Questions are mounting around the reported inability of High Court Judge Gino Persaud to travel to Jamaica after airline officials reportedly told him that his United States visa was “under review”—a development that has attracted heightened attention given the judge’s recent rulings involving the Mohamed family.
The story was first broken by journalist Travis Chase, who reported that Justice Persaud was unable to board his scheduled flight on Saturday after being informed at check-in that he could not proceed with the intended itinerary.
Persaud was among Guyanese judges and magistrates expected to travel to Kingston, Jamaica, for the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) Annual Conference, scheduled for September 20–24. The itinerary reportedly required transit through Miami, making a valid U.S. visa or applicable transit authorisation necessary.
The conference brings together judicial officers from across the Commonwealth and is focused on issues including judicial independence, accountability and the rule of law.
At this stage, however, the circumstances surrounding the reported visa review remain unclear. There has been no publicly confirmed explanation from U.S. authorities establishing why Persaud’s visa was reportedly placed under review, when the process began or whether it involves an administrative, immigration or security matter.
Judge with anti-corruption background
Persaud’s professional history makes the development particularly noteworthy.
Before his elevation to the High Court in 2017, Persaud served as President of the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc. (TIGI), Guyana’s local anti-corruption organisation associated with Transparency International. He was elected TIGI president in 2012, succeeding attorney Nadia Sagar.
He also previously served as a prosecuting attorney with the Guyana Revenue Authority, giving him professional experience on both sides of the country’s legal and accountability landscape.
That background now sits alongside a series of recent judicial decisions involving the Mohamed family and the GRA.
Mohamed ruling adds another layer
In November 2025, Justice Persaud ruled in favour of Azruddin Mohamed in a judicial review challenge against the GRA, finding that the Authority had no power to impose post-clearance assessments totalling approximately G$421 million on a Lamborghini and two other vehicles. The ruling also restrained the GRA from enforcing the assessments.
The GRA subsequently indicated that it would appeal the decision.
The case generated additional controversy after the GRA sought to place Mohamed’s U.S. extradition request before the court, arguing that the request was relevant to the substantive proceedings. Persaud rejected that position, finding the extradition request irrelevant to the judicial review question before him.
Persaud has since presided over further litigation involving members of the Mohamed family. In July 2026, he ruled against the GRA in separate cases involving luxury vehicles belonging to Hana and Bibi Mohamed, quashing tax assessments totalling almost G$800 million and restraining enforcement action. The GRA has appealed those decisions.
The timing of the reported U.S. visa review is therefore likely to generate public questions.
But there is currently no established evidence connecting the reported visa issue to Persaud’s rulings involving Mohamed, the GRA, or the ongoing extradition proceedings. Any suggestion that one caused or influenced the other would, at this stage, be speculation.
That distinction is especially important because the Mohamed matter involves separate legal proceedings in Guyana arising from a U.S. extradition request, while the GRA cases concerned the legality of tax assessments and enforcement actions.
Government response awaited
What remains unanswered is why a sitting Guyanese High Court judge was reportedly prevented from boarding his flight and told that his U.S. visa was “under review.”
Was the review initiated before the planned journey? Was Persaud given any explanation beyond the statement at airline check-in? Were Guyanese authorities or the Judiciary informed? And was the issue related solely to U.S. transit requirements?
Those questions remain unanswered.
Neither the reported visa review nor its circumstances have been independently established beyond the account breaking the story.
The Government of Guyana, the Judiciary and, where appropriate, U.S. authorities are now expected to clarify what occurred and why.
This is a developing story
