a travel ban meaning

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of travel ban in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• The UN Security Council imposed a travel ban , restricting foreign travel by the country's officials , to punish its government for harboring members of a terrorist organization .
• Trump's first travel ban on people from Muslim-majority countries was declared unconstitutional .
• Once the air travel ban is lifted , it's expected to take airlines several days to get operations back to normal .
• Two England fans defying a travel ban were put on a plane back home after arriving in Istanbul for the match .
• abolitionist
• anti-censorship
• decertification
• disqualification
• out of bounds idiom
• unauthorized
• unsanctioned

Translations of travel ban

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

relating to the scientific study of animals, especially their structure

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

Add travel ban to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

What is the travel ban? What does it mean for refugees?

The United States has historically welcomed refugees fleeing war and persecution, and given them a chance to rebuild their lives in safety. The Trump Administration’s executive orders on refugee travel, however, have hindered these efforts.

Breaking, Jan 31, 2020: The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds today to reports of the Trump Administration’s policy decision to expand the Travel Ban . 

While the Trump travel ban officially expired on Oct. 24, it isn’t over . Arbitrary new vetting measures effectively extend the ban for 90 days for refugees from 11 countries. These procedures will lengthen the resettlement process for thousands of people escaping violence and conflict.

President Trump first instated the travel ban on Jan. 27—his first week in office. This executive order suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred refugees fleeing the war in Syria from entry to the U.S. indefinitely. It also barred entry to refugees from six other countries— Iraq , Iran, Sudan, Libya , Somalia and Yemen —for 90 days. The order resulted in chaos at airports across the country as refugees who were already in the air were detained and, in some cases, sent back to the crises they had fled.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

After the travel ban was hit by a barrage of legal opposition and challenged in federal courts, President Trump issued a revised order on Mar. 6. This new order excluded restrictions on travelers who hold green cards in the U.S. It also removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the ban, and it removed the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

A Pakistani family is to arrive in the US next week as refugees with an IRC tie. Will they be allowed to stay? https://t.co/3Beqsc3eUp pic.twitter.com/Vfm60suJbO — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 29, 2017

This second travel ban was also challenged in federal courts. On Jun. 26, however, the Supreme Court put a partial stay on the rulings against the travel ban, effectively reinstating the order and immediately impacting already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.

The Trump Administration followed this decision with new guidelines on the travel ban , stipulating that people who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. can enter the country. These arbitrary guidelines raise more questions than answers. For example, travelers with a child or parent will be allowed entry; those with a grandchild or grandparent will not.

This limited travel ban went into effect on July 13 , leaving thousands of vulnerable refugees who were not already on flights to the United States stranded. It was challenged the same day by a federal judge in Hawaii who ordered the Trump administration to expand the number of people who are exempt from the travel ban to include grandparents and other relatives, as well as refugees without family ties to the U.S. 

Courts narrowed the scope even further on Sept. 7, ruling that there is a bona fide relationship between a resettlement agency and a refugee. But on Sep 12, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to stop refugees from entering the U.S. ahead of plans to hear arguments on the lawfulness of the travel ban on Oct. 10. These hearings were later cancelled as the Oct. 24 expiration date for the 120-day travel ban period approached, rendering the case moot.

The ban came at a time when more people are uprooted by violence than at any time since World War II—leaving innocent lives in danger or adrift.

“Legal uncertainty must not obscure that a ban on refugees is both bad and unnecessary policy,” said David Miliband , President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said in January. “We should look no further than the last six months as proof: the current system works well. It is harder to get to the U.S. as a refugee than through any other route, so this ban remains wholly unnecessary.”

IRC resettlement and policy experts have answered some of the questions you may have about the executive order: 

What is the travel ban?

The travel ban is an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27 and revised on Mar. 6. It suspended the entire refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barred entry to refugees from six countries – Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – for 90 days. Iraq was removed from the list in March.

Is the travel ban over?

No. It expired on Oct 24, but new vetting procedures introduced by the Trump administration continue to thwart the resettlement process for refugees living in dire situations. According to Reuters, these new processes will “determine what additional safeguards, if any, were necessary to ensure that the admission of refugees from these countries of concern does not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.” For example, refugees will need to provide additional information such as addresses, phone numbers and email addresses for themselves and potentially their family members

Why did the White House want to halt refugee resettlement for 120 days?

The Trump administration has an unfounded belief that there is no proper security screening for refugees. It said it needed four months to review  existing security procedures .

But aren’t refugees already extremely vetted?

Yes. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the U.S. The resettlement process can last anywhere from 18-24 months after rigorous vetting by over a dozen federal agencies .  

A reminder of how the U.S. refugee vetting & resettlement process really works: https://t.co/mjMd8XzCo2 #StandWithRefugees #RefugeesWelcome pic.twitter.com/RBASDGxjUg — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 28, 2017

Refugees undergo biographic and biometric checks, medical screenings, forensic document testing, and in-person interviews. Syrian refugees must go through an additional layer of screening.

Who is exempt from the travel ban?

People who have a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the U.S. are exempt from the travel ban.

U.S. citizens and legal residents, such as green card holders and visa holders, are also exempt from the travel ban.

Who is considered to have a “bona fide relationship” with a person under the Trump administration’s guidelines? Who is not?

On Sept. 7, a federal appeals court ruled travelers with not only a close family relationship—child, spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling or half sibling—but also other relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins will be allowed entry into the U.S. But the Supreme Court reversed this ruling a few days later.

Out of 2,500 people the IRC was scheduled to resettle in 2017, roughly 1,950 do not meet the arbitrary definitions imposed by the administration—either because they do not possess U.S. ties or because they do not meet a near-nuclear family definition.

The banning of grandmothers—of unaccompanied children—from America’s shores is a disgrace.

Resettlement agencies like the IRC partner with the U.S. State Department and the U.S. government, which handpick and vet refugees to be matched with these agencies. This rigorous process can take up to two years.

As the travel ban took effect, the IRC urged the administration to speak about the legal justifications for their interpretation, and to provide additional guidance to resettlement agencies.

In his July 13 ruling, Judge Derrick Watson  of Hawaii not only loosened the travel ban restrictions to exempt grandparents and other relatives but ordered the Trump administration to admit refugees without family ties in the U.S. who had an assurance from a resettlement agency.

"An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court's touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades," Watson explained. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that." 

Why has the travel ban been challenged in multiple federal courts?

The travel ban has been challenged in multiple federal courts because it is seen as blatantly unconstitutional and it discriminates against people based on their religion and nationality. It was also hastily issued without any input from government bodies—such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State—that oversee immigrant and refugee travel.  

What did the Supreme Court's decision to hear the travel ban case in the fall—while partly reinstating the ban—mean for refugees?

The implementation of a partial stay by the Supreme Court on rulings against the Trump administration’s travel ban immediately impacts already vetted refugees scheduled to come to the United States.  

This will have a disastrous impact on refugees. The IRC is gravely concerned about the humanitarian consequences, and the policy consequences, of the decision reinstate the administration’s travel ban.

We’ve seen some of the dire impacts of this policy in action: urgent medical conditions blocked, innocent people left in unimaginable circumstances. The ban remains a counterproductive measure: coming to the United States as a refugee is, by far, the most difficult route an individual can take. This is a system strengthened by successive presidential administrations, both republican and democratic. Slamming the door puts innocent lives at risk and does nothing to make us safer.

“The Court’s decision threatens damage to vulnerable people waiting to come to the U.S.,” said IRC president David Miliband.

How many refugees does the U.S. take in each year compared to other countries?

The U.S. is just one of 28 resettlement countries. Out of the nearly 20 million refugees in the world, less than 1 percent are considered for resettlement worldwide. Only a fraction of that 1 percent is invited to resettle in the United States.

How many refugees were to be admitted in 2017?

The lowest number in a decade: Although the U.S. was scheduled to admit up to 110,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017, the Administration slashed that number to 50,000. The fiscal year for resettlement ended in September.

How many refugees will be admitted in 2018?

President Trump set a cap of 45,000 for fiscal year 2018. 

How many people will the travel ban affect?

The Trump Administration policy will exacerbate the suffering of an estimated 60,000 vulnerable refugees who have been security vetted and are awaiting resettlement to the U.S.

Some 65 million people are currently displaced around the world. We are facing the most serious displacement crisis we’ve known since World War II.

For example, after six years of war in Syria, its neighbors can no longer absorb more refugees. The need for resettlement in safe third states is more necessary than ever— so President Trump’s refugee policies will affect the lives of the few given this chance in the U.S.

What will happen to refugees already approved for resettlement who haven't yet arrived?

The impact of cancelling refugees’ journeys to the U.S. is life and death for those with urgent medical conditions. It is acutely dangerous for refugee children who are on their own; it derails the progress of young refugee families who have quit jobs and vacated apartments in the countries where they found temporary asylum, all while pursuing better lives for their children through resettlement.

The temporary halt in the resettlement program may force refugees who already went through the rigorous screening process and who were set to arrive in the U.S. soon to instead wait months and even years to go through fingerprinting, interviews, health screenings, and multiple security checks all over again, all while their lives are in danger.

In addition, the travel ban is harmful to resettlement agencies who have made extensive preparations, financial and otherwise, for refugees who were expected to arrive.  

What does the travel ban mean for refugees already in the U.S.?

Refugees already in the U.S. who have been waiting to be reunited with family members still in danger may never have that opportunity, or their reunion may be delayed for months or years. The  Supreme Court ruling on Jun. 26, however, stipulates that those with a "credible claim of bona fide relationship" with an entity or person living in the U.S. may be admitted. For instance, step-siblings and half-siblings will be admitted, but nieces and nephews will not.

Why did the travel ban name Syrian refugees, specifically?

On the campaign trail and now in the White House, Trump has made unfounded claims that refugees from war-torn Syria are a security threat. He has called them “a Trojan Horse” that would make America vulnerable to terrorism.

In fact, refugees coming to the U.S. are fleeing the same violent extremism that the U.S. and its allies are fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere. Based on recent data, the majority of those selected for resettlement in America are women and children.

Approximately 10,000 of the refugees who arrived in the U.S. in 2016 were from Syria. Syrian refugees must already go through an additional layer of screening on top of the already-rigorous vetting all refugees go through. This "enhanced review" process creates extra review steps with intelligence agencies and Department of Homeland Security officers who have particular expertise and training in conditions in Syria and the Middle East.

These additional reviews must take place before the refugee officer conducts the final in-person interview. This means that not only is there an extra layer of scrutiny—which the government believes is necessary because of the complexity of the conflict in Syria—but the process may also take longer due to this extra step.

This enhanced review makes it even more difficult for those who would do America harm to get through, while making it a more arduous process for all of the innocent refugees.

Are other countries part of the ban?

The original travel ban executive order barred both citizens and refugees from six Muslim-majority countries that have been linked to concerns about terrorism from entry into the United States for 90 days. The countries originally included in the ban were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Iraq, however, was removed from the list in May 2017.

New guidelines issued in September effectively extend the ban for people from 11 countries, which the Trump administration did not name.    

The president has talked about a “Muslim ban.” Is that in his refugee policies?

This question is central to some of the legal challenges that faced the travel ban.

The original executive order indicated that the U.S. will prioritize religious minorities over all other refugees. Barring refugees from certain countries like Syria and showing a narrow preference for religious minorities is tantamount to a Muslim ban.

What about refugees who have helped the U.S. military?

There are thousands of Iraqis and Afghans whose lives are at risk because of the assistance they offered U.S. troops stationed in their countries. This Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) population makes up one quarter of all the refugees the IRC would be resettling this year.

Among those with SIV status who arrived shortly after the first executive order was signed was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked for the U.S. Army for a decade. He was separated from his wife and children and detained at JFK airport in New York until a federal judge ordered his release on Jan. 28 following the ACLU suit. 

What's wrong with barring refugees from certain countries or religions if it makes us feel safer?

These bans fly in the face of America’s best values of freedom, fairness, and compassion, and they represent an abandonment of America’s role as a humanitarian leader.

By relinquishing its responsibility to some of the world’s most vulnerable people, the U.S. forgoes its moral authority to call upon  Europe as well as poorer countries  to provide shelter.

Will the refugee ban make America safer?

No. According to the Cato Institute, the chances are one in 3.6 billion that a U.S. citizen will be killed by a refugee; an American is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack executed by a foreigner.

Refugees are already the most vetted group to enter the U.S. and the bans outlined in the executive order will not improve national security.

Chances of being killed by a refugee in the US = 1 in 3.64 BILLION. Lightning is more dangerous. RT to spread the facts. #StandWithRefugees pic.twitter.com/M1rVrjF0D3 — IRC Intl Rescue Comm (@theIRC) June 30, 2017

In fact, barring certain groups from entry because of their religion or country of origin could have the opposite effect: Far from protecting America from extremism, a ban on Syrian and Muslim refugees is a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to the U.S.

Also, we must remember that support for refugees is not charity; it is a contribution to the global stability on which all countries depend. In fact, evidence shows that refugees are good for the economies that host them .

What comes next?

