By Our Reporter
The deportation of South Korean origin US citizen Peter Kwang Seong Kim has raised a question that Nepal has avoided for too long: how closely should the state monitor foreign nationals who use missionary work, business visas, marriage or NGOs to establish long term links in the country?
The question is not about religion. Nepal is a constitutional democracy where people have the right to practise their faith. Nor should every foreign missionary, aid worker or religious organisation be treated as a security threat. The real concern is whether foreign nationals are using legitimate channels to pursue activities that breach immigration rules, manipulate local communities or serve undisclosed interests.
Kim’s case deserves scrutiny precisely because investigators say they found more than ordinary religious activity. According to the National Investigation Department, he entered Nepal in 2013, later established a language institute in Charikot and became involved in Christian missionary activities in Dolakha, Sindhuli and Kavre. Investigators reportedly found emails and reports sent to an overseas organisation describing Nepal’s religious environment, possible areas for missionary expansion and potential investment locations.
Authorities also alleged that Kim used a business visa while conducting missionary activities and later obtained a marriage visa. His wife has challenged his deportation in the Supreme Court, and the court has asked authorities to explain the basis for the decision. That judicial scrutiny is important. National security cannot rest on suspicion alone.
But the case raises legitimate questions about the ability of Nepal’s immigration system to understand what foreign nationals actually do after entering the country.
A visa is permission to enter for a stated purpose. It should not become a blank cheque to shift between tourism, business, religious activity and marriage whenever convenient. If someone enters as a tourist, establishes a business, conducts missionary work and later uses marriage to secure long-term residence, authorities should have systems capable of identifying those changes.
Immigration, the National Investigation Department, police, local administrations, tax authorities and regulators often operate with separate information. A foreign national may therefore move through different legal categories without the state building a complete picture of his or her activities.
Marriage can create another vulnerability. Investigators have raised questions over the case of Swedish citizen Elin Bit Brogstrom, who obtained naturalised Nepali citizenship after marrying a Nepali citizen and later divorced him. Authorities alleged that the marriage may have been arranged for financial or immigration purposes. They also investigated her subsequent relationship with another Swedish citizen and raised questions about passport use and repeated travel. If those allegations are proved, the issue is not nationality or marriage. It is the possible exploitation of Nepal’s citizenship and immigration system.
The case involving American citizen Amand Maida Summers raises a different concern. After living in Nepal for years and obtaining a marriage visa, she was reportedly associated with an NGO and allegedly provided shelter to a Pakistani national whose tourist visa had expired. Authorities eventually deported both. Again, these cases should not be turned into evidence against all foreigners or civil society organisations. But they do show why the government needs a functioning risk assessment system.
Nepal deported 523 foreign nationals in 2025. Of them, 459 had overstayed their visas, while 64 were removed over suspicious activities or concerns linked to missionary work and national security. The number itself does not prove a nationwide security threat, but it does show that immigration violations and suspicious activities are not isolated incidents.
The government should now move beyond case by case reactions. First, immigration authorities need a proper risk based monitoring system. Repeated entries, frequent visa changes, unexplained sources of funding, unusual travel patterns and activities inconsistent with declared visa purposes should trigger review. Second, immigration, intelligence agencies, police and relevant ministries should share information through a secure system. Officials should be able to see whether a person who arrives as a tourist later registers an NGO, opens a company, seeks a business visa, becomes involved in religious activities or applies for residency through marriage.
Third, foreign funded religious organisations, NGOs and INGOs should maintain transparent records of their funding, programmes, beneficiaries and foreign partners. Legitimate organisations should have nothing to fear from reasonable oversight. Fourth, marriage should not become an easy route to circumvent immigration controls or acquire citizenship. Authorities should strengthen verification mechanisms without interfering unnecessarily in genuine marriages. Fifth, the state should distinguish clearly between lawful religious activity and covert or unlawful activity. Missionary work itself should not be treated as a crime. What deserves scrutiny is deception, coercion, illegal funding, visa violations, exploitation of vulnerable communities or activities connected to undisclosed foreign interests.
Nepal’s cultural and religious diversity is part of its social stability. Any foreign activity that deliberately exploits religious, ethnic or social divisions deserves serious attention. But careless rhetoric can itself create tension. The government must avoid turning national security into a pretext for targeting particular religions or nationalities.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in Kim’s case is therefore useful. It reminds the state that security decisions must be supported by evidence and law.
Nepal should neither open its doors without checks nor close itself off from legitimate foreign engagement. What it needs is a smarter immigration and intelligence system that knows who is entering, why they are coming, who is funding them and what they are actually doing. National security begins with knowing what is happening inside the country. Nepal cannot afford to remain blind until suspicious activities become a crisis.
Login to add a comment