A case was brought by asylum seeker Emmanuel Ochogwu, whose
application for refugee status has been pending with the Refugee
Appeal Board for over six years. He is a Christian pastor who fled
the religious persecution of Boko Haram in Nigeria.
During the prolonged delay in finalising his application, Ochogwu
formed a relationship with Zizipho Nkumanda. The two married in
terms of customary law. In 2016, they approached Home Affairs to
register their customary marriage in terms of the Recognition of
Customary Marriages Act and conclude a civil marriage under the
Marriage Act. This is a practice commonly adopted by customary law
spouses to ensure full legal recognition of their union.
The parties were asked to prove the existence of the customary
marriage and provide Ochogwu`s asylum permit for verification.
They complied, providing an affidavit from Nkumanda`s father,
confirming the conclusion of a customary marriage and Ochogwu`s
latest asylum seeker permit.
On Valentine`s Day 14 February 2017, the couple returned to Home
Affairs to finalise their marriage. But Home Affairs indicated
that a recently published circular from the Deputy Director for
Civic Services prohibited the marriages for asylum seekers whose
applications for asylum were not finalised.
Dismayed, the couple approached the Eastern Cape Division High
Court for relief.
High Court
The couple argued that the circular was an unconstitutional
infringement of their rights to equality and dignity. Also, they
argued that the circular infringed international law treaties on
the rights of asylum seekers. These international laws, which
South Africa has signed and ratified, expressly prohibit the
prejudicial conduct of Home Affairs.
Highlighting the unreasonableness of Home Affairs`s conduct, the
couple pointed out that the Refugee Appeal Board had been defunct
for two years, resulting in Ochogwu waiting for a decision for
over five years.
Home Affairs argued that the applicants should wait for a decision
by the Refugee Appeal Board. Also, they argued that the applicants
marriage was fraudulent to secure residency rights for Ochogwu.
But Home Affairs provided no evidence for this.
After considering the arguments, the High Court concluded that the
circular infringed the applicants` rights to equality and was
therefore unconstitutional. The court ordered that the parties
should be allowed to marry. The respondents appealed.
Supreme Court of Appeal
The SCA considered two main issues. First, the legal status of the
Home Affairs circular. Second, whether the ban on marriage for
asylum seekers was unconstitutional.
Home Affairs argued that a circular is not a law and therefore the
court cannot review it. But the court said that a circular is
meant to guide officials in implementing government policy. The
SCA noted that a similar argument had been used in the case of
Ahmed v Minister of Home Affairs. The Constitutional Court in

that
case rejected the argument stating that it was not important to
decide whether a circular was a law or not. What was important,
the Constitutional Court concluded, was whether it was treated as
a law by those responsible for implementing it. Put differently,
if Home Affairs used the circular to give or deprive people of
their rights (as laws do), then the court can review it.
The advocate representing Home Affairs argued that considering the
circular as a whole, it did not bar asylum seekers from getting
married. The words of the circular, he said, affirmed the right of
asylum seekers to marry but only sought to guide marriage officers
in concluding marriages and prevent marriages involving
undocumented immigrants.
The SCA disagreed. The court took particular note of the sections
of the circular that read: `refugees whose asylum application is
pending cannot contemplate marriage` and `should there be an
inquiry to a refugee or asylum seeker status, the marriage cannot
be concluded`. The SCA concluded that these sections clearly deny
asylum seekers the right to marry. Also, the court said, an
interpretation that denied Ochogwu the right to marry is how the
circular was understood by Home Affairs officials.
The SCA said that all interpretations of fundamental rights, such
as the right to equality, must acknowledge the constitutional
value of dignity. The court found it unacceptable that the wording
of the circular was contradictory -- the circular affirmed the
right of asylum seekers to marry in one sentence, only to deny the
right in the next. The court quoted the judgment of Minister of
Home Affairs v Watchenuka, where the Constitutional Court stated
`human dignity has no nationality`.
The SCA referred to judgments of the Constitutional Court that
speak to the importance of marriage as a social institution for
the expression of one`s dignity and autonomy - `it offers a social
and legal shrine for love and for commitment and for a future
shared with another human being`.
Court rebukes Home Affairs
The SCA`s conclusion also included a scathing rebuke of Home
Affairs. The court said that judicial precedent required the state
to respect the law, to fulfil procedural requirements and to tread
respectfully when dealing with rights. The court found Home
Affairs had failed dismally to achieve these constitutional
imperatives. The court described Home Affairs`s conduct as
`inexcusable and deserving of censure`. It said that Home Affairs
officials were lucky to not have been called upon to personally
pay the costs of litigation.
The court took particular exception to Home Affairs questioning
the legitimacy of the couple`s marital relationship
www.samigration.com V.3007

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article