While I can in part understand why bank statements are asked for when making a visa application, the value of them for a multiple-entry visa is somewhat lost on me, because their validity is meaningless after the first visit.

That being the case why bother to offer multiple-entry visas, when the authorities have NO way of knowing whether the visitor can afford future visits? This surely destroys the argument for their inclusion in the first place.

marked as duplicate by Newton, Giorgio, Ankur Banerjee May 29 '18 at 16:49

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Short term (up to 6 months) multiple entry visit visas are the norm but that doesn’t necessarily mean that after completing the visit as stated in the visa application, the holder will be granted re-entry if they return within the visa validity period. – Traveller May 29 '18 at 15:25
  • Closing as a duplicate as this is covered under the "What do my bank statements say about me?" section of the linked duplicate question. While it does make sense that the proof of funds only demonstrates for first visit, the point is it still provides insight for a visa officer into the general financial state of an applicant and ability to support themselves on multiple trips. – Ankur Banerjee May 29 '18 at 16:51

Bank statements aren't just about whether you have enough cash on hand right now to afford the trip.

That is certainly part of it, but the bigger part is to build up a picture of the person's life. Is the cost of the visit proportional to the persons overall wealth/income? Is the persons current life in their home country better than the life of an illegal immigrant in the UK?

Immigration control is fundamentally an imperfect process. There will be legtimatite visitors who get denied and there will be people who get through immigration control and then go on to immigrate illegally, work illegally or just plain find themselves unable to afford to travel home.

Clearly a persons situation may have changed between two trips so that they present a higher risk on the second visit than on previous visits. The question a government needs to ask themselves is whether the risk of that happening is worth the costs of forcing people to get a seperate visa for each trip.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.