Which countries use facial recognition for e-passport gates and what are their refusal policies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Automated e‑passport gates using facial recognition are now widespread: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France (PARAFE) and many Schengen points, the United States at many ports of entry, Indonesia and multiple other jurisdictions operate or trial e‑gates that match live facial images to biometric passport/visa photos [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Refusal or non‑participation is generally handled by routing the traveller to a staffed immigration desk or alternate kiosk process, though the precise rules — who must submit biometrics, who may opt out, and whether citizens are exempt — vary by country and program [6] [7] [4].
1. Where the gates are — the fast‑growing club of countries using facial recognition
Major travel hubs and national programs now deploy facial‑recognition e‑gates: the UK runs ePassport gates and has been piloting “passport‑free” contactless gates that match travellers to stored passport or ETA photos [1] [8]; Australia and New Zealand operate SmartGates that use facial biometrics for eligible e‑passport holders and expanded eligibility lists [2] [9]; France’s PARAFE gates and multiple Schengen automated border control systems use facial or fingerprint verification against the biometric chip in passports [3]; the United States’ Customs and Border Protection uses facial comparison at departure gates and inspection booths and has finalized rules expanding biometric entry/exit for most foreign visitors [4]; Indonesia and several other countries have integrated facial cameras into automated border control gates [5] [10]. Industry trackers report that more than 140 countries issue e‑passports and many have adopted or are piloting automated biometric processing as of 2025 [9].
2. Who can use them and how they work in practice
Most systems link the passport’s NFC chip photo or a visa/ETA image to a live face capture: travellers scan their document at a kiosk or e‑gate, a camera takes a live image and algorithms compare it to the stored biometric, and—if matched and no alerts exist—the gate opens [1] [11]. Eligibility is often limited to biometric passport holders and, in some schemes, to specific nationalities or age groups (France’s PARAFE, for example, restricts some functions by age and passport type) [3] [1]. Newer “passport‑free” pilots in the UK match faces to government databases such as ETA or visa registers so the traveller need not present a physical passport in front of an officer [8] [12].
3. Refusal, opt‑out and fallback policies: common patterns and important exceptions
Across jurisdictions the standard operational fallback is manual processing: travellers who decline facial capture, whose biometric match fails, or who trigger an alert are diverted to a staffed immigration desk or kiosk for document checks, fingerprinting or further interview [6] [7] [1]. In the EU’s recent EES/EES‑adjacent flows, registration kiosks will capture fingerprints for many non‑EU arrivals and subsequent exits may use facial recognition — refusal at registration generally means using the staffed process and potentially longer waits [7]. In the US, DHS’s final rule expands facial collection for virtually all non‑U.S. visitors while stressing that US citizens are not subject to mandatory facial recognition under that rule; operationally many airports still use alternative staffed booths if automated matching fails or is declined [4]. Some programs explicitly allow voluntary opt‑in features (airline face‑boarding trials), and some airports advertise that travellers may continue to use conventional ID checks rather than biometric lanes [6].
4. Legal, privacy and operational caveats that shape “refusal” in reality
Legal protections and explicit opt‑outs differ: data protection regimes (GDPR, state biometric laws) and agency rules constrain storage, reuse and access to biometric images, but operational pressure — faster lanes and automated pre‑clearance — can effectively create soft coercion where refusing biometrics means slower processing or secondary inspection [10] [13]. Trials such as the UK’s passport‑free pilots publish performance goals and preserve officer oversight, but critics warn that policy harmonization, mandatory ETAs and encoded biometric standards are pushing many travellers into biometric flows by default [8] [13].
5. Bottom line
Facial‑recognition e‑gates are now mainstream across the Anglophone hubs, many EU entry points, and growing in Asia and the US; refusal rarely produces criminal penalty but typically routes a passenger into slower, manual processing, and the exact rights to refuse or have data deleted depend on local rules and the program [1] [4] [7]. Reporting and official guidance should be consulted for each airport or country because operational eligibility, legal safeguards and whether citizens are exempt vary materially between programs [3] [10].