Eva Bhattarai (name changed on request) had hoped to travel to the United States for one simple reason: To attend her daughter’s graduation in 2027. However, a new US State Department rule requiring some B1/B2 visa applicants to deposit a refundable bond of up to $20,000 before traveling has left that wish out of reach.

“No matter how much I want to go, I cannot set aside that much money,” Bhattarai, a resident of Baneshwar, Kathmandu, says.

She is among many Nepalis reassessing their travel plans after the US Department of State announced that its visa bond programme, first introduced as a 12 month pilot in August 2025, would become permanent from Monday.

Under the programme, consular officers may require selected B1/B2 visa applicants from around 50 countries, including Nepal, to deposit US$10,000, US$15,000 or US$20,000 before a visa is issued. Although US$15,000 is expected to be the standard amount, officers can require a lower or higher bond depending on factors such as the applicant's purpose of travel, employment, income, and other circumstances.

The bond is refundable if travellers comply with US immigration rules and leave before their authorised stay expires.

For Bhattarai, the policy has effectively ended her plans to visit her daughter.

“I want to visit my daughter, not settle there,” she says, describing the proposal as unfair. “By the time families prepare according to one set of rules, another policy is already announced.”

The new proposed plan has already begun shaping how some Nepalis think about future travel to the United States. For instance, parents hoping to visit children, repeat visitors and business travellers all say the financial burden could alter their travel plans, even though the money would be refunded upon compliance with visa conditions.

For many citizens of a country with an average annual income of around $1,500, having to provide such a substantial deposit—even a refundable one—creates a major obstacle and makes the possibility of travel far less certain. The minimum deposit amount is several times greater than the country’s annual per capita income.

Koteshwar resident Leela Bhandari, 53, whose son has lived in the US for seven years, said the rule did not affect her recent trip because her visa had already been issued before the programme was announced. Still, she says, she found the idea difficult to accept because applicants could be required to pay a large sum before knowing whether their visa would even be approved.

“It would only make sense if the bond were collected after the visa was confirmed,” she says. “Otherwise, people could be refused at the interview despite paying.”

Bhandari says she would still travel to the US if the money were refunded after her visit. While she believes the measure is intended to discourage overstaying and ensure travellers return home, she says it is unreasonable to require such a large financial commitment before a visa decision has been made.

Fifty-five-year-old Deepak Joshi (name changed on request), who has a son and daughter who have both lived in the US for the past decade, expressed a similar concern, saying the proposal was not a good policy, particularly for people from poorer countries. However, the Bhaktapur resident acknowledged that every nation has the right to set its own immigration policies.

“If the money is refundable, I would still travel,” he says. Joshi said that the measure appeared to be aimed at controlling the number of foreign visitors and managing immigration more strictly. “It is the US government’s policy,” he says. “People who want to visit will have to comply.”

Among repeat visitors, the policy has also raised questions about future travel.

Riti Dawadi (name changed), 26, who works in the IT sector, has travelled to the US three times to visit family and for holidays, says her current visa remains valid until 2028, so the rule will not immediately affect her. But she said it has already made her think differently about future trips.

“Earlier, I could just book a ticket and go," she says. “Now, depositing such a large amount of money will make it much less straightforward.”

Dawadi says the policy seems somewhat unfair, even if she understood that countries have the right to set their own rules. She also worries that travellers could lose the deposit if something unexpected happened and they overstayed unintentionally.

“The measure could also discourage tourism to the US by reducing the number of visitors”, says Dawadi.

Business travellers see a more nuanced picture.

Fifty-two-year-old Raj Pokharel (name changed on request), who heads a Kathmandu based-think tank working on security and governance and expects to travel to the US next year for a business programme, says the requirement would create an additional financial burden but would not necessarily prevent essential travel.

“Even though arranging a large refundable bond would create an added burden, I would still travel to the US if the meetings were important”, says Pokharel. He believes the policy is intended to address visa misuse, including overstaying or changing immigration status after arrival.

“Many genuine travellers do return,” he says, adding that the policy would hurt people who have no intention of overstaying but lack the resources to deposit a large sum.

He says the rule could also reduce the number of Nepalis traveling to the US, especially among families, young people and first time visitors.