30.The second principle that emerges from these statutory
provisions is that if the authorities find that there is a foreigner, i.e. a
non-citizen, who is in violation of his visa conditions, he may be
either removed or may be prohibited or prevented from re-entering
the country. We have already noticed that there are multiple
violations by Sadagursky. There are the two overstays that we have
already noticed. There is also the fact that Sadagursky claimed to be
employed in India although his visa restrictions specifically
prohibited this. Sadagursky seems to want to equate ‘business’ with
‘employment’. The difference is self-evident and it seems to us
completely unnecessary to dilate further on this aspect of the
matter. We only notice from the Court papers that on 8th August
2019, Sadagursky placed on record, although without an Affidavit, a
letter from one Archana Rao, the Deputy Director, India of Global
Citizen Year offering Sadagursky a full-time position of Team
Leader. He was to report to and work closely with her. The letter
makes it clear that this is indeed employment. It provides for
compensation at an annual salary mutually agreed (unstated in the
letter), a starting date of 20th March 2019, contribution towards
insurance and medical and dental coverage, a retirement plan with
matching funds of up to 3% of the annual salary, paid holidays,
flexible time off and other benefits and responsibilities in accordance
with the Global Citizen Year’s Employee Handbook. As we have
noticed, Exhibit “E”, the relevant visa in question, clearly prohibits
Sadagursky from taking up employment. What Sadagursky plainly
intended to do, entering India on a business visa, was therefore