The IRC is calling on the Trump Administration to learn about who refugees are, and the dismal situations that require this life-saving resettlement program—including the violence that has forced over 600,000 Rohingya refugees out of Myanmar in recent months.

Resettlement is a critical system established in its current form by the Reagan administration, and strengthened by both Democratic and Republican administrations afterward.

“The human toll on families who have patiently waited their turn, done the vetting, given up jobs and prepared to travel is wrong," said IRC president David Miliband in a July 13 statement . "After decades of leading with its gold standard resettlement program, this defective policy shifts the goal posts and sees America turn its back on— and break its promise to— the world’s most vulnerable.”

What can I do to fight the ban?

We need your help to fight back and remind Congress that the Trump Administration’s refugee policies DO NOT represent American values. Take action.  

How else can I help refugees?

Make a donation today to support the International Rescue Committee in our work helping refugee families in the U.S. and around the world to survive and rebuild their lives.

Here are some more ways to help refugees in the U.S. right now.

Support our work

Explore related topics:.

• #RefugeesWelcome
• Take Action
• Syrian Refugees
• Where We Work
• How To Help
• Code of Conduct
• Ethics Hotline
• 87% Program services
• 8% Management and general
• 5% Fundraising

Get the latest news about the IRC's innovative programs, compelling stories about our clients and how you can make a difference. Subscribe

• U.S./Global
• Phone Opt Out
• Respecting Your Privacy
• Terms and Conditions
• Fraud Prevention

Example sentences travel ban

Six senior officials were also subjected to a travel ban and asset freeze.

On his release in 2015 those terms included a travel ban to last at least five years.

It has imposed a worldwide travel ban on its employees and has split up broker teams in an effort to protect staff.

But before they could arrange their flight the air travel ban was imposed.

They will have their assets frozen and are likely to face a travel ban but most of all they will be brought out of the shadows.

Definition of 'ban' ban

Definition of 'travel' travel

Related word partners travel ban

Browse alphabetically travel ban.

• travel allowance
• travel alone
• travel arrangements
• travel book
• travel booking
• travel brochure
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'T'

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Immigration History

Muslim Travel Ban

The "Muslim Ban" refers to a series of the Trump administration's executive orders that prohibited travel and refugee resettlement from select predominately Muslim countries. After several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of a third version of the ban.

Discussion Questions

How has the Trump administration justified its travel bans?

On what grounds might they be viewed as discriminatory?

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that banned travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–and suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees. The order sparked protests around the country at airports and immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations undertook several legal challenges to the order on the grounds that it constituted religious discrimination. The suits against the travel bans resulted in court injunctions temporarily blocking the order and groups in opposition to the ban also blocked a second iteration of the executive order. Nevertheless, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ultimately allowed a third version of the executive order to go into force, which expanded the list of barred travelers to include nationals from Venezuela (limited to government officials) and North Korea. In 2020, the Trump administration expanded visa restrictions on six more countries–Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania–citing screening and national security concerns in those countries. Nationals of thirteen countries are currently subject to various travel restrictions.

Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats

Issued on: September 24, 2017

. . . . As President, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people. I am committed to our ongoing efforts to engage those countries willing to cooperate, improve information-sharing and identity-management protocols and procedures, and address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Some of the countries with remaining inadequacies face significant challenges. Others have made strides to improve their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until they satisfactorily address the identified inadequacies, I have determined, on the basis of recommendations from the Secretary of Homeland Security and other members of my Cabinet, to impose certain conditional restrictions and limitations, as set forth more fully below, on entry into the United States of nationals of the countries identified in section 2 of this proclamation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 2 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks and other public-safety threats. Screening and vetting protocols and procedures associated with visa adjudications and other immigration processes play a critical role in implementing that policy . . . .

Sec. 2. Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Identified Concern. The entry into the United States of nationals of the following countries is hereby suspended and limited, as follows, subject to categorical exceptions and case by-case waivers . . . . [Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP

© 2019 Immigration History

A project of the immigration and ethnic history society.

Update April 12, 2024

Information for u.s. citizens in the middle east.

• Travel Advisories |
• Contact Us |
• MyTravelGov |

Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

Travel.state.gov, congressional liaison, special issuance agency, u.s. passports, international travel, intercountry adoption, international parental child abduction, records and authentications, popular links, travel advisories, mytravelgov, stay connected, legal resources, legal information, info for u.s. law enforcement, replace or certify documents.

Share this page:

Learn about your destination

Take 90 seconds for safer travel.

Travel Advisory Levels

Enroll in step.

Subscribe to get up-to-date safety and security information and help us reach you in an emergency abroad.

Recommended Web Browsers: Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

External Link

You are about to leave travel.state.gov for an external website that is not maintained by the U.S. Department of State.

Links to external websites are provided as a convenience and should not be construed as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of State of the views or products contained therein. If you wish to remain on travel.state.gov, click the "cancel" message.

You are about to visit:

Places the U.S. Government Warns Not to Travel Right Now

You may want to reconsider traveling to these countries right now.

Do Not Travel to These Countries

Getty Images

Crime, civil unrest and terrorism are common risk factors for countries that end up on the State Department's "Do Not Travel" advisory list.

In 2024, tourism across the globe is “well on track” to return to pre-pandemic levels, according to projections by UN Tourism.

Global conflicts and natural disasters , ranging from a series of coups across Africa to catastrophic earthquakes in the Middle East affected international travel patterns throughout 2023. Still, international tourist arrivals reached 87% of pre-pandemic levels in 2023, according to estimates by UN Tourism .

In January 2024 alone, about 4.6 million U.S. citizens left the country for international destinations, 17% higher than the same month in 2019, according to the International Trade Administration . But some destinations warrant more caution than others.

On Oct. 19, 2023, following the outbreak of war between Israel and Gaza and flaring tensions in the region, the U.S. State Department issued a worldwide caution advisory due to “increased tensions in various locations around the world, the potential for terrorist attacks, demonstrations or violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests.” Prior to this update, the most recent worldwide caution advisory was issued in 2022 after a U.S. strike killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of Al Qaeda, causing “a higher potential for anti-American violence.” The worldwide caution advisory remains in effect.

The U.S. State Department also issues individual travel advisory levels for more than 200 countries globally, continually updating them based on a variety of risk indicators such as health, terrorism and civil unrest. Travel advisory levels range from Level 1, which means exercise normal precautions, to Level 4, which means do not travel there.

About 10% of countries – 19 total – have a Level 4: “Do Not Travel” advisory as of Mar. 4. In Level 4 countries, the U.S. government may have “very limited ability” to step in should travelers’ safety or security be at risk, according to the State Department. Crime, civil unrest, kidnapping and terrorism are common risk factors associated with Level 4 countries.

So far in 2024, the State Department made changes to the existing Level 4 advisories for Myanmar, Iran and Gaza, and moved Niger and Lebanon off of the Level 4 list.

Places With a Level 4 Travel Advisory

These are the primary areas the U.S. government says not to travel to right now, in alphabetical order:

Jump to Place: Afghanistan Belarus Burkina Faso Central African Republic Myanmar (formerly Burma) Gaza Haiti Iran Iraq Libya Mali Mexico North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Russia Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Ukraine Venezuela Yemen

Afghanistan: The Central Asian country is wrestling with “terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping and crime,” according to the State Department. U.S. citizens are specifically at risk for wrongful detention and kidnapping. In 2022, the government reinstituted public floggings and executions, and women’s rights are disappearing under Taliban control. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul halted operations in August 2021. Since the Taliban took control , many forms of international aid have been halted . Meanwhile, in 2023, some of the year’s deadliest earthquakes killed more than 2,400 in Afghanistan while the country continues to face a years-long extreme drought.

Belarus: Belarus, which shares a western border with Russia and a southern border with Ukraine, has been flagged for “Belarusian authorities’ continued facilitation of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the buildup of Russian military forces in Belarus, the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, the potential of civil unrest, the risk of detention, and the Embassy’s limited ability to assist U.S. citizens residing in or traveling to Belarus.” The U.S. Embassy in Minsk halted operations in February 2022.

Burkina Faso: Terrorism, crime and kidnapping are plaguing this West African nation. Terrorist attacks may target hotels, restaurants and schools with little to no warning, and the East and Sahel regions of the country are under a state of emergency. In late November 2023, hundreds died in clashes between state security forces and rebels near the country’s border with Mali. In June, more than 2 million people in Burkina Faso were displaced due to “violence linked to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group.”

Central African Republic: While there have not been specific incidents of U.S. citizens targeted with violence or crime, violent crime and sudden closure of roads and borders is common. The advisory states that “Embassy Bangui’s limited capacity to provide support to U.S. citizens, crime, civil unrest, and kidnapping” is a factor in its assessment. Recent data from UNICEF suggests the country has the worst drinking water accessibility of all countries in 2022.

Myanmar (Formerly Burma): Armed conflict and civil unrest are the primary reasons to not travel to this Southeast Asian country, which experienced a military coup in early 2021. Limited health care resources, wrongful detentions and “areas with land mines and unexploded ordnance” are also listed as risk factors. After Ukraine and Israel, Myanmar had the highest conflict-related death toll in 2023.

Gaza : Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the State Department, controls much of the Gaza Strip, which shares borders with both Israel and Egypt. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas fighters broke across the border into Israel, killing hundreds of civilians and soldiers in a brazen attack that stunned Israelis. On Oct. 10, Israel hit the Gaza Strip with “the fiercest air strikes in its 75-year conflict” according to Reuters . The conflict has since escalated into war between Israel and Hamas, with regular Israeli airstrikes leading to extensive civilian casualties in Gaza. As of mid-December, nearly 85% of Gaza’s population were displaced from their homes, according to UN estimates . The region continues to face shortages of food , water, electricity and medical supplies , with conditions deemed “far beyond a humanitarian crisis.” The State Department warns of terrorism and armed conflict within Gaza’s borders.

Haiti: In July 2023, the Department of State ordered all non-emergency U.S. government personnel and family members to leave the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince in response to the increased risk of kidnapping and violent crime in the country , as well as armed conflict between gangs and police. The travel advisory states that cases of kidnapping “often involve ransom negotiations and U.S. citizen victims have been physically harmed during kidnappings.” The travel advisory also states that “U.S. citizens in Haiti should depart Haiti as soon as possible” given “the current security situation and infrastructure challenges.” A series of gang attacks in late September 2023 caused thousands to flee their homes, and many aid groups have been forced to cut or suspend operations amid escalating violence in recent months.

Iran: Terrorism, kidnapping and civil unrest are risk factors for all travelers to Iran, while U.S. citizens are specifically at risk for “arbitrary arrest.” U.S.-Iranian nationals such as students, journalists and business travelers have been arrested on charges of espionage and threatening national security. Executions in Iran rose sharply between 2021 and 2022, bringing the country’s total to nearly 580 people over the year, according to a report by Amnesty International released in May 2023.

Iraq: The State Department cites “terrorism, kidnapping, armed conflict [and] civil unrest” as cause for the country’s Level 4 distinction. Iraq’s northern borders, and its border with Syria, are especially dangerous. Since the escalation of conflict in neighboring Israel in October, there has been an increase in attacks against Iraqi military bases, which host U.S. troops and other international forces. In October 2023, non-emergency U.S. government personnel and eligible family members were ordered to leave the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Libya: Following the end of its dictatorship over a decade ago, Libya has been wrought with internal conflict between armed groups in the East and West. Armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, kidnapping and terrorism are all risk factors. U.S. citizens have been targets of kidnapping for ransom, with terrorists targeting hotels and airports frequented by Westerners. The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli halted operations in 2014. In mid-September 2023, floods, which some say were intensified by climate change , killed thousands in eastern Libya. Clashes between armed factions escalated across the country in the latter half of 2023, including in the capital city of Tripoli and in Benghazi.

Mali: After experiencing military coups in 2020 and 2021, crime, terrorism and kidnapping are all prevalent threats in this West African landlocked nation. In July 2022, non-emergency U.S. government employees and their families were ordered to leave the country due to higher risk of terrorist activity. A U.N. report in August 2023 said that military groups in the country, including both Mali security forces and possibly Russian Wagner mercenaries, were spreading terror through the use of violence against women and human rights abuses. Democratic elections were supposed to occur in February 2024, but Mali’s military junta postponed the plans indefinitely. In December, the U.N. officially ended a decade-long peacekeeping presence in the country, which had been among the agency’s deadliest missions, with hundreds of the mission personnel killed since 2013.

Mexico: Each state in Mexico is assessed separately for travel advisory levels. Six of the 32 states in Mexico are designated as Level 4: Colima, Guerrero, Michoacan, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Zacatecas. Crime and kidnapping are listed as the primary risk factors throughout the country. Nearly 112,000 people were missing across the country as of October, a number the U.N. has called “alarming.”

North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): U.S. passports are not valid for travel “to, in, or through” this country, home to one of the world's longest-running dynastic dictatorships. The travel advisory states that the Level 4 distinction is due to “the continuing serious risk of arrest and long-term detention of U.S. nationals.” In July 2023, a U.S. soldier fled across the border into North Korea, where he is believed to be in North Korean custody, the first American detained in the North in nearly five years. He was returned to U.S. custody in September 2023.

