Visa fees, rejected dreams, new economics of reverse remittances

THE figures are startling, but perhaps not surprising, for this is not a new observation about power, fairness and the uneven architecture of international mobility. In 2025, European Union countries collected nearly US$182 million in non-refundable visa fees from applications that were ultimately rejected.

Africans accounted for 42% of this money despite constituting only 24% of applicants. Citizens of Senegal, Nigeria, Angola and several other developing nations faced some of the highest rejection rates in the world.

What emerges from these statistics is not merely an administrative process. It is a system that increasingly resembles a global wealth transfer mechanism from poorer countries to richer ones.

Critics have appropriately labelled this phenomenon “reverse remittances”.

For decades, economists have studied the flow of money from Africans working abroad back to their families at home. Remittances have become one of the most important sources of foreign exchange for many African economies.

Yet little attention has been paid to the opposite flow: millions of dollars leaving Africa every year through visa application fees paid for journeys that never happen.

• CCC urged to push for dialogue over reforms
• A peep into Matenganyika’s artistic closets
• The Bioskop Short Film Competition is back
• Mangwe farmers benefit from agric projects

The issue is not whether countries have a sovereign right to regulate their borders. They do. Every nation has a legitimate interest in determining who enters its territory and under what conditions.

The issue is whether it is ethical to operate a system in which rejection rates remain persistently high for certain nationalities while governments continue collecting non-refundable fees from applicants who receive nothing in return.

When a business charges customers for a service it never intends to provide, questions are asked. When governments do the same under the guise of immigration administration, the practice is often accepted without scrutiny. Yet scrutiny is precisely what is required.

Consider the reality facing many African applicants. A visa application is rarely limited to the official fee. Applicants often spend additional money gathering bank statements, obtaining police clearances, paying for certified documents, booking appointments in distant cities, arranging accommodation near embassies and in some cases purchasing flight reservations and travel insurance. For many families, these expenses represent months of savings.

When a visa is denied, every dollar is lost.

The financial burden becomes even more troubling when viewed against income levels. Ninety euros may not seem excessive in Brussels, Paris or Amsterdam. In many African countries, however, that amount can represent a significant portion of a monthly salary. A rejected visa is therefore not merely a bureaucratic disappointment. It can be a serious economic setback. The asymmetry is impossible to ignore.

Citizens of wealthy nations travel across much of Africa with relative ease. Many receive visas on arrival. Others enjoy visa-free access. African governments have generally adopted policies intended to encourage tourism, investment and international engagement.

Yet African travellers seeking to visit Europe, North America or other wealthy regions often encounter a maze of paperwork, lengthy waiting periods and daunting rejection rates. The result is a world in which mobility increasingly reflects global inequality.

Passports are among the most powerful indicators of privilege. A child born in Berlin, Stockholm or Toronto inherits extraordinary freedom of movement without lifting a finger. A child born in Lagos, Dakar or Luanda may spend a lifetime paying for opportunities to travel that remain inaccessible. This is not a criticism of individual countries. It is an observation about the structure of the international system itself.

What makes the current situation particularly troubling is that visa fees are generally justified as covering administrative costs. Yet when rejection rates become exceptionally high among specific populations, legitimate questions arise. Are these fees truly designed to recover costs, or have they become a revenue stream?

The LAGO Collective’s description of visa systems as a form of “reverse remittance” is therefore more than a clever phrase. It captures a deeper truth about contemporary global mobility. Poorer countries are effectively subsidising the bureaucratic infrastructures of richer countries through millions of unsuccessful applications.

The European case is not unique.

The United States operates a similar model. Non-immigrant visa fees are generally non-refundable regardless of outcome. In 2025, African applicants faced some of the highest refusal rates for US student visas. Reports indicate that nearly two-thirds of African F-1 student visa applications were rejected, significantly above global averages. In some African countries, refusal rates reportedly exceeded 90%. While no comprehensive figure exists for the total amount lost by African applicants in U.S. visa fees, the implication is obvious: millions of dollars likely flowed into administrative systems while thousands of qualified students were denied opportunities to study. The financial burden fell overwhelmingly on applicants from countries least able to absorb such losses.

