I have travelled abroad enough times to know the small tension that comes before a Pakistani immigration counter.

Passport ready. Visa ready. Boarding pass in hand.

For most passengers, the officer checks the documents, asks a question or two and stamps the passport. But for thousands of Pakistanis, that counter has become something else. A traveller can hold a valid passport and visa, have a confirmed return ticket, and still discover that the journey ends before the aircraft leaves Pakistan.

That practice is usually called offloading.

Now Pakistan’s courts are asking a question that should have been answered long ago.

What exactly gives an immigration officer the power to stop a citizen from travelling, and what safeguards prevent that power from becoming arbitrary?

The issue returned to the Islamabad High Court this month after a citizen named Rab Nawaz challenged his offloading and placement on a travel restriction list. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas allowed him to travel and ordered the Federal Investigation Agency to explain the legal basis for its actions.

According to The News, the government lawyer told the court that the FIA acted under its own standard operating procedures.

The judge was not satisfied.

He questioned whether an internal SOP could override the law and asked how a passenger carrying a passport, visa and return ticket could be stopped from leaving the country. The case was adjourned until September 24.

For Pakistani travellers, this is bigger than one passenger.

It goes to the heart of a system that is trying to solve a genuine national problem but has given immigration officials enormous discretion at the airport counter.

Pakistan does have a migration problem

It would be easy to write this story as FIA versus innocent passengers.

That would also be unfair.

Pakistan has suffered terribly from human smuggling.

Young Pakistanis have died trying to reach Europe through dangerous irregular routes. Smuggling networks use legitimate visas, transit countries, fraudulent employment arrangements and forged documents to move people toward destinations they may never legally enter.

The FIA therefore has a legitimate job to do.

Its own human-trafficking and migrant-smuggling material lists passenger screening and offloading among the tools used to counter these networks. The agency also uses forgery-detection equipment, intelligence sharing and international liaison arrangements.

The scale of the screening is substantial.

FIA Immigration Additional Director General Nouman Siddiqui said the agency itself offloaded 39,786 passengers in 2025 on immigration or risk grounds. Another 34,688 passengers did not travel for other reasons, including airline disruptions and actions involving agencies such as Customs, the Anti-Narcotics Force or police.

Dawn reported that the FIA uses five risk profiles to identify potentially suspicious travellers. Officials say these profiles consider travel patterns, documentation and destination requirements.

A National Assembly committee had earlier been told that at least 51,000 passengers failed immigration checks during 2025.

These figures require care because different official counts cover different categories and periods. They should not be added together as if they measure the same thing.

Still, they establish one point clearly.

Offloading is not a rare event.

It is now a significant part of Pakistan’s border-control system.

The Lahore High Court has already drawn a line

The most important judicial development did not begin in Islamabad.

It came from Lahore.

In May, the Lahore High Court ruled in the case of Muhammad Abbas, who had been prevented from boarding a Nigeria-bound flight at Sialkot International Airport.

According to Dawn, Abbas had a valid passport, Nigerian visit visa, return ticket and other travel documents. He had already completed immigration formalities when FIA officials stopped him.

The government defended the decision partly on the grounds that he had insufficient funds and had not satisfactorily explained his travel.

Justice Raheel Kamran found the offloading unlawful.

But the judgment contained an important distinction.

The court did not say FIA can never offload a passenger.

It recognised that immigration officers may intervene in appropriate circumstances. What it rejected was the use of vague suspicion without an objective and reviewable basis.

That distinction matters.

The court noted that authorities had not produced a law, notification or disclosed policy establishing a fixed minimum amount of money that a Pakistani travelling to Nigeria had to carry.

If there is no published threshold, saying someone has “insufficient funds” can become dangerously subjective.

One officer may consider $500 adequate.

Another may not.

A passenger cannot comply with a rule he cannot see.

A valid visa is important, but it is not immunity

Pakistani travellers should also understand what these judgments do not mean.

A visa does not create an unconditional right to board an aircraft.

Immigration officers can encounter forged documents. A passenger may provide contradictory information. Someone may be travelling through a route associated with human smuggling. Another person may be subject to a lawful travel restriction.

The legal question is therefore not whether FIA should screen passengers.

It obviously should.

The harder question is what happens when an officer decides that something is wrong.

The Lahore High Court’s approach provides a useful answer.

The officer should identify the discrepancy. Questions asked of the passenger should matter. The passenger’s answers should be considered. The suspicion should rest on objective material.

Most importantly, the reason for preventing travel should be recorded.

In another judgment, the Lahore High Court required immigration authorities to record meaningful reasons when offloading passengers and, where practicable, provide the affected traveller with a copy. Dawn reported that the court treated written reasons as a due-process safeguard rather than an administrative formality.

This sounds bureaucratic.

It is actually fundamental.

A written reason changes the balance of power.

“You cannot travel” is not enough

Imagine standing at an airport counter after paying for an international ticket.

Your hotel may already be booked. Your employer may be expecting you. Your university course could be starting.

Then an officer says you cannot travel.

Why?

Perhaps your funds are insufficient.

How much was required?

Perhaps your travel purpose was not convincing.

Which answer created the problem?

Perhaps your route looked suspicious.

What exactly made it suspicious?