Russia: The travel advisory for Russia cites its invasion of Ukraine , harassment of U.S. citizens by Russian government officials and arbitrary law enforcement as a few of the reasons for the Level 4 designation. Chechnya and Mount Elbrus are specifically listed as Level 4 regions. Terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping and wrongful detention are all noted as risks.

Russia Invades Ukraine: A Timeline

Somalia: A severe drought resulting from five failed rainy seasons in a row killed 43,000 people in 2022, and caused a famine amid conflict with Islamist insurgents . Violent crime is common throughout Somalia , pirates frequent its coast off the Horn of Africa, and medical facilities, where they exist, have limited capacity. Crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health and kidnapping are all risk factors. In January 2024, some passengers aboard a U.N.-contracted helicopter were taken hostage by al-Shabaab militants after the vehicle crashed in central Somalia.

South Sudan: Crime, kidnapping and armed conflict are the primary risk factors for South Sudan, which separated from Sudan in 2011, making it the world’s newest country . Weapons are readily available, and travelers have been victims of sexual assault and armed robbery.

Sudan: The U.S. evacuated its embassy in Khartoum in April 2023, and the country closed its airspace due to the ongoing conflict in the country, only permitting humanitarian aid and evacuation efforts. Fighting has escalated in the region between two warring generals seeking to gain control after a military coup in 2021 ousted the country’s prime minister. Civil unrest is the primary risk factor for Africa’s third largest country by area. Crime, terrorism, kidnapping and armed conflict are also noted. The International Criminal Court began investigating alleged war crimes and violence against African ethnic groups in the country in 2023. Millions have fled their homes due to conflict, and the U.N. has said its efforts to provide aid have been hindered by a lack of support, safety and resources. As recently as December 2023, the United Nations warned of catastrophic famine , with millions of children at-risk for malnutrition .

Syria: The advisory states that “No part of Syria is safe from violence,” with terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, armed conflict and risk of unjust detention all potential risk factors. U.S. citizens are often a target for kidnappings and detention. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus halted operations in 2012. Fighting in neighboring Israel has escalated since October, and the conflict has spilled over into Syria, where the U.S. has carried out air strikes following drone and rocket attacks against American troops in Syria and Iraq, triggered by the Israel-Hamas war.

Ukraine: Russian setbacks in their invasion of Ukraine buoyed hopes in Ukraine in 2023. However, Ukraine is a Level 4 country due to Russia’s invasion, with crime and civil unrest also noted as risk factors. The country’s forces shot down two Russian fighter jets on Christmas Eve 2023, in a move Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said “sets the right mood for the entire year ahead.”

Venezuela: Human rights abuses and lack of health care plague this South American nation, which has been in a political crisis since 2014. In 2019, diplomatic personnel were withdrawn from the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. Threats in the country include crime, civil unrest, kidnapping, wrongful detention and poor health infrastructure.

Yemen: Six of the nine risk factors defined by the State Department – terrorism, civil unrest, health risks, kidnapping, armed conflict and landmines – are all present in Yemen. Despite private companies offering tourist visits to the Yemeni island of Socotra, the U.S. government argues those arranging such visits “are putting tourists in danger.” Civil war and cholera are also both present throughout the country. The U.S. Embassy in Sanaa halted operations in 2015. The country has experienced a relative lull in the civil war fighting, but as peace negotiations have gotten traction, flare ups in the fighting have jeopardized progress. Most recently, the U.S. and U.K. have carried out a series of airstrikes in the country, targeting Iran-backed Houthi sites.

Other Countries to Watch

Since Jan. 1, the State Department has updated travel advisories for 17 different countries as well as for the West Bank and Gaza, adding information about specific regions or risk factors, or simply renewing an existing advisory. Travel advisory levels can change based on several factors in a nation, such as increased civil unrest, policies that affect human rights or higher risks of unlawful detention.

The State Department has given about 25 countries an assessment of Level 3, meaning it recommends people “reconsider travel” to those destinations.

On Oct. 14, one week after the deadly Hamas attack on Israel, Israel and the West Bank were both moved from Level 2 to Level 3, while Gaza remains at Level 4. The region’s travel advisory was updated in November to reflect travel restrictions for certain government employees who have not already left the area, and it was updated again on Jan. 3.

Following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in early October, the U.S. State Department raised Lebanon ’s travel advisory level from a Level 3 to a Level 4 level due to “the unpredictable security situation related to rocket, missile, and artillery exchanges” between Israel and Hezbollah or other militant groups. In December, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut returned to normal staffing and presence, and on Jan. 29, the country was moved back to Level 3. Crime, terrorism, armed conflict, civil unrest, kidnapping and unexploded landmines are listed as the country’s primary risk factors. However, the country’s borders with Syria and with Israel, as well as refugee settlements within Lebanon, are specifically noted as Level 4 regions.

China became a Level 3 country in late 2020, with an update in December 2022 citing “the surge in COVID-19 cases, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, and COVID-19-related restrictions” as the reason for the advisory. In June 2023, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) was moved from the Level 3 to the Level 2 list, but travelers are still advised to be cautious in the area due to “arbitrary enforcement of local laws.” Meanwhile, Macau remains at Level 3.

Following an attempted coup in August 2023, Niger was elevated to Level 4 in August and the Department of State ordered all non-emergency U.S. government personnel and family members to leave the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. In early January 2024, the overall risk level for the country was lowered back to Level 3. Despite the new classification, the State Department still asks non-emergency government personnel and eligible family members to depart the country.

In mid-December 2023 there was an explosion at Guinea’s main fuel depot which has since affected access to health care and basic goods and services. The country was subsequently designated a Level 3 nation after having previously been Level 2. Concerns about civil unrest, health, crime and fuel shortages impacting local infrastructure were listed as the primary risk factors contributing to the change.

Several Level 3 countries are among the worst countries for human trafficking, as designated by the State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report . Level 3 countries on this list include Papua New Guinea, Guinea Bissau, China and Chad. There are also nine Level 4 countries designated as among the worst for human trafficking: Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Syria, South Sudan and Venezuela.

Over 70 countries are currently at Level 2, meaning the State Department recommends travelers “exercise increased caution” when traveling to those destinations.

Botswana became the newest Level 2 country on Feb. 26 after having previously been Level 1, with crime noted as the primary risk factor.

France, which saw nationwide protests throughout 2023, has civil unrest and terrorism noted as risk factors for its Level 2 status, and Sweden’s Level 2 status is associated with risks of terrorism.

The Level 2 travel advisory for the Bahamas was updated in January to reflect water safety concerns. The advisory warns that “activities involving commercial recreational watercraft, including water tours, are not consistently regulated” and notes that government personnel are “not permitted to use independently operated jet-ski rentals on New Providence and Paradise Islands.” It also warns visitors to be mindful of sharks, weather and water conditions. The advisory also says that crime is a primary risk factor with gang-on-gang violence contributing to high homicide rates in some areas. Visitors are asked to “be vigilant” and to not physically resist robbery attempts.

Bangladesh 's Level 2 travel advisory was updated in October 2023 to add a note about the country’s general election , which took place Jan. 7, 2024. The advisory states “demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.” The U.S. has since claimed the country’s election was not free nor fair.

In November 2023, several Level 2 travel advisories were updated with new cautionary information. The advisory for Ghana was updated to reflect threats against LGBTQI+ travelers specifically, noting “anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric and violence have increased in recent years.” Meanwhile, the advisory for South Africa was updated in February to note that routes recommended by GPS may be unsafe with higher risk for crime.

Turkmenistan was moved off of the Level 2 list to become the newest addition to the Level 1 list on Jan. 22, meaning normal precautions are recommended but there are no risk factors causing travelers to practice increased caution.

The State Department asks travelers to pay attention to travel advisory levels and alerts , review country information pages for their destinations and read related country security reports before going abroad.

Join the Conversation

Tags: Russia , Ukraine , Travel , Coronavirus , Travel Tips , Israel , Gaza , violence , Civil War , crime , kidnapping

Recent Articles

Best countries.

Education News

Best Countries Rankings

• # 1 Switzerland
• # 5 Australia
• # 5 United States

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Switzerland is world's best country.

Julia Haines Sept. 6, 2023

Photos: Best Countries Around the World

Sept. 6, 2023

The 25 Best Countries in the World

Elliott Davis Jr. Sept. 6, 2023

USC Cancels Main Commencement, Citing Safety Measures

Reuters April 25, 2024

US States Sue Over Agency Rule on Protections for Workers Who Get Abortions

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Entering and staying in the UK
• Immigration offences
• Travel bans: caseworker guidance
• UK Visas and Immigration

Travel bans: caseworker guidance (accessible)

Updated 24 October 2023

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-travel-bans/travel-bans-caseworker-guidance-accessible

Version 10.0

About this guidance

This guidance tells you how to deal with individuals who are, or are suspected of being, subject to a UN (United Nations) travel ban or UK immigration sanction, referred to throughout as a travel ban.

If you have any questions about the guidance and your line manager or senior caseworker cannot help you or you think that the guidance has factual errors then email Criminality Policy Guidance queries.

If you notice any formatting errors in this guidance (broken links, spelling mistakes and so on) or have any comments about the layout or navigability of the guidance then you can email the Guidance Rules and Forms team.

Publication

Below is information on when this version of the guidance was published:

version 10.0

published for Home Office staff on 16 October 2023

Changes from last version of this guidance

Updated to reflect the introduction of The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Introduction

This section tells you about travel bans.

Sanctions are a key foreign policy tool. Immigration sanctions, commonly known as travel bans, restrict the movement of identified individuals associated with regimes or groups whose behaviour is considered unacceptable by the international community. The United Nations (UN) imposes a travel ban by a Resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR). Where a travel ban is imposed, UN member states must deny the individual concerned entry into, or transit through, their territory, except in the limited circumstances specified in the relevant UNSCR. Criteria for designating a person varies according to the sanctions regime that a person is designated under.

The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (the Sanctions Act) provides the legal basis for the UK to impose, update and lift its own sanctions regimes. Regulations made under the Sanctions Act specify if an individual or business entity is subject to financial, trade, transport or immigration sanctions. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office publish a UK sanctions list on GOV.UK.

The European Union imposes travel bans by means of a Council Decision or Common Position. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK is no longer bound by travel bans imposed by the EU.

Sanctions are imposed unilaterally by the UN, the EU and the UK and individuals may therefore be subject to a travel ban imposed by more than one of the above.

Official – sensitive: start of section The information in this section has been removed as it is restricted for internal Home Office use. Official – sensitive: end of section

Details of UN and UK travel bans

Details of the travel bans imposed by the UN and the UK are published on the following websites:

UN security council sanctions committees

UK sanctions

Legislation

This section tells you about the legislation governing travel bans.

Section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971

Section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (1971 Act) (as amended by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 ) sets out the provisions which apply to foreign nationals who are excluded from the UK on the basis of a UN or UK travel ban.

Unless an exemption applies, once the UN or the UK impose a travel ban, the provisions in section 8B of the 1971 Act take effect. This means the individual becomes an ‘excluded person’ within the meaning of section 8B(4) and:

under section 8B(1) they must be refused leave to enter or remain in the UK and any leave subsequently given is invalid

under section 8B(2) any leave the person holds is automatically cancelled

under section 8B(3) any exemption from immigration control, provided by the 1971 Act, no longer applies, so long as they are an excluded person

An ‘excluded person’ as meant by section 8B(4) is not to be confused with a person who is excluded personally by the Secretary of State.

The Grace Period Regulations 2020 and the Frontier Workers Regulations 2020

The 1971 Act does not apply to people protected by the savings provisions in the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Grace Period Regulations 2020) or frontier workers, as defined by regulation 3 of the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Frontier Worker Regulations 2020) .

For the purposes of this guidance, people protected by the savings provisions in the Grace Period Regulations 2020 are referred to as ‘the Grace Period cohort’ and people who are frontier workers, as defined by regulation 3 of the Frontier Worker Regulations 2020, are referred to as ‘frontier workers’.

The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018

The Sanctions Act enables the UK government to impose its own travel bans on certain individuals. EU travel bans still exist, but following the UK’s exit from the EU, the UK is no longer bound by them.

The Sanctions Act allows for a variety of sanctions to be imposed on a person or entity, including immigration sanctions, at section 1(5)(b). Under section 4 of the same Act, the effect is to apply Section 8B of the 1971 Act. This is the basis in law for the imposition of UK travel bans.

Sanctions regulations

Each UK sanctions regime is created via regulations laid under section 1 of the Sanctions Act and is either thematic, such as sanctions relating to chemical weapons or global human rights, or geographic, where sanctions relate to a particular country. Each set of regulations specify who is sanctioned and why, details are published in the UK sanctions list .

The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Designated Persons Regulations 2020) ensure that the process for considering a human rights or protection claim is retained for people subject to new travel bans under the Sanctions Act and is not conflated with the review and challenge mechanisms for the sanctions themselves.

The Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amended the Designated Persons Regulations 2020 so that if a person who is lawfully in the UK when designated subsequently leaves the UK, they are no longer automatically exempt from the effect of the travel ban on their immigration status.