These trends carry consequences far beyond tourism. Businesspeople miss trade opportunities. Researchers lose access to academic conferences. Students forfeit educational opportunities. Entrepreneurs struggle to build international partnerships. Families remain separated.

When mobility is restricted, development is restricted. Africa’s leaders should therefore begin asking difficult questions. Why should African governments continue offering generous access to countries whose visa systems systematically disadvantage African travellers? Why should there not be stronger principles of reciprocity?

Why should African regional organisations not collectively negotiate fairer visa arrangements with major destination countries? These questions are not expressions of hostility. They are expressions of self-respect.

For too long, African diplomacy has approached visa policy from a position of accommodation rather than leverage. Yet Africa is no longer a marginal player in global affairs.

The continent contains some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, youngest populations and most important emerging markets. Access to African consumers, resources and investment opportunities matters to Europe, North America and Asia alike.

That reality creates room for negotiation.

Reciprocity need not mean retaliation. It need not involve punitive measures or isolationism. Instead, it could involve pursuing reforms that introduce greater fairness into the visa process. One possibility would be partial refunds for rejected applications where no extensive processing has occurred. Another would be discounted fees for repeat applicants who have previously complied with visa conditions.

Greater transparency regarding rejection decisions would also help applicants understand and address deficiencies rather than repeatedly paying for unsuccessful applications. Most importantly, destination countries should examine whether their systems produce outcomes that disproportionately disadvantage citizens of poorer nations.

The burden of proof should not rest solely on African applicants. Governments issuing visas should also demonstrate that their procedures are fair, proportionate and free from systemic bias.

Critics may argue that high rejection rates simply reflect concerns about overstaying, irregular migration or document fraud. These concerns are legitimate. However, they cannot justify a system that appears to impose disproportionate financial penalties on entire populations.

A visa system should assess individuals, not stereotypes.

When rejection rates consistently cluster around particular nationalities, questions naturally arise about whether assumptions are substituting for evidence. The broader issue is one of dignity.

Africans are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking for systems that recognise their aspirations as legitimate, their resources as valuable and their time as worthy of respect.

The conversation about visa regimes ultimately reflects a larger debate about the future of globalisation. For decades, goods, capital and information have moved across borders with increasing ease. Human beings, however, remain subject to some of the most restrictive mobility regimes in modern history. This contradiction cannot endure indefinitely.

A global economy that welcomes African markets while restricting African movement creates understandable resentment. It signals that African consumers are welcome, African resources are welcome, African investment is welcome, but Africans themselves are viewed with suspicion. That message is neither sustainable nor just.

The controversy surrounding rejected visa fees should therefore serve as a wake-up call. It is not merely about lost money. It is about power, fairness and the unequal architecture of international mobility. Africa’s governments should not respond with anger. They should respond with strategy. They should gather data, coordinate policies, negotiate collectively and insist upon reciprocity where appropriate.

Most importantly, they should recognise that the issue extends beyond visas. It concerns the place of Africans in the modern world and the extent to which their ambitions are treated as legitimate.

The millions lost annually through rejected applications are significant. The lost opportunities are immeasurable. And that may be the greatest cost of all.

Ndoro-Mkombachoto is a former academic and banker. As a systems transformation strategist, she has helped multilateral agencies like the UN, IFC/World Bank, DANIDA, CIDA, GTZ, etc, future-proof their operations in markets where the rules are still being written, including private and public sector companies like Seed Co Zimbabwe/International and Hwange Colliery, operating in volatile emerging markets and constrained ecosystems, solve the complexity of institutional alignment, by using strategy frameworks that turn systemic constraints into growth engines. She is the current chairperson of NetOne Financial Services PLC, a subsidiary of the MNO NetOne. Follow Gloria on YouTube @HeartfeltwithGloria or email: gloria@sustainwisestrategies.co.za