US Visa Bond Policy: Nepal Faces New Diplomatic Pressure

The United States’ plan to impose a new “visa bond” requirement for Nepali citizens applying for B-1 (business) and B-2 (tourist) visas has placed Nepal under direct diplomatic pressure. Under the proposed policy, applicants would have to deposit between $5,000 and $15,000 as refundable security once their visa is approved—a measure widely regarded as excessive and impractical for countries like Nepal. Unclear procedures—such as how, where, and through what channels the bond must be paid—have caused confusion among ordinary Nepalis, travel planners, and business travelers alike. The U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu has not yet provided detailed implementation guidelines, leaving applicants uncertain and anxious about the process. Former Foreign Secretary Madan Bhattarai described the policy not merely as American rigidity but as a reflection of Nepal’s long-standing diplomatic and institutional weaknesses. He noted that while citizens of many countries enjoy visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to the U.S., the credibility of the Nepali passport has been steadily declining. Bhattarai linked this decline to Nepal’s weak economy, explaining that “a country’s economic strength directly affects the reputation of its passport and international standing.” He cited misuse of diplomatic passports, politically motivated distribution of “red passports,” and cases where individuals discarded passports to obtain new ones as practices that have eroded trust in Nepal’s passport system. Recalling past incidents during the era of handwritten passports, Bhattarai said many were misused by refugees and others. Citing cases where seized Nepali passports were returned from New Delhi, he warned that failure to tighten controls earlier has now led to harsher foreign policies. Sharing a personal example, Bhattarai said that until the early 1990s, Nepalis could travel to places like Germany with short-term visa-on-arrival access. Now, by contrast, they often struggle even to obtain entry visas. He said this shift is not the result of one decision but a cumulative outcome of document misuse, behavioral issues, and diplomatic shortcomings over decades. He also highlighted that some Nepali athletes, artists, journalists, ministers, parliamentarians, and diplomats’ families have overstayed or settled abroad illegally, diminishing trust in Nepali travelers. Bhattarai concluded that the visa bond policy is less an “attack” and more a mirror reflecting Nepal’s weak passport and immigration governance, which has now drawn the two nations into a new diplomatic challenge. Former ambassador Yub Nath Lamsal argued that the U.S. visa bond policy should be viewed not as a bilateral dispute but as part of broader American immigration tightening. While the policy applies to several countries, he noted, its effect on economically fragile nations like Nepal is unequal and painful. Calling the bond amount “excessive and unrealistic” for a developing country, Lamsal said misuse of tourist or business visas to carry others into the U.S. under false pretexts likely prompted Washington’s tough stance. However, he questioned whether such punitive deposits would actually deter bad-faith applicants. He added that despite the long-standing friendship between Nepal and the U.S., Nepal’s poor political stability, weak economy, and low governance ratings may have placed it in a “high-risk” category. Countries with low transparency and high corruption indexes are often targeted under such requirements, Lamsal said, arguing that Nepal’s inclusion in such a list is unfair. Lamsal called on Nepal’s government to respond proactively rather than defensively. Nepal’s diplomats in Washington and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he said, should engage U.S. officials through formal dialogues, diplomatic notes, and trust-building efforts to seek partial or full exemption from the policy. “In many countries,” he explained, “strict visa measures have later been eased through dialogue and confidence-building.” Referring to Nepal’s peaceful foreign policy and past cooperation with the U.S., Lamsal said the issue can be reconsidered diplomatically if approached from a position of mutual respect and partnership. He urged policymakers to see Nepal-U.S. relations beyond the visa issue and frame them within strategic cooperation in development, education, labor mobility, and technology. SSP Bishnu Kumar KC, spokesperson for Nepal Police, linked the U.S. visa bond to broader security and immigration concerns. While rejecting claims that Nepal’s security apparatus is weak, he said police have recaptured roughly 70 percent of escaped inmates and weapons believed to be loose after political unrest. He maintained that Nepal Police continue to share background information and overstay records with relevant U.S. and Nepali agencies, adding that the visa bond is an internal American decision. KC emphasized that if Nepal communicates its existing security cooperation and tracking systems more effectively, it could help reduce U.S. distrust. The strict visa bond policy has made travel to the U.S. more expensive and uncertain for Nepali businesspeople, students, and visitors, while also forcing Nepal to re-evaluate its diplomatic standing. This new reality places pressure on the government to strengthen its passport system, improve governance, and restore international confidence. Both Bhattarai and Lamsal called the situation a “diplomatic test”—a moment where Nepal must respond not with emotion but with strategic diplomacy backed by facts and long-term vision. Failure to act could trap Nepal deeper into a “high-risk” classification, but successful diplomacy could gradually ease or reverse the harsh policy. Public voices are growing louder, demanding that Nepal’s foreign policy move beyond symbolic friendship toward protecting the mobility rights, education opportunities, and global participation of Nepali citizens through concrete diplomatic action.