Authority to Carry Scheme 2023

This section tells you about the Authority to Carry Scheme.

Sections 22 and 23 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introduced provision for Authority to Carry Schemes (ATC Schemes) requiring a carrier to seek authority to carry persons on aircraft, ships or trains which are arriving (or expected to arrive) or leaving (or expected to leave) the UK.

The Authority to Carry (ATC) Scheme 2023 requires carriers, such as airlines, to seek authority from the Secretary of State to carry persons on aircraft, ships or trains which are arriving (or expected to arrive) or leaving (or expected to leave) the UK. The ATC Scheme 2023 came into force on 3 April 2023 replacing the ATC Scheme 2021.

The purpose of the ATC Scheme is to prevent certain persons from travelling to or from the UK when it is necessary in the public interest.

Authority to carry a person to the UK may be refused where the person is subject of UK or UN travel restrictions and is an excluded person for the purposes of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (unless, by virtue of either an exemption (in respect of a section 8B(5) instrument), or an exception granted or direction given under Regulations made under section 15(4) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 , the person is permitted to make the journey in respect of which authority is sought).

If a carrier breaches a requirement of the ATC Scheme, they may be liable to a financial penalty.

Refusing entry clearance, permission to enter or stay

This section tells you about refusing entry clearance or permission to enter or stay to a person who is subject to a travel ban.

For information on the effect of travel bans on people protected by the EU Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement or the Swiss Citizens’ Rights Agreement (the Agreements, or by the UK’s domestic implementation of the Agreements), see protected cohorts in this guidance.

A person who is subject to a UN or UK travel ban, must be refused permission to enter or stay under section 8B(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 , unless an exemption applies. The Immigration Rules provide for the mandatory refusal of entry clearance when the person is an excluded person, as defined by section 8B(4) of the 1971 Act, unless an exemption applies.

If the subject of a UN or UK travel ban applies for an entry clearance or permission to enter or stay, you must consider whether any exemptions to the travel ban apply. If no exemptions apply, you must refuse the application. You can use the paragraphs below in your decision notice.

Remember to undo the bold effect in the entry text in your final document.

Refusal wording – entry clearance

‘On [date] you applied for entry clearance/to enter the UK as [insert basis of application, for example, ‘a Tier 4 migrant’] . However, as of [date] you are subject to a travel ban imposed by the UN Security Council/UK Government . This is in compliance with [insert relevant UN Security Council resolution or UK sanctions regulations] . Having considered your application, I am satisfied that no relevant exemptions to the travel ban apply. I am therefore satisfied that you are an excluded person, as defined by section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 and I am refusing your application under paragraph 9.2.3. / FP7(2)(b) of Appendix EU (FP) of the Immigration Rules.’

Refusal wording – permission to enter or stay

‘On [date] you applied for permission to enter/stay in the UK as [insert basis of application, for example, ‘a Tier 4 migrant’] . However, you are subject to a travel ban imposed by the UN Security Council/UK Government . This is in compliance with [insert relevant UN Security Council resolution or UK sanctions regulations] . Having considered your application, I am satisfied that no relevant exemptions to the travel ban apply. I am therefore satisfied that you are an excluded person, as defined by section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 and I am refusing your application in accordance with section 8B(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.’

Direct Airside Transit Visa

If a person who is subject to a UN or UK travel ban applies for a direct airside transit visa (DATV), you must consider whether any exemptions or specified exceptions to the travel ban apply. If no exemptions apply, you must refuse the application. Although an application for a DATV is not considered under the Immigration Rules, the applicant can still be refused if any of the grounds for refusal in part 9 apply.

Paragraph 9.2.3. will therefore be relevant.

For more information on refusing a DATV see transit guidance. There is no right of appeal against a refusal.

Cancelling entry clearance, permission to enter or stay

This section tells you about cancelling entry clearance or permission held by a person who is subject to a travel ban. For information on the effect of travel bans on people protected by the Agreements, or by the UK’s domestic implementation of the Agreements, see protected cohorts in this guidance.

When a person becomes subject to a UN or UK travel ban, unless an exemption applies, any existing permission to enter or stay that they hold is cancelled by virtue of section 8B(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 . Although permission conferred by an entry clearance will be cancelled or invalidated under the provisions in section 8B of the 1971 Act, the entry clearance itself remains extant unless an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) revokes it. The Immigration Rules provide for the mandatory cancellation of entry clearance where the holder is subject to a UN or UK travel ban, unless an exemption applies.

When someone who has a valid entry clearance or permission to enter or stay becomes subject to a UN or UK travel ban, you must consider whether any exemptions to the travel ban apply. If no exemptions apply, you must cancel the entry clearance or permission to enter or stay. You can use the relevant paragraphs below in your decision notice. Remember to undo the bold effect in your entry text in the final document.

For further information on exemptions see exemptions on Refugee Convention or human rights grounds in this guidance.

People lawfully in the UK

A person who is lawfully in the UK when they become subject to a travel ban under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is exempt from the effect of the travel ban on their immigration status while our obligations under the ECHR or the Refugee Convention are considered.

For more information, see the exemptions section below.

Cancellation wordings

‘On [date] you were granted entry clearance/indefinite permission to enter/stay as [insert basis of application, for example a Tier 4 student] . However as of [date] you are subject to a travel ban imposed by the UN Security Council/UK Government . This is in compliance with [insert relevant UN Security Council resolution or UK sanctions regulations] . You are now therefore an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 and I am satisfied that no exemptions apply. Your indefinite permission to enter/stay is therefore cancelled in accordance with section 8B(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 and paragraph A3.1A / A3.1B of Annex 3 to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.’

‘On [date] you were granted [insert type of entry clearance, for example a visit visa] . However as of [date] you are subject to a travel ban imposed by the UN Security Council/UK Government . This is in compliance with [insert relevant UN Security Council resolution or UK sanctions regulations] . You are therefore an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 and I hereby cancel your [insert type of entry clearance] under paragraph 9.2.4./A3.1A/ A3.1B of Annex 3 to Appendix EU (FP) of the Immigration Rules.’

Enforcement action

If the person is in the UK, having been refused and/or had their permission cancelled, they are here without permission. You will need to consider whether the person can leave the UK voluntarily, or whether it is necessary to enforce removal, either by way of administrative removal or by deportation.

Protected cohorts

This section tells you about the effect of travel bans on people protected by the EU Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement or the Swiss Citizens’ Rights Agreement (the Agreements), or by the UK’s domestic implementation of the Agreements.

For more information on protected cohorts, see guidance on public policy public security or public health decisions.

Conduct before 23:00 on 31 December 2020

In relation to conduct before 23:00 GMT on 31 December 2020, any decision to refuse admission, refuse or cancel leave to enter or remain or refuse or revoke entry clearance or a frontier worker permit must be in accordance with the EU public policy, public security or public health test.

You must consider whether any exemptions or relevant exceptions to the travel ban apply. If none apply, you must consider whether the person’s conduct merits refusal, cancellation or revocation on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Where a public policy, public security or public health consideration formed part of the decision to impose a travel ban, it will not be necessary to carry out that consideration again.

For more information see guidance on public policy public security or public health decisions.

Conduct from 23:00 on 31 December 2020

If a person protected by the Agreements is subject to a travel ban owing to conduct from 23:00 on 31 December 2020, the person is, subject to the relevant exemptions, an excluded person as defined by section 8B(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 . There is no need to carry out any public policy, public security or public health assessment. For more information on refusing or cancelling entry clearance or permission see refusing entry clearance, permission to enter or stay and cancelling entry clearance or permission to enter or stay in this guidance.

For more information on refusing or cancelling entry clearance or permission please see refusing entry clearance, permission to enter or stay and cancelling entry clearance or permission to enter or stay in this guidance.

The Grace Period cohort and frontier workers

Section 8B has no effect on the Grace Period cohort and frontier workers as they do not have or require permission to enter or stay.

In relation to conduct from 23:00 GMT on 31 December 2020, any decision to refuse admission or refuse or revoke a frontier worker permit must be taken on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good.

If the person is subject to a travel ban owing to conduct which spans both before and after the end of the transition period (both before and after 23:00 GMT on 31 December 2020) you must refer to the conducive deportation guidance for information on how to consider conduct spanning the end of the transition period. That guidance also contains information on applying the conducive test.

Where a conducive, public policy, public security or public health consideration formed part of the decision to impose a travel ban, it will not be necessary to carry out that consideration again.

A person is protected by the savings provisions in the Grace Period Regulations 2020 if they do not have permission under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) but applied to that scheme before 30 June 2021 (and that application, or an administrative review or an appeal against the refusal of that application, remains outstanding) and they were either:

lawfully resident in the UK in accordance with the EEA Regulations 2016 immediately before 23:00 GMT on 31 December 2020

had acquired a right of permanent residence by that date (unless they have been absent from the UK for a continuous period of more than 5 years)

A decision to refuse admission to a person protected by the Grace Period Regulations 2020 must be taken under the EEA Regulations 2016 .

A decision to refuse or revoke a frontier worker permit must be taken under the Frontier Worker Regulations 2020 .

For further information on frontier workers, see the frontier worker permit scheme guidance.

Exemptions to travel bans

An exemption from the effect of a travel ban means that the following sections of the Immigration Act 1971 do not apply:

section 8B(1) (refusal and invalidation of leave)

section 8B(2) (cancellation of leave)

section 8B(3) (removal of exemption from immigration control

The subsections below set out the circumstances in which a person may be exempt from the effect of a travel ban.

A UN member state is not expected to refuse entry to its own nationals and, in any event, British citizens and Commonwealth citizens with a right of abode are not subject to the requirements of the 1971 Act.

Exemptions provided by the UN

In certain circumstances, the UN allows exemptions to a travel ban. The particular exemptions are set out in the individual pieces of legislation and can include allowing travel for humanitarian or religious reasons, to take part in peace talks, or to give evidence at a trial. Exemptions may also be granted where there is an obligation in international law, for example if the UK is hosting an international inter-governmental organisation or an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN.

The UK will consider any request for an exemption to a UN travel ban on a case-by- case basis. If the UK agrees that a person should be allowed to travel here it will apply to the UN for an exemption.

If the UN grants an exemption to a travel ban, this allows a person to enter or transit the UK for a specific period, sufficient to allow the person to undertake the approved activity.

Directions by the Secretary of State

In respect of immigration sanctions made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 , the Secretary of State may make a direction that the effect of the travel ban does not apply in certain cases, such as for travel for a UN sponsored meeting or because of exceptional compelling and compassionate circumstances.

A person who is lawfully in the UK when they become subject to a travel ban under the Sanctions Act is exempt from the effect of the travel ban until one of the following applies:

a decision is made by an appropriate Minister on their immigration claim

a direction is given by an appropriate Minister that the effect of that travel ban is enforced

the person leaves the UK

These provisions do not apply to people who are not lawfully in the UK when designated, including those who are in the UK in breach of immigration laws.

For more information on immigration claims see immigration claims in this guidance.

Refugee Convention and Human Rights obligations

Under section 8B(5A) of the 1971 Act, even where a travel ban is in force it will not be appropriate to refuse permission to enter or stay, cancel an individual’s existing permission or remove an individual’s exemption from immigration control, where to do so would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).

You must take into account any ECHR or Refugee Convention obligations when considering what action to take in respect of someone who is subject to a UN or UK travel ban, including refusing admission or refusing or cancelling entry clearance, permission to enter or stay or removing them from the UK. If the person is already recognised as a refugee in the UK, you must consider whether, given the reasons for the travel ban, it is appropriate for that status to be retained.

The best interests of a child

The duty in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child under the age of 18 in the UK, together with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , means that consideration of the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in immigration decisions affecting them.

Where a child or children in the UK will be affected by the decision, you must have regard to their best interests in making the decision. You must carefully consider all the information and evidence provided concerning the best interests of a child in the UK and the impact the decision may have on the child. You must carefully assess the quality of any evidence provided.

All decisions must demonstrate that the child’s best interests have been considered as a primary, but not necessarily the only, consideration. Decisions must demonstrate that consideration has taken place of all the information and evidence provided concerning the best interests of a child in the UK. Documentary evidence from official or independent sources will be given more weight in the decision-making process than unsubstantiated assertions about a child’s best interests.

Although the duty in section 55 only applies to children in the UK, the statutory guidance – Every Child Matters – Change for Children – provides guidance on the extent to which the spirit of the duty should be applied to children overseas. You must adhere to the spirit of the duty and make enquiries when you have reason to suspect that a child may be in need of protection or safeguarding, or presents welfare needs that require attention. In some instances, international or local agreements are in place that permit or require children to be referred to the authorities of other countries and you are to abide by these and work with local agencies in order to develop arrangements that protect children, promote their welfare and reduce the risk of trafficking and exploitation. Further information can be found in paragraphs 2.34 to 2.36 of the statutory guidance .

Immigration claims

An immigration claim is a representation from a person that removing them from the UK, requiring them to leave the UK or refusing them entry to the UK would breach the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the Refugee Convention.

