A judge of the Islamabad High Court has voluntarily surrendered his US permanent residency after the court introduced new rules requiring judges to seek prior approval from the chief justice before travelling abroad — even during holidays.
According to sources within the court, the judge cancelled his US Green Card and has instead obtained a five-year visa on his official passport. The move comes in response to amendments to the Presidential Order and a General Standing Order regulating foreign travel by judges.
Under the new standard operating procedures, a judge’s entire time — including leave, vacations, and holidays — is deemed to be at the disposal of the state. Chief justices now hold the authority to approve, regulate, or even cancel leave after a judge has departed. Judges are also required to submit their overseas addresses and contact details when on leave.
Foreign Residency Becomes Complicated for Judges
Officials familiar with the matter say the tightened controls have made it increasingly difficult for judges holding foreign permanent residencies to maintain compliance. US immigration laws require green-card holders to demonstrate intent to permanently reside in the United States. Extended or repeated stays abroad — especially beyond six months — can trigger scrutiny and possibly lead to residency loss. Absence beyond one year without a returning-resident visa typically results in cancellation.
Sources said the judge chose to give up his residency to avoid any conflict between US immigration conditions and the newly enforced domestic travel restrictions, and to ensure full alignment with the administrative policy framework.
Internal Debate Over the Policy
The development has also quelled rumours that some judges were planning to resign amid reports of internal disagreements within the high court. Insiders say the decision instead reflects an attempt to maintain transparency and institutional discipline.
Earlier, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan formally objected to the policy in a letter to the IHC Chief Justice, calling the requirement for a no-objection certificate “a blatant impingement on the fundamental right of movement of a judge” and “tantamount to a de facto placement of judges on the Exit Control List”. He warned that such administrative controls weaken judicial independence.
