (effectively a work visa), but I had not been resident in Singapore for the required 2 years for the Singapore Indian High Commission to issue the Employment Visa -- although they did in the end, after complaining to me about it. A British colleague based in Australia for more than 2 years on a work visa had no luck convincing the Australian Indian High Commission to issue the Employment Visa and was told to go back to the UK to apply.

Copies of my itineraries for my regular SIN-DEL-SIN flights showing that I come and go.

The problem is the E-visa mandates FRRO registration, even if you are not staying for more than 6 months. I rarely stay more than 10 days but I had to get an E-visa to comply with the new regulations, which triggers FRRO registration. Principally they wanted the air tickets to show I wasn't living here permanently, as I was using a hotel as my permanent address - the FRRO would not accept our office address.

So presumably if you re ARE living there permanently, say for 2 years, you would show a rental contact but no air tickets?

A rental contract is one way that can satisfy the request, but such contract they have wanted on stamp paper often enough. Some people who don't have a rental contract can talk their way out of that but then they'll often ask for something else.

New India visa requirement: birth certificate
 

This is different enough from the other discussions that I started a new thread. I'm a US citizen, applying for a one-year business visa to India and thought I knew the drill since I've done it before- and then saw that the checklist of documents to send included a photocopy of my birth certificate. I have no idea if it's in the house somewhere, although I know I can get one in a couple of business days from various services for a price. My departure date is 12 February, so not time to panic yet.

I called the service we use (CIBT) and they said this is new, effective 15 January. Lucky me. A baptismal certificate is not an acceptable substitute but they'll accept a copy of my high school or college diploma! I should have one of these docs at home. 1/27/10 Edited to add: the Visa service just called. Forget the part about acceptable substitutes. They want the friggin' birth certificate. Turned out I had one sitting at home in the safe; I'd forgotten it was there. Dodged a bullet this time.

In case you foresee applying for a visa- don't wait to the last minute to get a birth certificate.

You had to send the original?