The Constitutional Court recently ruled that children born in South Africa to foreign parents qualify for South African citizenship in terms of Section 2 of the South African Citizenship Act. That is, if you were born in South Africa to foreign parents who have not been admitted as permanent residents, you qualify to apply for South African citizenship upon becoming a major if your birth was registered and if you have lived here all your life, irrespective of the date of your birth and you have not accepted the nationality of another country. The judgment also reduced the term for applying for citizenship by holders of permanent residence from 5 years to 10 years by declaring Regulation 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act Regulations unconstitutional.
This judgment settled a long-standing dispute between a Congolese couple, their minor child and the Department of Home Affairs. The Constitutional court judgment was an appeal from the Western Cape High Court Decision. The couple who were refugees renounced their Congolese citizenship in line with the advice they received from the Department of Home Affairs to qualify for South African citizenship. Unfortunately, their applications for South African citizenship were rejected on the basis that they did not comply with Regulation 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act Regulations.
Regulation 3(2)(a) sets a minimum period of 10 years ordinary residence prior to applying for citizenship whereas Section 5(1)(c) of the Act sets a minimum period of 5 years ordinary residence. The result was that the couple and their third child became Stateless. Being frustrated by their effort to sort out the issue with the Department of Home Affairs, the couple approached the High Court for a relief. The couple sought an order declaring Regulation 3(2)(a) invalid and unconstitutional. The Department of Home Affairs could not justify the difference in the minimum period of 5 years imposed in Section 5(1) of the Act and the 10 years imposed in Regulations 3(2)(a). Regarding section 5(1), the High Court accepted that the section does create a minimum period, but it does not allow for an extension of that period nor does it create a maximum period. The High Court in Cape Town thus concluded that the Regulation could not amend the legislation and the 10 year period in Regulation 3(2)(a) was a patent error.
The court further held that the Department’s argument that the child could apply for citizenship when he reached the age of 18 years was not in accordance with the right of the child to a nationality as set out in section 28(1)(a) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the child ought to be placed in a position where he too can qualify for South

African citizenship. Consequently, the High Court declared the reference to “10 years” in Regulation 3(2)(a) to have been ultra vires (beyond the legal power or authority) of section 5(1) of the Act and irrational, vague and inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.
The High Court suspended the declaration of invalidity pending the confirmation of its order by the Constitutional Court. However, the High Court refused to grant the substitution order on the couple’s application for citizenship stating that it was not in as good a position as the administrator at Home Affairs to make that decision. The couple therefore approached the Constitutional Court to confirm the declaration of constitutional invalidity. In the alternative, they applied for leave to appeal the suspension order directly to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court Stated that the rights of a child are adversely affected as the High Court declined to consider the child’s application for citizenship and held that his application was dependent on the outcome of his parents’ permanent residence applications. The Court further stated that any further delay in finalising the matter will prejudice the applicants who remain stateless. The Constitutional Court Held that the High Court erred when it suspended the declaration of invalidity of Regulation 3(2)(a). There was no basis for the suspension order as the Constitutional Court does not need to confirm a declaration of invalidity relating to regulations. The Constitutional Court set aside the High Court judgment with regard to the suspension of the constitutional invalidity.
The effect of the judgment is that a child born to foreign parents qualifies for South African citizenship when the child turns 18 in terms of Section 2 of the Citizenship Act irrespective of when the child was born provided the child does not have the citizenship or nationality of any other country and his or her birth is registered in the Republic in accordance with the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1992 (Act 51 of 1992). It should be noted that being the holder of a foreign passport is proof that that you are a citizen of that country and may deprive you from the opportunity to apply for South African citizenship. Foreigners can now also apply for citizenship after just five years of permanent residence.
Read judgement here: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2019/1.pdf
www.samigration.com V.4785

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