The US State Department Increased Number of Countries Whose Citizens May Be Required To Post Bonds ... Again

By C. Matthew Schulz

The U.S. Department of State expanded significantly the visa bond program for B-1/B-2 visitors. 

U.S. consular officers may require certain applicants from designated countries to post a refundable bond of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 as a condition of visa issuance

Effective March 18, 2026, consular officers may require certain applicants from designated countries to post a refundable bond of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 as a condition of visa issuance. The expansion brings the total number of countries subject to the policy to 50, with newly added countries taking effect on April 2, 2026. See Countries Subject to Visa Bond and State Department Announcement.

Major Media Reaction

Major media outlets quickly reported on the development. Reuters and the Associated Press noted that the expansion adds 12 countries and highlighted the relatively high bond amounts, which can reach $15,000 per traveler. Coverage emphasized the policy’s focus on countries with elevated overstay rates and its potential deterrent effect on travel. 

Who Is Impacted and How the Visa Bond Works

The visa bond requirement applies to certain applicants for B-1 (business visitor) and B-2 (tourist) visas who are nationals of designated countries. Importantly, the bond is discretionary. Applicants do not proactively submit it; instead, a consular officer determines whether to impose the requirement during visa adjudication.

If required, the applicant must post the bond—typically using DHS Form I-352—through the U.S. government’s Pay.gov system. Bond amounts range from $5,000 to $15,000.

The bond functions as a compliance guarantee. It is refunded if the traveler complies fully with the terms of admission, including timely departure. The bond is also returned if the visa is unused or if the traveler is denied admission at the port of entry.

The bond may be forfeited if the traveler violates status. This includes overstaying, remaining beyond the authorized period, or potentially seeking to change or adjust status (including applying for asylum after entry). DHS ultimately determines whether a breach has occurred.

Travelers subject to the program must also comply with strict logistical conditions. They must enter and depart through commercial air ports of entry and cannot use land borders, sea ports, or private/charter flights.

Countries Affected

The expanded list now includes 50 countries across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Newly added countries effective April 2, 2026 include Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Grenada, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, and Tunisia.

The full list reflects a mix of countries identified by the U.S. government as having higher visa overstay rates or other compliance concerns.

Why the Expansion

The State Department’s stated objective is to reduce visa overstays and test whether financial incentives can improve compliance. The legal authority derives from INA § 221(g)(3), which permits consular officers to require a maintenance-of-status and departure bond.

The government points to overstay data showing that hundreds of thousands of nonimmigrant visitors fail to depart on time each year. Early internal data suggests that travelers who posted bonds have a very high compliance rate—reportedly around 97%.

The program is currently structured as a pilot, first introduced in 2025, with limited visa validity (typically single-entry, three months) and shortened periods of admission (often 30 days).

How this Policy Hurts U.S. Tourism, Hospitality, and Travel

The economic implications are nuanced but directionally negative.

For B-2 travelers, the bond requirement introduces a substantial upfront financial burden. Even though refundable, a $5,000–$15,000 cash outlay is prohibitive for many individuals and families. This is likely to deter discretionary travel, including tourism and family visits.

From a macroeconomic perspective, the total number of affected travelers may remain relatively small. However, even marginal reductions in inbound travel can have measurable effects. International visitors are a major source of U.S. export revenue through spending on hotels, restaurants, transportation, and retail.

The policy therefore risks dampening demand in sectors already sensitive to global competition, particularly as other countries actively streamline visa access to attract visitors.

How this Policy Hurts U.S. Businesses and Foreign Trade 

The impact on B-1 business travel may be more consequential than it initially appears.

B-1 visas facilitate a wide range of commercial activity, including attending meetings, negotiating contracts, consulting with partners, and participating in conferences and trade events. These short-term visits are often time-sensitive and critical to maintaining cross-border business relationships.

Requiring a bond of up to $15,000 introduces several practical barriers:

First, it increases the cost of doing business. While large corporations may absorb or reimburse the bond, small and mid-sized enterprises—and individual entrepreneurs—may not be able to do so. This creates asymmetry in who can engage with the U.S. market.

Second, it introduces friction and uncertainty into business travel planning. Because the bond is discretionary and determined at the visa interview, companies cannot reliably predict costs or outcomes in advance.

Third, it may discourage foreign partners from traveling to the United States altogether. Instead, meetings, negotiations, and deal-making may shift to third countries with fewer entry barriers.

Over time, this dynamic can weaken the United States’ position as a global hub for business engagement. Reduced in-person interaction can slow deal flow, limit investment opportunities, and diminish participation in U.S.-hosted trade shows and industry events.

In short, while the policy targets immigration compliance, it may inadvertently constrain legitimate commercial activity and foreign trade.

How this Policy Hurts U.S. Families 

Beyond economics, the policy has clear human consequences.

B-2 visas are commonly used for visiting family members, including for important life events such as weddings, funerals, and caregiving. For many families, especially in lower-income countries, the bond requirement will be financially out of reach.

Even when affordable, the requirement adds stress and complexity. Families must weigh the risk of tying up significant funds against the need for travel.

The result is likely fewer visits, longer separations, and reduced person-to-person connections between the United States and affected countries.

Scope of the Problem: Visa Overstays

The policy responds to a compliance issue. DHS data indicates that there were approximately 482,954 suspected in-country overstays at the end of FY 2024 - a big number, but a mere 1.04% of expected departures.

B-1/B-2 visitors constitute a meaningful portion of that population, and overstay rates vary significantly by country.

There is limited public information on how many overstays originate specifically from the countries now subject to visa bonds, how long overstays persist, and what measurable fiscal costs they impose on the United States.

Without a clear cost baseline, it is difficult to assess whether the financial burden imposed by the bond program is proportionate to the problem it seeks to address.

Bottom Line

The expansion of the visa bond program marks a notable shift in U.S. nonimmigrant visa policy. It reflects a growing emphasis on enforcement and compliance, using financial incentives to influence behavior.

At the same time, the policy introduces meaningful tradeoffs. It raises barriers to tourism, complicates family reunification, and may hinder business travel and foreign commercial engagement with the United States.

Whether the program ultimately succeeds will depend on two factors: whether it measurably reduces overstays at scale, and whether those gains outweigh the economic and relational costs imposed on lawful travelers and U.S. stakeholders.

For American businesses, families, and practitioners, this is a development worth monitoring closely as the program continues to expand.