A person who is lawfully in the UK when they become subject to a travel ban under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is exempt from cancellation of their permission to enter or stay for 20 working days from the date they are notified of the travel ban. If the person submits an immigration claim during that time, they remain exempt until a decision is made on that claim by the Home Secretary and the conclusion of any appeal thereafter.

In considering an immigration claim, you must take into account all available evidence, giving appropriate weight to the strong public interest in enforcing the effect of the travel ban. You must assess whether removing the person from the UK, requiring them to leave the UK or refusing them entry to the UK would breach the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the Refugee Convention. Consideration must not be given to the merits of the decision to designate the person, there are separate mechanisms available for the person to challenge their designation.

You must submit to the Home Secretary with a recommendation on whether to approve the immigration claim. You must make sure that your submission clearly sets out the options, with the evidence to support your conclusions and recommendation.

If the immigration claim is approved, the person must be notified whether their exemption from the effect of the travel ban is because of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR, the Refugee Convention or both.

If the immigration claim is refused, giving the person notice of the Home Secretary’s decision will mean they are no longer exempt from the effect of the travel ban. Any entry clearance or permission must be cancelled and any outstanding applications for entry clearance or permission must be refused.

The person must not be removed or required to leave the UK before the deadline for submitting an appeal has passed.

Where a person’s representations include a claim that enforcing the travel ban would breach their rights under the Agreements you must consider those representations.

For more information on the effect of travel bans on people protected by the Agreements, see protected cohorts in this guidance.

Directions to enforce the effect of the travel ban

If a person who is lawfully in the UK when they become subject to a travel ban under the Sanctions Act does not submit an immigration claim within 20 working days, the Home Secretary may give a direction for the effect of the travel ban to be enforced. You must take into account all available evidence, giving appropriate weight to the strong public interest in enforcing the effect of the travel ban. You must assess whether enforcing the effect of the travel ban will breach the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the Refugee Convention. Consideration must not be given to the merits of the decision to designate the person, there are separate mechanisms available for the person to challenge their designation.

You must submit to the Home Secretary with a recommendation on whether to give the direction. You must make sure that your submission clearly sets out the options, with the evidence to support your conclusions and recommendation.

A decision to give a direction for enforcement of the effect of the travel ban removes a person’s exemption from the effect of the travel ban. However, it does attract a right of appeal and any removal action must wait until the outcome of that appeal.

Leaving the UK

If a person leaves the UK before making an immigration claim or before a decision is made on their immigration claim, they are no longer exempt from the effect of the travel ban. However, this does not have any impact on an outstanding immigration claim. You must assess whether enforcing the travel ban would breach the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the Refugee Convention. Consideration must not be given to the merits of the decision to designate the person, there are separate mechanisms available for the person to challenge their designation.

Where an immigration claim has been made, you must submit to the Home Secretary with a recommendation on whether to approve the immigration claim. Your submission must clearly set out the options, with the evidence to support your conclusions and recommendation.

For more information on refusing or cancelling entry clearance or permission see ‘refusing entry clearance, permission to enter or stay and cancelling entry clearance or permission to enter or stay’ in this guidance.

Appeal rights

This page tells you about the rights of appeal in travel ban cases.

If you decide that no exemptions apply to prevent the refusal, cancellation or invalidation of entry clearance or permission and, if the person is in the UK, you are minded to pursue removal action, you must check whether your decision attracts a right of appeal.

Rights of appeal exist against the refusal of a human rights or protection claim and the revocation of protection status. Certain Immigration Rules based applications made in the UK are human rights applications and will attract a right of appeal against refusal. Additionally, rights of appeal exist against the refusal or cancellation of EUSS leave, the refusal of admission under the EEA Regulations 2016, as saved and the Frontier Workers Regulations 2020.

For further information see: Rights of appeal guidance.

The decision to refuse an immigration claim or give a direction for enforcement of the effect of the travel ban attracts an in-country right of appeal.

The person must not be required to leave or removed from the UK until the appeal has concluded.

EU travel bans

This page tells you about considering travel bans imposed by the EU.

Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the UK is no longer bound by travel bans imposed by the EU. People subject to an EU travel ban are therefore not within scope of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 .

Where a person is subject to an EU travel ban but not a UN or UK travel ban, you must consider whether their conduct merits refusal or cancellation on non-conducive grounds or, if appropriate, on public policy, public security or public health grounds. You must consider any human rights or asylum issues arising, as well as whether any exemptions to the travel ban apply.

For more information on considering non-conducive grounds and public policy, public security and public health decisions, see guidance on non-conducive grounds and public policy public security or public health decisions.

Details of EU travel bans

Details of the travel sanctions imposed by the EU are published on the following website, EU Sanctions .

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Lawyers online

Your language

Your currency

Ask a lawyer

Post a question

Chat online

Request a callback

Hire a lawyer

Find a lawyer

Find legal info

Questions & Answers

Laws & Regulations

Legal dictionary

Company blog

How it works

For clients

For lawyers

Terms of use

Privacy policy

Mohamed Bakheet

Abdul Wahied Mohammad Sharief

UAE, Sharjah

Maryam Alyassi

Khaled Alghaithi

UAE, Abu Dhabi

Suhail Rana

What is a Travel Ban & How Does it Work in the UAE?

An interview-format article covering the topic of the travel ban and reasons leading to it in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

Tim Elliot : Hello and welcome to Lawgical, wherever in the world you’re listening. This is the regular weekly podcast from the Dubai-based law firm, HPL Yamalova & Plewka. It’s still the Gulf Region's first and only legal podcast. I'm Tim Elliot. I’m here again at the firm's offices on the 18th floor of Reef Tower in Jumeirah Lakes Towers.  The Managing Partner is Ludmila Yamalova. Nice to see you.

Ludmila Yamalova : Great to see you as well. Thanks for being back.

Tim Elliot : Lawgical is a weekly opportunity to consider legal questions particular to the United Arab Emirates. You can always get in contact with us for legal answers. The best way to find us in LYLawyers.com. In this edition, the travel ban .

Now, Ludmila, it’s probably reasonable, even fair to say, that most residents of the UAE have heard of a travel ban being put in place upon an individual. It’s also reasonable to state that most of us don’t really understand the ins and outs of what bans on travel actually are. Let’s start there. What is a travel ban?

Ludmila Yamalova : In the simplest of terms, a travel ban is a record on the government system regarding a particular person’s ability to leave the country or come into the country. It’s a prohibition from basically, ultimately, leaving the country, though there are certain kinds of travel bans that also disallow someone to enter the country, it’s a different type of travel ban. That’s in the simplest terms. Now, with regard to what triggers a travel ban, and in the simplest of terms once again, it really relates to a criminal matter, a criminal case or allegation.

Tim Elliot : Right. An unfinished criminal case or allegation.

Ludmila Yamalova : Correct. It does not necessarily have to be a final judgment . It could just be an allegation.

Tim Elliot : Okay. An allegation of what? You said something that I didn’t like, therefore, I have a complaint?

Ludmila Yamalova : For example, let’s say using that same example, I said something that you considered to be defamatory or offensive to you. You go to the police and you report me to the police on the basis that perhaps I sent you a WhatsApp message that offended you. Under the UAE laws, that could, and I highlight the word could, constitute defamation , which under the UAE law is a criminal offence.

Now, you’ve made that allegation and the police have called me in to take my statement. In that particular case, because let’s say the WhatsApp message was pretty clear about the defamatory nature. There isn’t really anything subjective about it or subject to interpretation. Therefore, the police say, yes, that’s certainly defamatory and under the UAE this is a criminal offence. Therefore, we are going to send this to prosecution. But really some of it depends or a lot of it depends on the gravity of the offence.

But let’s say that particular statement I made somehow affected your business and it was something very serious. At that point in time the police decide this is serious enough for them to not only just transfer to prosecution, but to classify this particular offence as serious, whatever the appropriate legal allegation it may translate into.  On that basis, the police can now place me on the travel ban. This happens in different ways. They can either just request that I deposit my passport with the police and, voila, you have an inability to travel. Or, and this has been stated in the past and we have yet to see how this works out in the future, the police can update government systems which will allow you to keep your passport but ultimately if you want to travel because you’ve been placed on this travel ban list you cannot travel.

You cannot exit the country even though you have physical possession of the passport. That is the development that was not so long ago introduced that in lieu of taking people’s passports, now the authorities will just update their own internal systems and will notify a particular person that there is a travel ban against them or not. But that’s a newer system and we have yet to see it play out in practice. For the time being, when we talk about a travel ban in most cases it’s because you physically are required to hand over your passport to the authorities.

Tim Elliot : Let’s consider the latter case, that the system’s been updated, and you are still in possession of your own passport. How can you find out if a travel ban is in place? Because if your passport is with you, you wouldn’t necessarily know. Is there a notification system? Can you check?

Ludmila Yamalova : In theory and as per the latest decree, there is supposed to be a notification, but currently if you did want to check that, you can approach the immigration authorities and find out whether there is a travel ban on your immigration file. It is possible to do. That information is fairly accessible as long as you are the one that’s inquiring for that information or someone that has official authority to act on your behalf, in other words, somebody under a power of attorney .

Tim Elliot : Okay. How much do we know of the process of the imposition of a travel ban?

Ludmila Yamalova : At this point, not very much because the idea here, let me just classify perhaps in two major classifications or categories. Travel bans can be placed when, for example, there is:

(1) an allegation of some criminal offence, an allegation. I highlight the word allegation. It’s just the beginning of the process. There is one kind of process with regard to the position of passport and the travel ban that’s at play in the scenario.

(2) The other one is when there is a final court judgment and the person has now been convicted. That’s a different process that works in that particular scenario.

Let’s start with an easier one. There is a final court judgment and the person has been charged guilty. As part of the judgment, the court will issue the appropriate penalties are that are attached to the judgment. In criminal cases, it could either be a fine, or it could be a fine and imprisonment, or it could be a fine, imprisonment, and deportation. In most cases when there is a serious offence there is a jail sentence plus deportation. But once that judgment is made, the person ultimately is being held in detention.

Once the person is in detention, we know that usually, early on in the process the passport is deposited with the police and it resides with police and stays with the police until basically you either have been acquitted or you’re being put on a plane and sent away. That’s with regard to the final judgment. Now, what’s more challenging and where we don’t really have visibility to what goes into the process or the decision of requesting a person to deposit their passport is in cases of allegations versus a final judgment.

Let’s go back to your scenario of a defamatory case. You have made allegations that I defamed. But it may be in that particular case we slightly vary your scenario, and the statements I wrote in my WhatsApp message perhaps are not so clearly defamatory and more subjective. Who is the ultimate arbiter to decide whether it’s defamation or not?

If it’s something very clearly defamatory, you could see how the police would act differently, but if it’s something a little more subjective, ultimately, it’s really only the judge can decide whether a certain word is defamatory or not. In that case, we don’t really know what factors are used by the authorities to decide which one of these allegations required the deposit of a passport and which ones do not. Let’s say if it is something serious, an allegation of serious theft . We are not talking about a box of mangos. For example, a more serious amount of money that’s being stolen.

In that particular case, the police may decide this is serious enough and so we do not want this person to travel because ultimately there is a risk of this person wanting to exit the country quickly to basically take that money out of the country.

Tim Elliot : So an assumption is made as to whether a person is a flight risk or not.

Ludmila Yamalova : We are speculating. These are the factors. We don’t have visibility of the factors that are used, but we’re just speculating and using some logical assumptions that that would be one factor that would lead the police to request that the passport is deposited with the authorities. But something where perhaps it’s more of an innocuous or subjective statement that I made against you that you now claim to be defamatory, the police may say it’s not serious enough.

They may still want to send the case further down the road to the prosecution and ultimately the court, but it’s not serious enough for them to warrant requesting that I hand over my passport. Those are the factors that we can speculate are being considered in deciding which circumstances warrant physical handover of the passport and which ones do not. That’s really more speculative. The police or the authorities don’t share the specific guidelines or a list of factors or requirements to look at in making that determination.

Tim Elliot : Okay. But travel bans do happen. How do you get a travel ban removed in that case? What is the procedure other than going through the system?

Ludmila Yamalova : Sure. That’s where it depends on the underlying offence or allegation. Let’s use the simplest example, a bounced cheque. These days, in this age, a cheque that is for the value of over AED 200,000 is a criminal offence. Anything below it is not. If I bounce a cheque for AED 150,000, you can no longer file a case against me with the police. If I bounce a cheque for AED 250,000, then it is criminal. I bounced a cheque and now, with that, you have proof that the cheque was dishonoured.

You go with that proof to the police and you file a criminal case against me for that. Now, as part of this, the police almost instantly will add my name to the travel ban list. Then they call me in and in most cases, I’ll be required to deposit a passport unless the new system is used, but in any event, we have seen many cases like this where even without the passport the person can no longer leave the country because they are now on the travel ban list. But remember, it’s over the allegation of a bounced cheque.

Now I come to the police and I bring the AED 250,000 to pay off that debt. In that case, it’s a fairly easy resolution of the issue because once I pay the money, the police basically in the same instance can update the records and remove my name off the travel ban list. In that case, the travel ban gets lifted very quickly in relative terms.

