Calls have gone out for Government to relax its three-week maximum stay rule for visitors to the Island after immigration officials blankly refused visa extensions.

Two separate families have complained to The Royal Gazette that their visitors were flatly turned down when they asked for permission to stay longer than the usual three weeks - despite tourism being at an all time low.

And one man, who was visiting Bermuda from Australia to celebrate his resident stepfather's 80th birthday, was advised by immigration officials to leave the Island for just a few hours, by flying to New York, to enable him to return that night on a new three-week stay visa.

It cost the family more than $900 to buy the airline ticket, when they claimed a simple extension would have solved the issue for them.

Senior Geoffrey Bird, of Glebe Hill, Hamilton Parish, said he did not understand what criteria had to be met to have an extension allowed after his step-son was turned down.

He said: "I had an 80th birthday a couple of weeks ago, and my stepson came to celebrate with us from Australia.

"He is between jobs and so wanted to stay on a little longer. He went to Immigration just before his three weeks were up and was told he would have to leave Bermuda the next day. They said there was no exception whatsoever - everyone had to go. They suggested he could go to New York and fly back that night, to start his three weeks again. That is what he had to do. Because we only had two days notice, it cost me $939 for the ticket.

"The whole thing is stark, staring crazy. This is a Ministerial policy - it's never been put through the House of Assembly. I want to know what their reason was for not letting him stay. All he would have been doing is spending money here. Why is it three weeks, why not six or 12 weeks?"

And a Warwick resident, who did not wish to be named, said they had a friend visit, who had been a frequent visitor to the Island in the past.

In a letter to the newspaper, the person said: "This is the first time they have been unable to extend their three-week visa.

"As far as I can determine, this bull-headed policy has not been publicised by the Immigration Department.

"I was unable to determine why the blanket policy was put in place as I was informed that the Minister does not have to give a reason!

"Arrogance at its best and perhaps typical of the lack of communication that we have come to expect! Perhaps this is some joint tourism secret initiative intended to reduce the length of stay in the hope of more frequent visits to offset shorter stays (and hence increased visitor arrivals) will be the outcome."

And the resident said, at the very least, someone at Customs should have informed her friend on arrival, rather than provide the "standard" answer that visa extensions were available through immigration.

They added: "It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that this type of policy will result in more unhappy visitors."

Minister for Labour and Home Affairs Terry Lister said yesterday that the policy was that extensions would not be given, unless good reason could be found to justify it.

But he also said if the visitors were staying in hotel accommodation, their request for an extension may be "looked at more favourably".

And he said the three-week policy had been around for a long time. "Rather than simply writing to the papers, I would ask them to send me a letter and I will take a look at it. I would have to look at the circumstances. But since I have been Minister (since November last year), I have extended people's stay. One was extended for three months. It's a question of looking at the particular circumstances.

"Would I view it more favourably if someone was in a hotel? At this time, with tourism the way it is, I would certainly look at it more favourably than if they were just staying with friends. However, in saying that, sometimes people come and stay with family and they have a very good reason or need to stay longer, and we may extend it for them. This time of year is no different from any other time of year - we have a policy in place for 52 weeks of the year. The policy is 'no' until someone gives us reason to say 'yes'.

"We are not turning down someone, we are applying the policy." Shadow Labour and Home Affairs Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin said she was aware of Mr. Bird's case and could not understand why the family had been turned down.

She said: "I believe that if this is the policy, then it needs to be circulated so people know what they are up against from the beginning. With the dearth of tourist arrivals, you would think there would be a slightly more conciliatory and welcoming approach to people who want to come and spend money on the Island. If he is going to allow one but not another, people could claim bias. People must be told what the basis for the refusal or the acceptance is."

"I see no just logic in asking someone to leave the Island for one day to come back at the end of that day to renew their stay - especially someone with aged parents.

"Everyone who visits us, whether they are staying in a hotel or not, spends money and helps our economy."