French Court Rejects Moroccan Woman’s Urgent Visa Appeal to Accompany 82-Year-Old Husband to Hospital
The appointment was scheduled for October 29 at Bicêtre Hospital. In her urgent appeal, the wife sought to have the visa issued within eight days, with a penalty of 150 euros for each day of delay.
On May 8, 2026, French consular authorities in Agadir refused this Moroccan woman a short-stay visa. She challenged the decision, but the deputy director of visas rejected her appeal on July 29.
On September 10, her lawyer, Me Saïdi, filed an urgent application with the Nantes Administrative Court. The applicant sought to have the visa refusal suspended and asked that the administration issue the document or review her file. She also claimed 2,000 euros in legal costs.
On Bladi.net : Having come to France to help her seriously ill husband, a Moroccan woman gets her OQTF annulled
Her application was based on her husband’s medical condition. She said he was due to undergo surgery in France in the second half of 2026 and that he needed her by his side. She also argued that the refusal infringed on their private and family life. To establish urgency, she submitted a summons from Bicêtre Hospital for October 29.
The hospital had scheduled tests, not surgery
On reviewing the letter, the judge noted a key point: the appointment was for a series of medical tests and a day-hospital consultation, not surgery.
The judge also observed that the wife had not established that her husband would need her assistance during the tests, for which hospital staff were responsible for his care. Nor did she provide evidence that no one else could accompany him to France.
On Bladi.net : France Suspends Visa Cancellation for Moroccan Woman After Husband Reconciles With Her
In its order of September 23, 2026, the court therefore found that the circumstances did not justify suspending the visa refusal on an urgent basis. The judge rejected the application without examining the arguments challenging the legality of the administrative decision.
An appeal seeking to overturn the decision had also been filed on September 10. This separate proceeding, distinct from the rejected urgent application, was not decided by the September 23 order.