Now, if it is an allegation of let’s say defamation that is serious or something a little more serious, assault or kidnapping or serious theft, things of that nature, in most cases, well, first of all, you could actually offer somebody else’s passport in lieu of yours kind of as a guarantee , but the authorities don’t always allow for that. But in most cases, so in a way that also acts as a lift, in some terms, a lift of a ban at least. At least you have the physical possession of the passport so you can leave the country, but there is somebody else acting as your guarantee.

Tim Elliot : That person then cannot leave the country.

Ludmila Yamalova : Indeed. Yes. We have had cases where these kinds of arrangements were made and the person who had left the country never came back, so the guarantor was stuck here. Quite unfortunate.

Tim Elliot : And that person is then no longer able to travel.

Ludmila Yamalova : Correct. Now, there are a few other examples of a travel ban that might be issued for someone, for example, who had absconded from the country. It depends on the type of abscondment. We have seen cases where, for example, an employer files an abscondment case against their employee and as part of this, the person has been placed on the travel ban list. However, depending on the type of abscondment, employers, and we have done this before as well if they settle the abscondment matter, they have the right to appeal to the authorities or to allow authorities, so to speak, to remove that person from a travel ban list or from a blacklist.

There could also be issues related to immigration, so any violations of immigration laws could also result in a travel ban. Usually, in connection with any immigration offences, there is a fine or a penalty that needs to be paid to the authorities. Depending on the offence, it could just be a matter of a fine and then the travel ban is lifted, or it could be permanently fixed to one’s record because a violation of immigration law often leads to deportation. Once a person has been placed on a deportation list, it’s almost impossible to lift that travel ban for them to ever be allowed to enter the country.

Tim Elliot : I was going to ask that. How does having had a travel ban in the past affect you from a criminal record perspective? If you’ve had a travel ban lifted, does that appear as a criminal activity?

Ludmila Yamalova : It depends on the underlying offence or allegation. If it’s a bounced cheque, no. Because once the cheque is paid, then there is no more criminal record.

Tim Elliot : The debt is paid.

Ludmila Yamalova : Yes. The debt has been paid. Usually, the debt is the cheque, so once that has been paid. But you’re right. For example, is it an unpaid judgment? Once you’ve paid the judgment, in most cases that does not stay on your record. However, with something more serious, then it will appear on your record. But in cases, for example, where someone’s name appears on the travel ban list because of the allegation of a criminal case, so the person may not be able to leave the country for as long as the investigation and the court proceedings are ongoing, but ultimately the court may deem the person not to be guilty. At that point in time, then the travel ban gets lifted fairly quickly.

For example, we had a case where there was a dispute in the employment context between two partners. One partner alleged that the other partner had stolen certain confidential information. It was in a different emirate. On the back of that, they were able to file a criminal case. In that particular emirate, the police had requested that the person deposit their passport with the authorities. The court process went on for about a year and ultimately the judge held that there was no guilt.

The person was acquitted 100%, but in the meantime, while the investigation and the court proceedings were ongoing, they didn’t have the freedom to leave the country. But in the end, once the judgment was issued and the person was acquitted, then obviously that’s when the travel ban gets lifted.

Tim Elliot : So the travel ban is effectively a method through which the legal system can look for a legal resolution. It’s a tool, isn’t it?

Ludmila Yamalova : For sure. In the past, this tool was even more effective because not so long ago, for example, the use of postdated cheques and cheques as guarantees was a very commonly used tool. People would secure all sorts of obligations by virtue of these cheques. For example, you would take out a bank loan or a car loan or a personal loan or a credit card loan, what have you, a mortgage, and so you would take the benefit of that money and then get on a plane and leave.

It was just all too easy for a lot of people, especially for those who were not citizens of this country, they always have a place to go somewhere else, and so in a way perhaps the criminality of bounced cheques at the time was heavily relied on because of that, because:

(1) there were too many people that were too eager and too easily ready to get on a plane and leave their financial obligations behind, and

(2) in many cases also people use the postdated cheques as guarantees so that they have that kind of leverage to be able to encourage somebody to comply with their side of the agreement.

We see this a lot in commercial transactions, for example, in trading. If you’re providing goods to someone, you’ve provided the goods, but you still haven’t received the payment. Cheques are often used as guarantees, again, as you said, for reasons for ensuring the parties actually do abide by their obligations or at least as leverage to make sure that parties comply with their obligations. Yes, it’s a tool. It’s a tool that in commercial transactions has worked and worked effectively, but it’s also a tool that needs to be evolved and it has been evolving.

The country and its legislative developments have been evolving along with it, such as in the case of bounced cheques, anything below AED 200,000 is no longer criminal, whereas before even a 500-dirham cheque was considered criminal and the person would then lose the ability to travel and the freedom just because of that cheque.

Tim Elliot : If you consider the way that the UAE has evolved, and this is kind of in the interest of balance really, it is to a great extent, even these days, a transient, as an expatriate, society. You can understand why these checks and balances if you like, and these methods have been put into place, why they are employed.

Ludmila Yamalova : After having been in this country for a number of years, yes, I understand it much more so than I did when I came here first because at that time it just seemed a little disproportionate but, having been long enough and seeing the various things that you just mentioned, is that people come and go and often people come here expecting the high life and living large and getting themselves into serious debts and enjoying the luxurious things or parts of life such as buying themselves very expensive cars with car loans and then losing their job shortly thereafter or realizing they cannot afford those obligations, getting on a plane and leaving.

There have been way too many examples like that. Presumably, with that in mind, and at least to encourage people to be responsible about their choices in life, in particular about borrowing money and from the local authorities and parties here, that these practices were introduced.

Tim Elliot : Ludmila Yamalova is the Managing Partner of the Dubai-based Yamalova & Plewka. As ever, Ludmila, a huge thank you for your time.

Ludmila Yamalova : Thank you very much. As always, an engaging discussion.

Tim Elliot : That’s another edition of Lawgical.  For obvious reasons, we just can't cover every aspect of the U.A.E.'s legal framework in each episode, but if there's a legal conundrum you’d like answered you can get in touch very easily via Lylawyers.com or via any of our social channels and we'll try to answer questions in a future episode of Lawgical.  If you’d like a legal consultation, Lylawyers.com is the best place to start.

This article is a transcription of the  Lawgical with LYLAW podcast episode  published on 29 October 2019.

Written by:

Ludmila Yamalova  | HPL Yamalova & Plewka DMCC

Fixed-fee legal services (3)

Immigration

Hire a lawyer to conduct a complete check on a possible travel ban and arrest warrant imposed on you in the United Arab Emirates. Submit the required documents and get results of the check online without visiting UAE government authorities personally.

Related reading

Questions & answers (10).

Legal consequences of unpaid Etisalat bills

Bounced cheque case: jail term, travel ban, court fees, etc.

Liability for the unpaid loan

How to remove a person from the UAE blacklist?

Legal consequences for non-payment of Etisalat bills

Consequences of missing credit card payments

Defaulting on credit card payment and subsequent civil case

How can I check and lift my UAE immigration ban?

Travel ban clearance after paying fine for bounced cheque

Checking a travel ban and absconding case before returning to Dubai

Legal blog (4)

UAE Travel Ban: What You Need to Know

Bounced Cheques in the UAE: What You Need to Know in 2023

What to Consider when you are Planning to Leave the UAE

Bounced Cheque Cases & Cheque Execution in Dubai as per the New Law

Laws & Regulations (3)

Federal Law No. (11) of 1992 Concerning Issuance of the Civil Procedures Code

Federal Law No. (3) of 1987 Promulgating the Penal Code

Federal Law No. (35) of 1992 Concerning The Criminal Procedural Law

Currently, there is no information to display in this section.

Q: I had a pending payment of AED 2656 for Etisalat, but due to some financial issues, I couldn't pay it for a long time. Now they have finally told me about legal action or travel ban. Please tell me how I can get out of this problem.

Q: PLEASE REPLY AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE UAE CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE (PERSONAL CHEQUE) IF AN INDIVIDUAL FILE A POLICE CASE 1) What will be the minimum jail terms for Cheque bounce case? During jail terms whether he will be on travel ban? During jail term whether he can come out of jail by giving somebody's passport as security? After completing the jail term whether he will be still on travel ban as he has not paid the money against the cheque? If he did not pay the money during police case, how can I get back the money? 2) When he is on jail terms during police case, whether we can proceed with the civil case for cheque bounce? 3) For proceeding civil case whether we have to deposit any amount to court? Your valuable advice will be highly appreciable. Thanks

Q: I was jailed for 4 months for not being able to pay a loan from a Dubai bank since I've lost my job in 2011. After my release, I tried looking for a job but was unsuccessful, so I went back to my home country when my visa expired but still the bank is sending emails and threatening me and wants to collect money from me. Now that I am back here in Dubai, they threatened to file a ban against me and told me that I cannot get my visa renewed if I will not pay them. Can the bank do such THING? I already have accepted the punishment of serving jail time since during that time I didn't have a JOB and was totally broke. What can I do so that they will stop harassing me? What does the law say if someone had served the sentence for a bouncing check case? Thanks and hoping to be enlightened. 

Q: My wife worked in the UAE in 2013 for 2 months and had a medical issue so the company send her back to her country. Now, after 4 years I'm going to issue her visit visa but there is a problem with issuing a visa for her. Travel agent says she is blacklisted in the UAE. So how can I remove her from the blacklist?

Q: I have a flatmate who applied for internet in Etisalat, but when he went on vacation he did not come back. Then our flat owner continued it but the internet account was not transferred to his name. When I got back from my vacation, there was already a new flat owner. She removed the existing internet in our home because she applied for a new account. That was almost 2 years ago. Now, I don't know why Etisalat is texting and calling me that I have to pay the amount due and they initiated a legal action and travel ban on me. Tahseel messaged me about this. Please, can anyone help me on what I can do?

Q: After missing 2 months of payments on a credit card, the bank presented a security cheque on my current account for AED 101,000 and it bounced. They have said that they have filed a case with the police and issued a travel ban. I have since made a minimum payment as requested and plan to discuss repayment with the collections department. As a businessman, I travel to other countries. Will I now be subject to a travel ban/ be detained at the airport / taken to prison?

Q: Dear Sir I am a Dubai resident. Last month, Mashreq filed a criminal case against me for credit card cheque bounce of AED 60000. I paid the fine and got released from the police station. Now, they called me again and said they are going to file a civil case against me. If they file a civil case, will there be any immediate travel ban? Also, advise if the police can arrest me on the basis of this civil case immediately.

Q: How can I check my type of ban? I am a businessman. I used to travel to Dubai for business purposes. And I had residence visa for a long time. But in 2014, when I travelled to Dubai, I was taken to Al Aweer Central Jail from immigration of Dubai International Airport. And they took my fingerprints and eye scan. They told me to call my Arbab. But unfortunately, my Arbab was out of UAE. And then they sent me back to my country without saying anything. Now I want to know if I was banned or not. If I'm banned, how can I check for how long I was banned? And how can I remove my ban?

Q: Hi Sir, My credit card cheque was bounced and I got in jail and paid the fine after the public prosecution hearing, but they did not give me a clearance. They just let me out in the jail. I would like to ask if I have a travel ban. The bank keeps sending me and for the 8th time that my cheque was bounced again. Is it also possible that they can repeatedly bounce my cheque? They also threatened me that they will file a civil case a week after the other case was finished.

Q: Hello. I just want to ask about my status in the UAE. I left Dubai without the permission of my boss because of a family emergency. I left Dubai 3 months ago (December 2019) and as per PRO they (employer) already filed the absconding case on me. Now I want to come back to the UAE. Will I have a problem at the airport? Hope to hear from you about this matter.

The UAE travel ban may be imposed on a person on various grounds, for instance, as the result of criminal offences, unpaid loans, breach of immigration laws or family matters. Implications of such a ban can be financially severe and daunting for the affected person. This article aims to give readers a clear understanding of what is the UAE travel ban, what are the grounds and procedures for its imposition and removal, how to check if the person is banned from travelling and other related topics.

In the UAE, cheque bounce is a very frequent problem faced by people during their span in the country. It is covered under the purview of Commercial Transactions Law, and legal implications/penalties can be financially severe and daunting for more “serious” offenses. Bounced cheque issues may arise in a variety of commercial transactions, including but not limited to, companies’ exchanges, bank loans, property rents or purchases, and individual transactions.

An interview-format article covering the topic of things to consider when leaving the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

What shall I do if I have a bounced cheque? You need to contact your lawyer as soon as possible to issue a travel ban against the person who issued the bounced cheque. It should be noted that time plays a very important role in bounced cheque cases.

The law promulgates UAE Civil Procedures Code (Civil Procedure Law) which governs civil procedures in the United Arab Emirates, including the prosecution before the courts, litigation and execution.

This Law promulgates the Federal Penal Code (Criminal Law) of the United Arab Emirates. Crimes and chastisement punishments shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Law and other penal codes.

The law promulgates UAE Criminal Procedural Law (Penal Procedures Law) which governs criminal procedures in the UAE. This law applies to the procedures relating to offences whose punishments are not specified, dogma and punitive offences, and blood money, if they do not violate the Sharia rules.