Without recorded reasons, the traveller cannot meaningfully challenge the decision. A lawyer cannot easily test it. A judge cannot determine whether the officer applied a genuine rule or merely exercised personal discretion.

This is why the Lahore High Court’s reasoning matters beyond airports.

Administrative discretion becomes safer when officials know they may have to explain it later.

Islamabad is now asking an even more basic question

The Rab Nawaz case before the Islamabad High Court moves the debate in another direction.

The government lawyer reportedly relied on FIA SOPs to explain the agency’s actions.

Justice Minhas asked what law supported them.

That question should not be misunderstood.

The FIA does have immigration procedures. Its own website publishes an immigration enforcement SOP dating from 2005, alongside other immigration procedures.

The FIA’s 2025 annual report also shows that the agency itself recognised the need for a stronger legal framework.

The report says proposals were advanced for Refusal of Departure from Pakistan rules and Provisional National Identification List rules to provide stronger legal cover for intercepting high-risk passengers.

That is revealing.

If new rules are needed to provide stronger legal cover, then the boundary between operational screening and legally enforceable travel restriction deserves close scrutiny.

The Islamabad High Court is now forcing that scrutiny into the open.

Its next hearing is scheduled for September 24.

Parliament has been asking similar questions

This is not only a judicial debate.

Pakistan’s parliament has also examined the problem.

In December 2025, the National Assembly Standing Committee on Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development heard complaints about rising offloading numbers.

The committee did not demand an end to enforcement.

Instead, it demanded something more practical: deterrence plus remedy.

According to the National Assembly’s official account, the committee wanted clear SOPs, an accessible complaints mechanism and visible information at airports explaining how wrongly offloaded passengers could challenge decisions.

That is exactly the missing piece.

Pakistan has built a system for stopping people.

It has been slower to build an equally visible system for correcting mistakes.

FIA is already experimenting with a better approach

There is another development that deserves much more attention.

In January, FIA established Pre-Departure Facilitation Desks across its zones.

According to the Associated Press of Pakistan, travellers can approach these desks before going to the airport for guidance about immigration procedures, documentation and clearance questions.

The idea is simple.

Do not wait until a passenger has checked in, surrendered baggage and reached immigration before discovering that something is wrong.

Check problems earlier.

Pakistan already applies a version of this principle to many overseas workers through Protector registration.

Why not develop it further for high-risk travel categories?

If someone travelling on a visit visa is uncertain about sponsorship documents, finances or accommodation evidence, the person could seek verification several days before departure.

If FIA sees a serious discrepancy, the traveller can address it before buying a non-refundable ticket.

If everything checks out, a digital pre-clearance record could help the airport officer.

That would not eliminate screening.

It would make screening more intelligent.

Karachi shows why the balance matters

This debate feels particularly relevant to me because I travel through Karachi.

Only days ago, FIA Karachi Zone Director Muntazir Mehdi inspected immigration operations at Jinnah International Airport.

According to The News, he ordered officers to maintain effective scrutiny against suspicious documents, illegal migration and human trafficking.

But he gave another instruction too.

Genuine passengers should not face unnecessary difficulties.

That sentence captures the entire problem.

Pakistan does not have to choose between border security and passenger rights.

It needs both.

What should a genuine traveller do now?

The court cases do not mean that a passport, visa and return ticket guarantee departure.

Travellers should still carry evidence appropriate to the purpose of the journey.

A visitor should be able to explain where he is staying and why he is travelling. Someone going abroad for employment should have the proper work documents and Protector requirements where applicable. Students should carry admission and supporting documentation.

More importantly, answers at immigration should be simple and truthful.

Trying to memorise a complicated story can create precisely the inconsistencies that trigger suspicion.

Travellers who are uncertain about their documentation can also use FIA’s pre-departure facilities. The agency says One Window Facilitation Desks operate at Pakistan’s major international airports, including Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore, as well as Quetta and Peshawar.

That is useful.

But it still does not answer the institutional question.

Pakistan needs a rule passengers can actually read

The next stage should not depend entirely on litigation.

Pakistan needs a publicly understandable framework explaining when departure can be refused, what information an immigration officer must record and how a passenger can obtain immediate review.

There will always be cases where intelligence cannot be disclosed fully.

That is normal in border security.

But secrecy about intelligence is different from secrecy about procedure.

A citizen should know the process.

The officer should know the limit of his discretion.

A court should be able to review both.

And if FIA’s existing statutory authority is inadequate for the system Pakistan now needs, parliament should provide a clear legal framework rather than leaving major restrictions on travel dependent upon internal administrative instructions.

That would protect officers too.

The airport counter should not be a courtroom

When I reach immigration at Karachi airport, I do not expect the officer to accept every document without question.

I expect scrutiny.

Pakistan has lost too many people to trafficking networks to pretend the problem does not exist.

But there is a difference between scrutiny and unexplained discretion.

The Lahore High Court has already said that suspicion must have an objective foundation. Islamabad is now asking whether the legal foundation for some FIA restrictions is adequate in the first place.

Those are healthy questions for a state to ask.

The answer should not make it easier for traffickers to move people through Pakistani airports.

It should make it harder for arbitrary decisions to hide behind them.

A genuine traveller should not discover the rules only after reaching the immigration counter.

And an immigration officer should never have to invent them there.