Spouses and children of South African (SA) citizens and permanent residents were prohibited from changing their Visitor’s Visas, used to enter South Africa, to other types of longer term visas, for example relative’s visas, study visas and work visas. These applicants had to travel abroad (to their home countries, although they perceived SA as their home country) file the required longer term visa application at the South African Mission, obtain the visa and then return to South Africa. This meant in practice that families were torn apart, the spouses’ right to cohabitation and children’s rights to dignity were infringed whilst the visa formalities had to be met.
Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Act, that imposed the restriction of change of status from a Visitor’s Visa to a longer term visa on spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents was however not applicable to the spouses and children when the applicant was an accompanying spouse or child of a holder of a business or work visa, who wishes to apply for a study or work visa. This meant that spouses and children of foreign nationals holding a business or work visa had more rights, in terms of the Immigration Act and Regulations, than the spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents.
This restriction imposed by Regulation 9(9)(a) on spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents was surely not what the legislature had in mind when the Immigration Regulations were drafted, but same was still imposed and this lead to much heartache and wasted expenditure where spouses and children had to travel abroad to submit their visa applications.
On 28 June 2019, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in a case where applicants sought to have Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Regulations declared unconstitutional on the basis that it limits the constitutional right to dignity by limiting the rights of persons to marry and cohabit, and the best interests of children by limiting their rights to family care.
The applicants argued that the lack of an exception that catered for holders of visitors’ visas who are spouses or children of South African citizens or permanent residents limited their constitutional right to dignity.
BACKGROUND FACTS TO THIS COURT CHALLENGE: NANDUTU AND OTHERS V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS [2019] ZACC 24
This matter involved two different family units, each of which comprises a foreign spouse who is married or life partner of a South African citizen or permanent resident.
In each of these family units the spouse of the SA citizen or permanent resident was in possession of a Visitor’s Visa and wanted to apply for a longer term visa whilst in South Africa, there applications for longer term visas could not even be accommodated under exceptions that make it possible for certain Visitor’s visa holders to apply for a change in visa status from within South Africa.
That was because the exceptions did not cover their situation. The

exceptions which allows for exceptional circumstances to change a Visitor’s visa to another type of visa are contained in Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Regulations.
The main issue before the Constitutional Court was whether Regulation 9(9)(a) is constitutionally invalid to the extent that it does not extend “exceptional circumstances” to include “where the applicant is a foreign spouse or child of a South African citizen or permanent resident”.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING AND THE IMPACT OF THE RULING:
The majority judgment declared Regulation 9(9)(a) invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution, in that it unjustifiably limits the constitutional right to dignity and the right that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.
Relying on the Dawood case (Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs), the majority jsutices in this matter concluded that Regulation 9(9)(a) limited the right to dignity and right that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.
Accordingly, the majority justices declared Regulation 9(9)(a) constitutionally invalid, suspended the declaration of invalidity for 24 months and ordered a reading-in on an interim basis of words that have the effect of adding to the exceptions under the regulation spouses or children of South African citizens or permanent residents, the following sub-section was therefore added to Regulation 9(9)(a):
‘(iii) is the spouse or child of a South African citizen or permanent resident.’
WAY FORWARD FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF SA CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS:
The effect of this ruling and the addition of a reading-in to Regulation 9(9)(a) is that spouses and children of South African citizens or permanent residents would not have to depart from South Africa in future when applying for a change in Visitor’s visa status. The change of status applications can therefore be submitted at VFS offices located in South Africa.
Spouses (including qualifying life partners) and children of SA citizens and permanent residents may now opt to travel to South Africa with their visa exemptions that may be valid for up to 90 days (where applicable) and apply in South Africa for a longer term work or study visa.
Regulation 9(9)(a) does not stipulate an exception for change of condition applications from Visitor’s visa to Relative visa, it will therefore be interesting to see whether the Department of Home Affairs will interpret the Constitutional Court ruling correctly or if it will take another court challenge to convince the Department. The constitutional right to dignity and rights of persons to marry and cohabit, and the best interests of children are paramount and should be protected at all times V.5405

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