Other blog posts by Ludmila Yamalova

Laws on rape in the uae.

An interview-format article covering the topic of rape in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

Amendments to the UAE Company Law

An interview-format article covering the topic of the amendments to the company law in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

Punishments for Juveniles in the UAE

An interview-format article covering the topic of juvenile punishments in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

Influencer Licensing & VAT in the UAE

An interview-format article covering the topic of influencer licensing and VAT in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

Harassment Law in the UAE

An interview-format article covering the topic of harassment in the UAE. This is from the legal podcast of lawyer Ludmila Yamalova, the founder of Lawgical with LYLAW.

This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.

Legal Advice Middle East and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice.

Full legal advice should be taken in due course from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations.

An order issued by the authorities to all the state ports to prohibit a person from entering or leaving a country according to a court or police order for the protection of individual interests in cases like child custody, debt failure, or criminal investigation. Travel ban prohibits the banned person from leaving the country and gets him/her arrested while entering if the reason(s) for prohibition did not cease to exist.

A decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of the parties to legal proceedings. Judgments generally provide the court’s explanation as to why it has chosen to make a particular decision.

Damaging the reputation of a person or a group of people by publishing or saying bad things about them that are not true. More specifically, saying words which amount to defamation is slander and defamation in other forms, such as printed words or images, is libel.

Power of attorney (PoA)

A written authorisation to represent or act on another’s behalf (the principal) in private affairs, business or some other legal matter, sometimes against the wishes of the principal. It is generally terminated when the principal dies or becomes incompetent, but the principal can revoke it at any time. See also: Online POA and Other Notary Public Services in the UAE

A formal promise by one party (the guarantor or surety) to another party (the creditor) to accept responsibility of a third party’s (the principal debtor) debt, if that third party cannot or refuses to pay it.

The term that describes a duty that is enforced by a court and where non-fulfilment may incur a penalty.

Any matter of fact that a party to a claim or action offers to provide to prove or disprove an issue in the case. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, and may be viewed as circumstantial evidence.

By registering with Legal Advice Middle East you agree to Terms of use and Privacy policy

Why register?

Keep the history of all your chats, questions and callback requests

Track your interactions with lawyers and receive notifications

Ask lawyers follow-up questions if something is not clear from their answers

Are you a lawyer?

Be found. Register with us and get new leads every day.

California could ban Clear, which lets travelers pay to skip TSA lines

A new bill, the first of its kind in the U.S., would ban security screening company Clear from operating at California airports as lawmakers take aim at companies that let consumers pay to pass through security ahead of other travelers. 

Sen. Josh Newman, a California Democrat and the sponsor of the legislation, said Clear effectively lets wealthier people skip in front of passengers who have been waiting to be  screened by Transportation Security Administration agents. 

"It's a basic equity issue when you see people subscribed to a concierge service being escorted in front of people who have waited a long time to get to the front of TSA line," Newman told CBS MoneyWatch. "Everyone is beaten down by the travel experience, and if Clear escorts a customer in front of you and tells TSA, 'Sorry, I have someone better,' it's really frustrating." 

If passed, the bill would bar Clear, a private security clearance company founded in 2010, from airports in California. Clear charges members $189 per year to verify passengers' identities at airports and escort them through security, allowing them to bypass TSA checkpoint lines. The service is in use at roughly 50 airports across the U.S., as well as at dozens of sports stadiums and other venues.

A media representative for Clear declined to comment on the proposal to ban the company's service in California.

"We are proud to partner with nine airports across California — creating hundreds of jobs, sharing more than $13 million in annual revenue with our California airport partners and serving nearly 1 million Californians," the company said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch . "We are always working with our airline and airport partners as well as local, state, and federal governments to ensure all travelers have a safer, easier checkpoint experience."

Newman said his bill, SB-1372 , doesn't seek to prohibit Clear from operating its own dedicated security lines separate from other passengers. 

"The bill doesn't seek to punish Clear or put it out of business. It wants to create a better traffic flow so customers aren't intersecting with the general public and causing a moment of friction that is so frustrating to the average traveler," he said. "All it does is up the tension in the line."

"It's about dignity"

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) also supports the bill, as does the union representing Transportation Security Officers in Oakland, Sacramento, and San Jose.

In a letter to Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese, AFA-CWA President Sara Nelson said the bill "would restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint by requiring companies like Clear to operate in a dedicated security lane, separate from general travelers and TSA PreCheck members." 

James Murdock, president of AFGE Local 1230, the TSA officer union's local chapter, also weighed in. "Clear is nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler," he said in a letter to Cortese. "While Clear may save time for its paying customers, non-customers suffer from Clear's aggressive sales tactics and longer security queues while they enter an essential security screening process." 

The bill, which is set to come before the California State Senate's transportation committee on Tuesday, does have significant adversaries in the form of major airlines, including Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue, United and others. Carriers claim the measure threatens to restrict how airports manage security lines, which they say would worsen the experience for passengers and hurt business. 

Delta, United and Alaska each have partnerships with Clear.

But Newman is undaunted, describing his bill as an effort to improve travel for the majority of passengers. 

"It's about dignity in the travel experience of people who don't have money to pay for upsell services," Newman said. "If you have money, by all means, but that business shouldn't be at the expense of the average traveler."

James Smith of booking site Travel Lingual said the bill at the very least "prompts a necessary dialogue" on how to best balance convenience and equity when it comes to navigating airport security.

"While Clear offers a time-saving solution for travelers willing to pay, concerns about fairness and the exacerbation of socioeconomic disparities cannot be ignored," he said. 

Everything TikTok users need to know about a possible ban in the U.S.

Congress has passed a bill that could make it happen. here’s how and when it will affect you..

American officials have been warning for years about the risks of TikTok, but it has been mostly talk and little action.

This week, though, a new law gave the U.S. government the authority to try to ban one of the most popular apps in the country. (The key word is “try.”)

Is this it for TikTok and those of you who use the social app? Should you delete it and walk away from your communities or livelihood on TikTok? Read on.

Possible TikTok ban

President Biden announced he has signed legislation to ban or force a sale of TikTok after Congress passed legislation to ban or force a sale of TikTok, delivering a historic rebuke of the video-sharing platform’s Chinese ownership.

What the bill does: The bill, which saw bipartisan support in the House and Senate , would require the social media app’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance , to sell off the immensely popular app or face a nationwide ban. Here’s what you should know about the potential ban .

What’s next: The provision gives ByteDance roughly nine months to sell the wildly popular app or face a national ban , a deadline Biden could extend the deadline by 90 days. TikTok is expected to challenge the measure , setting up a high-stakes and potentially lengthy legal battle over the app’s fate.

Reactions: TikTok creators say a ban would threaten their lives and livelihoods, while young users of the app previously asked Congress why they aren’t focusing on “bigger problems.”

Is a TikTok Ban Coming? Here Are the U.S. Airlines That Rely on it Most

Gordon Smith , Skift

April 24th, 2024 at 6:35 AM EDT

TikTok is a big deal in the airline industry, with most of the major U.S. carriers using the platform to enhance brand recognition and loyalty.

Gordon Smith

Are some of the world’s biggest airlines about to disappear from TikTok? For now, it remains a theoretical prospect , but events in Washington D.C. on Wednesday could make it more likely.

On Tuesday, the Senate approved a controversial bill that could ultimately see TikTok banned in the United States. It gives the platform’s Chinese owners 270 days to sell the app, or risk it being prohibited in the U.S.

The bill was signed by President Biden on Wednesday.

It formed part of a larger foreign military aid package, helping the proposals receive the green light from the White House. Biden has previously been vocal in his support for greater scrutiny of the social media platform.

The law would ban TikTok from U.S. app stores unless it is spun off from its Chinese parent firm, ByteDance. It is widely believed that the company will launch an appeal, which could delay any forced sale.

ByteDance did not immediately comment on the developments.

A U.S. ban wouldn’t be entirely without precedent. In 2020, India suspended new downloads of the platform, along with dozens of other Chinese-owned apps, amid frosty relations with Beijing.

What’s the Potential Impact on Airlines?

TikTok is used by around 170 million Americans and has become an important source of news and information , particularly for younger generations.

It’s also a valuable marketing tool for companies around the world, including airlines and travel firms. Skift spoke with TikTok’s Stuart Flint last month about the platform’s soaring popularity among travelers and businesses alike.

We’ve also discussed the topic with Ryanair Group CEO Michael O’Leary. Despite describing the app as “mindless rubbish,” he said it was a great way of reaching people at little or no cost.

Most of the largest American carriers post regularly on TikTok. Companies such as United and Southwest have garnered millions of likes for their lighthearted viral content.

However not everyone is on board. American Airlines and JetBlue both have ‘official’ accounts but don’t post content. Spirit, Sun Country and Allegiant don’t appear to have any formal presence on the app at all.

With uncertainty about the app’s future in the United States, here’s a round-up of the U.S. airlines with the largest TikTok following, along with some of our favorite clips:

#1: United Airlines

Account: @united Followers: 855k Likes: 8.9m Bio: ‘everyone is the main character on our flights’

@united @Jesse & Kay are all of us #Airport #Travel #EWR #Newark #UnitedAirlines ♬ original sound – darcy stokes

#2: Delta Air Lines

Account: @delta Followers: 561.4k Likes: 16.4m Bio: ‘ We can take you there ✈️ ‘

@delta dream team #deltaairlines #avgeek #pilot ♬ Drilla

#3: Southwest Airlines

Account: @southwestair Followers: 324.8k Likes: 14.1m Bio: ‘The one with the funny Flight Attendants.’

@southwestair He’s been waiting his whole life for this moment 💯 #airportdad #flightattendant #dadsoftiktok #southwest #travel #funnydad ♬ original sound – Southwest Airlines

#4: Alaska Airlines

Account: @alaskaair Followers: 178.6k Likes: 1.6m Bio: ‘The most nonstops from the West Coast. ✈️ Flying into your TikTok feed like…’

@alaskaair ✅total solar eclipse from 35,000 feet #solareclipse #eclipse ♬ original sound – Alaska Airlines

#5: Frontier Airlines

Account: @flyfrontier Followers: 82.7k Likes: 1.2m Bio: ‘At home in the clouds. ✈️’

@flyfrontier Consider yourself “saved by the bell.” #themoreyouknow #airbus #millenialsoftiktok #flyfrontier #frontierairlines #travel #airbus #meme #90skids #90s @Frontier Airlines ♬ original sound – samantha_romane

#6: Hawaiian Airlines

Account: @hawaiianair Followers: 31.4k Likes: 585.8k Bio: ‘Sharing aloha since 1929 ✈️🌺’

@hawaiianair There’s only one right answer… 😋🧃 #hawaiianairlines #fyp #pog #aviation #travel #hawaii ♬ original sound – sav

A TikTok Ban Would Disrupt Tourism Marketing: What You Need To Know

Airlines Sector Stock Index Performance Year-to-Date

What am I looking at?  The performance of airline sector stocks within the  ST200 . The index includes companies publicly traded across global markets including network carriers, low-cost carriers, and other related companies.

The Skift Travel 200 (ST200)  combines the financial performance of nearly 200 travel companies worth more than a trillion dollars into a single number.  See more airlines sector financial performance . 

Read the full methodology behind the Skift Travel 200.

The Daily Newsletter

Our daily coverage of the global travel industry. Written by editors and analysts from across Skift’s brands.

Have a confidential tip for Skift? Get in touch

Tags: airlines , american airlines , delta air lines , frontier airlines , hawaiian airlines , social media , social media marketing , southwest airlines , tiktok , united airlines

Photo credit: American Airlines American Airlines

• Social Media

What a TikTok Ban in the U.S. Could Mean for You

N o, TikTok will not suddenly disappear from your phone. Nor will you go to jail if you continue using it after it is banned.

After years of attempts to ban the Chinese-owned app , including by former President Donald Trump, a measure to outlaw the popular video-sharing app has won congressional approval and is on its way to President Biden for his signature. The measure gives Beijing-based parent company ByteDance nine months to sell the company, with a possible additional three months if a sale is in progress. If it doesn't, TikTok will be banned.

So what does this mean for you, a TikTok user, or perhaps the parent of a TikTok user? Here are some key questions and answers.

When does the ban go into effect?

The original proposal gave ByteDance just six months to divest from its U.S. subsidiary, negotiations lengthened it to nine. Then, if the sale is already in progress, the company will get another three months to complete it.

So it would be at least a year before a ban goes into effect — but with likely court challenges, this could stretch even longer, perhaps years. TikTok has seen some success with court challenges in the past, but it has never sought to prevent federal legislation from going into effect.

What if I already downloaded it?

TikTok, which is used by more than 170 million Americans , most likely won't disappear from your phone even if an eventual ban does take effect. But it would disappear from Apple and Google's app stores, which means users won't be able to download it. This would also mean that TikTok wouldn't be able to send updates, security patches and bug fixes, and over time the app would likely become unusable — not to mention a security risk.

But surely there are workarounds?

Teenagers are known for circumventing parental controls and bans when it comes to social media, so dodging the U.S. government's ban is certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. For instance, users could try to mask their location using a VPN, or virtual private network, use alternative app stores or even install a foreign SIM card into their phone.

But some tech savvy is required, and it's not clear what will and won't work. More likely, users will migrate to another platform — such as Instagram, which has a TikTok-like feature called Reels, or YouTube, which has incorporated vertical short videos in its feed to try to compete with TikTok. Often, such videos are taken directly from TikTok itself. And popular creators are likely to be found on other platforms as well, so you'll probably be able to see the same stuff.

“The TikTok bill relies heavily on the control that Apple and Google maintain over their smartphone platforms because the bill’s primary mechanism is to direct Apple and Google to stop allowing the TikTok app on their respective app stores,” said Dean Ball, a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Such a mechanism might be much less effective in the world envisioned by many advocates of antitrust and aggressive regulation against the large tech firms.”

Should I be worried about using TikTok?

Lawmakers from both parties — as well as law enforcement and intelligence officials — have long expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over data on the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. The worry stems from a set of Chinese national security laws that compel organizations to assist with intelligence gathering - which ByteDance would likely be subject to – and other far-reaching ways the country’s authoritarian government exercises control.

Data privacy experts say, though, that the Chinese government could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that sell or rent personal information.

Lawmakers and some administration officials have also expressed concerns that China could - potentially – direct or influence ByteDance to suppress or boost TikTok content that are favorable to its interests. TikTok, for its part, has denied assertions that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government. The company has also said it has never shared U.S. user data with Chinese authorities and won’t do so if it’s asked.

More from TIME

More must-reads from time.

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Coco Gauff Is Playing for Herself Now
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

TikTok ban: What happens next after US Senate passed the bill?

• Medium Text

TIKTOK CLOCK STARTS

Tiktok sues.

HOW LONG WILL THIS ALL TAKE?

Will tiktok change at all, what does the chinese government say.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Chris Sanders; Editing by Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Celebrity Chef Jose Andres called seven aid workers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza "the best of humanity" on Thursday during a memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral that was attended by hundreds, and punctuated by grief and ongoing questions about the attack.

Lawmakers consider bill that would ban CLEAR program at California airports

By emma goss • published april 23, 2024 • updated on april 23, 2024 at 7:40 pm.

A bill making its way through the California legislature takes aim at third-party vendors like CLEAR Plus which, for $189 a year, allows travelers to move to the head of the security screening line.

“Travel is hard enough, and so having this ability to skip a line is helpful,” said Charity Wallace, who was traveling through SJC with CLEAR.

The bill, introduced by Southern California State Senator Josh Newman, wants the general public to avoid ending up in line behind those willing to pay more.

That bill would require third party vendors like CLEAR to get their own TSA screeners through the federal government and create a whole different line. 

Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.

AT SJC, airport management worries that that requirement would mean CLEAR would vanish from California airports.

Six major airlines also came out against the bill, noting that if CLEAR is cut from airports, airfare may go up.

Southbound I-680 in East Bay scheduled for full closure this weekend

Walmart to close store in Fremont

While being passed in line may bother some, several travelers at SJC Tuesday said they weren't too bothered.

“For the most part you just plan ahead, it's more in the strategy of how you get on the airline,” said Ed Stoll of San Carlos.

This article tagged under:

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

California Today

Why California Banned State-Funded Travel to Florida and Elsewhere

Tuesday: Officials are expanding a ban on taxpayer-funded travel to places that have enacted anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation.

By Jill Cowan

Good morning.

California will ban state-funded travel to Arkansas, Florida, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia in response to anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in those places, officials announced on Monday.

“There has been a coordinated attack on fundamental civil rights,” Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said at a news conference. “It’s about aligning our dollars with our values.”

There are now 17 states under California’s ban, including Texas, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina.

The law, approved by the State Legislature in 2016, requires California to add states to the list if they enact laws that discriminate against or remove protections for people on the basis of sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. It was enacted amid a backlash against states where lawmakers were trying to pass “ bathroom bills ” to prevent transgender people from using restrooms that aligned with their gender identity.

Bonta, a progressive ally of Gov. Gavin Newsom , said that “a wave of discriminatory new bills” was sweeping across the country and that he was required to take action.

Evan Low, a California lawmaker who wrote the ban, said it was meant to keep state workers safe and out of situations where they might be discriminated against.

“The current culture war is not a game,” he said.

In 2017, Low acknowledged that banning state-funded travel to Texas was largely symbolic . Still, he said this week that he hoped California’s moves would prompt big businesses to follow suit.

Officials didn’t say how much money the state had withheld as a result of the ban, and the attorney general’s office said it didn’t track anything related to the law beyond the list of states.

But Richard C. Auxier, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center , said that while the amount might be relatively small, the effects could snowball.

He cited North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which prompted a national outcry after it was enacted in 2016. In addition to travel bans like California’s, the N.C.A.A. and the N.B.A. moved tournaments in protest, and performers refused to play gigs there. The law was repealed, and the state’s Republican governor was ousted in part because of frustration over the economic fallout.

The question is how much state lawmakers respond to economic pain felt by local businesses and governments as they try to coax back visitors lost during the pandemic.

“These cities are all dying for people to come back — to go to the bars, to go to events,” Auxier said, so if other organizations take their cues from California, local tourism groups or businesses could be hurt enough to prompt them to push back against their leaders.

“‘Will it work?’ is a giant political question,” he said.

Ryland Whittington, a 13-year-old from San Diego whom officials invited to speak at Monday’s news conference, said that the ability to feel safe, play sports and get any care he needed wasn’t political, in no small part because of where he lives.

“Being trans is just a small part of who I am,” he said. “I know I’m lucky to live in California.”

He asked lawmakers to “give all kids the opportunity to be happy, healthy and to live their lives in freedom and peace.”

Read this story from 2017 about when California announced its ban on state-funded travel to Texas .

Get to know Bonta and his priorities .

See the full list of states where state-funded travel is banned and read about exceptions to the ban from the attorney general’s office.

Here’s what else to know today

Compiled by Jonathan Wolfe

CalMatters has a list of five things you should know about the state’s final (for now) record-busting budget deal.

One of the biggest barriers to mass immunity in the U.S. is persuading skeptical young adults to get the coronavirus vaccine .

Some 4,000 nonviolent federal offenders who were sent home early in the pandemic to help slow the spread of the coronavirus could be forced to return to prison .

State Democrats want the option to speed up the recall election to take advantage of what they see as favorable conditions for Newsom, The Associated Press reports.

A federal court threw out the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust complaint against Facebook, a major setback to the government’s push to break up the social media giant.

A new report found that California’s white and Black populations are declining , while its Asian and Hispanic populations continue to grow, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

At least eight homeless people died while they were living at the Airtel Plaza Hotel, one of the hotels used in Project Roomkey, The Los Angeles Times reports.

Teviston, a community in the Central Valley, is without running water during a heat wave , CalMatters reports.

Many “hotshot” firefighters who battled the state’s wildfires last year are quitting , The Mercury News reports.

There’s only one drug designed to treat postpartum depression . KQED asks: “Why does Kaiser Permanente make it so hard to get?”

Californians are fueling Austin’s housing boom , The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

A visit to Nobu in Malibu, writes Tejal Rao, The Times’s California restaurant critic, “should seem predictable and dated and maybe even mildly embarrassing, like coming across an old photo of yourself in a dress over bedazzled jeans. But somehow — and this is a part of Nobu Malibu’s magic — it doesn’t. ”

Real estate: What $730,000 gets you in California.

And finally …

This year, across California, the biggest Pride parades were canceled because of the pandemic. But thousands of L.G.B.T.Q. Californians have still celebrated in ways large and small.

Just this past weekend, hundreds of revelers descended on Dolores Park in San Francisco .

And in Los Angeles, Boyle Heights hosted its inaugural Orgullo Fest, which organizers said they hoped would become a home for the city’s Latinx L.G.B.T.Q. community.

“Bienvenidos a casa,” Luis Octavio, an organizer of the Pride event, told The Los Angeles Times . “You no longer have to leave your community to celebrate yourself.”

California Today goes live at 6:30 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: [email protected] . Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for California Today here and read every edition online here .

Jill Cowan grew up in Orange County, graduated from U.C. Berkeley and has reported all over the state, including the Bay Area, Bakersfield and Los Angeles — but she always wants to see more. Follow along here or on Twitter .

Jill Cowan is the Californ ia Today correspondent, keeping tabs on the most important things happening in her home state every day. More about Jill Cowan

Search form

• About the Council
• Resolution 2231 (2015) on Iran Nuclear Issue
• Specific Restrictions

What is the travel ban restriction?

Paragraph 6 (e) of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) requires all States to take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of the individuals currently maintained on the 2231 List . This provision shall not oblige a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.

There are exemptions to the travel ban provided for by resolution 2231 (2015) .

How long will the travel ban restriction apply?

This restriction shall apply until the date five years after the JCPOA Adoption Day (18 October 2015), or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

• UN Social Media

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

What a TikTok ban in the US could mean for you

The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban. Here’s what to know.

FILE - A TikTok content creator, sits outside the U.S. Capitol, April 23, 2024, in Washington. TikTok is gearing up for a legal fight against a U.S. law that would force the social media platform to break ties with its China-based parent company or face a ban. A battle in the courts will almost certainly be backed by Chinese authorities as the bitter U.S.-China rivalry threatens the future of a wildly popular way for young Americans to connect online. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, file)

• Copy Link copied

A TikTok content creator, speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, in Washington, as Senators prepare to consider legislation that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Jennifer Gay, a TikTok content creator, sits outside the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday, April 23, 2024, in Washington as Senators prepare to consider legislation that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

FILE - The TikTok Inc. building is seen in Culver City, Calif., March 17, 2023. The House has passed legislation Saturday, April 20, 2024, to ban TikTok in the U.S. if its China-based owner doesn’t sell its stake, sending it to the Senate as part of a larger package of bills that would send aid to Ukraine and Israel. House Republicans’ decision to add the TikTok bill to the foreign aid package fast-tracked the legislation after it had stalled in the Senate. The aid bill is a priority for President Joe Biden that has broad congressional support. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

No, TikTok will not suddenly disappear from your phone. Nor will you go to jail if you continue using it after it is banned.

After years of attempts to ban the Chinese-owned app , including by former President Donald Trump , a measure to outlaw the popular video-sharing app has won congressional approval and is on its way to President Biden for his signature. The measure gives Beijing-based parent company ByteDance nine months to sell the company, with a possible additional three months if a sale is in progress. If it doesn’t, TikTok will be banned.

So what does this mean for you, a TikTok user, or perhaps the parent of a TikTok user? Here are some key questions and answers.

WHEN DOES THE BAN GO INTO EFFECT?

The original proposal gave ByteDance just six months to divest from its U.S. subsidiary, negotiations lengthened it to nine. Then, if the sale is already in progress, the company will get another three months to complete it.

So it would be at least a year before a ban goes into effect — but with likely court challenges, this could stretch even longer, perhaps years. TikTok has seen some success with court challenges in the past, but it has never sought to prevent federal legislation from going into effect.

WHAT IF I ALREADY DOWNLOADED IT?

TikTok, which is used by more than 170 million Americans, most likely won’t disappear from your phone even if an eventual ban does take effect. But it would disappear from Apple and Google’s app stores, which means users won’t be able to download it. This would also mean that TikTok wouldn’t be able to send updates, security patches and bug fixes, and over time the app would likely become unusable — not to mention a security risk.

BUT SURELY THERE ARE WORKAROUNDS?

Teenagers are known for circumventing parental controls and bans when it comes to social media, so dodging the U.S. government’s ban is certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. For instance, users could try to mask their location using a VPN, or virtual private network, use alternative app stores or even install a foreign SIM card into their phone.

But some tech savvy is required, and it’s not clear what will and won’t work. More likely, users will migrate to another platform — such as Instagram, which has a TikTok-like feature called Reels , or YouTube, which has incorporated vertical short videos in its feed to try to compete with TikTok. Often, such videos are taken directly from TikTok itself. And popular creators are likely to be found on other platforms as well, so you’ll probably be able to see the same stuff.

“The TikTok bill relies heavily on the control that Apple and Google maintain over their smartphone platforms because the bill’s primary mechanism is to direct Apple and Google to stop allowing the TikTok app on their respective app stores,” said Dean Ball, a research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Such a mechanism might be much less effective in the world envisioned by many advocates of antitrust and aggressive regulation against the large tech firms.”

SHOULD I BE WORRIED ABOUT USING TIKTOK?

Lawmakers from both parties — as well as law enforcement and intelligence officials — have long expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over data on the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. The worry stems from a set of Chinese national security laws that compel organizations to assist with intelligence gathering - which ByteDance would likely be subject to – and other far-reaching ways the country’s authoritarian government exercises control.

Data privacy experts say, though, that the Chinese government could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that sell or rent personal information.

Lawmakers and some administration officials have also expressed concerns that China could - potentially – direct or influence ByteDance to suppress or boost TikTok content that are favorable to its interests. TikTok, for its part, has denied assertions that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government. The company has also said it has never shared U.S. user data with Chinese authorities and won’t do so if it’s asked.