Consideration For The Member Of Family Of The Foreigner Who Stays Temporarily In Case Of Retirement

[Sunbelt Asia]

Rules in the consideration in case of being the member of family of the foreigner

Who is permitted to stay temporarily in case of retirement

Here is the contradiction with the National Police Order 606/2006 and the Ministerial Regulations B.E.2545 which has created a conflict.

The Royal Thai Police Headquarters issued the Order No.606/2006 in Oct 2006,

Rules and Conditions in the consideration of Alien applications for temporary stay in the

Kingdom of Thailand.

Clause 7.19 In case of a member of a family member of an alien who has been

permitted temporary stay under clause 7.21of this Order (applicable only to parents,

spouse, child, adopted child, or child of his/her spouse) : Permission will be granted for a

period of not more than 1 year at a time.

Clause 7.21 is in regards to retirement

See

National Police Order No. 606/ 2006

However…

This conflicts with to the Ministerial Regulation of 2002 in the subject of Criteria, Procedures and Conditions in Verification, Exemption and Change of Visa B.E.2545, item 5 and 14, which is the law in the superior level.

As the Ministerial Regulation is superior to the National Police Order, the Bangkok Immigration is no longer issuing extension of stay based as a dependent if the foreigner has a retirement permit.

Here is the excerpt from the Ministerial Regulation. Not to be confused with the National Police Order. Please note Section 34 of the Ministrerial Regulations and that retirement is not on this list from (1) to (14) .

The regulation issued by using the authority in accordance of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 which permit the alien to stay temporary in section 34 as follow,

Section 34 Aliens entering into the kingdom for a temporary stay may enter for the below listed activities;

(1) Diplomatic or consular missions

(2) Performance of official duties

(3) Touring

(4) Sporting

(5) Business

(6) Investing under the concurrence of the Ministries and Departments concerned

(7) Investing or other activities relating to investing subject to the provisions of the law on investment promotion

(8) Transit journey

(9) Being the person in charge of the crew of a conveyance coming to port, station, or area in the Kingdom

(10) Study or observation

(11) Mass media

(12) Missionary work under the concurrence of the Ministries and departments

concerned

(13) Scientific research or training or teach in a Research Institute in the Kingdom

(14) The practice of skilled handicraft or as a specialist

(15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

The other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation as the above section 34(15) of the Immigration Act B.E.2522 have been described in Item 15 of the Ministerial Regulation in the subject of Criteria, Procedures and Conditions in Verification, Exemption and Change of Visa as follow,

Here is subsection 34 ( 15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

Please note that retirement is present on this list but pay special attention to subsection (1) which is the order pertaining to dependent extension of stay permits.

Retirement is not listed( subsection 34 (1-14) in subsection (1) below which technically disqualifies National Police Order 606/2006 Clause 7.19

Aliens entering into the Kingdom for a temporary stay according to Section 34 (15) shall be limited to the below listed activities;

(1) Performing duty or mission in a family of the foreigner entering into the Kingdom for the activities listed in Section 34 (1) (2) (5) (6) (7) (10) (11) (12) (13) and (14), who is the father, mother, or children under patronage or being a part of the household of such foreigner’s family or be private servant according to Section 15 (7).

(2) Providing patronage to any Thai Citizen or to receive the patronage from any Thai Citizen or person who has the residence in the Kingdom by being the father, mother, spouse or children under patronage or being a part of the household of such person.

(3) A person performing duties or missions for any state enterprises or any charity and public interest organizations.

(4) Elderly person entering to use retirement life.

(5) Person who previously held Thai Nationality enters to visit its relatives or request to relocate to live in the Kingdom.

(6) Person who enters into the Kingdom to receive the medical treatments.

(7) Person who enters to perform sport coaching or training according to the requirement of any Government sectors.

(8) Person who enters into the Kingdom as the parties in a lawsuit or to act as a witness in the court.

For the above reason and the jurisprudence which does not permit the family member of a

Foreigner who is permitted to stay temporarily on the basis of retirement, Immigration in Bangkok has suspended the National Police Order 606/2549 clause 7.19 in favour of the superior law because it’s contrary to the Ministerial Regulation. This is why no grandfathering is being allowed as no one, in their opinion, should have been granted a extension of stay in the first place based on being a dependent of a family member who was granted a retirement extension.

The Police Commander has been notified of the conflict. Immigration in Bangkok states that they do not need a new written Police Order as it has already been stated in the Ministerial regulations. However they are expecting a new Police order to be written and published in the Royal Gazette.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[retiredusn]

Ok in plain english what does this mean????????????????Thank You

[Lite Beer]

I think it means that your wife is not welcome here.

Sorry

[Sunbelt Asia]

Ok in plain english what does this mean????????????????Thank You

Means if you are married to someone who has a retirement permit or have a father or mother that does. You can't stay in Thailand because of that fact even though a National Police Order says you can.

This is the case at least in Bangkok.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[CRUNCHER]

OK. So now we know the reason for the change – the Police Order is ultra vires. Dependant visas are not available for retirees’ families. This is not the racist change that many claimed (perhaps age discrimination). A simple (albeit serious to those affected) SNAFU that has been corrected.

How it has been handled is another issue. Some form of public statement from Immigration would have been nice. Some grace period perhaps, especially for those who will not have necessary funds in the bank for 3 months to obtain an additional visa.

I am not sure why the grandfathering cannot be allowed. In many countries the rules of natural justice would have allowed this. On the current Immigration logic all those who now have dependant visas based on retirement do not have a legal visa and should have their position regularized at once.

Does anyone have any idea how many people actually have a dependant visa based on retirement? I suspect that, in the overall scheme of things, it is not many. I would have thought that an amendment to the Ministerial Order would have been the most equitable way forward.

[cclub75]

Wait a minute....

First it was supposed to be a new regulation.

But now, you say that actually it's only a conflict between 2 departments or 2 levels (police and ministry).

And that the ministry regulation actually was older, and it's superior to the police order.

"Bangkok has suspended the National Police Order 606/2549 clause 7.19 in favour of the superior law because it’s contrary to the Ministerial Regulation. This is why no grandfathering is being allowed as no one, in their opinion, should have been granted a extension of stay in the first place based on being a dependent of a family member who was granted a retirement extension".

!!!!

It took them 4 years to figure out that there was a little conflict.... ? !

And they want us to believe such a mountain of bullshit ?

It's properly amazing.

And furthermore, what was the situation BEFORE october 2006 ?

Was it possible to get an extension between 2002 and 2006 ?

Edited September 13, 2007 by cclub75

[dutch]

Thanks Sunbelt for the information.

[Sunbelt Asia]

It took them 5 years to figure out that there was a little conflict.... ? !

More like one year as the National Police Order only went in effect in Oct 2006.

The new admendment to the National Police Order will come from the Police Commander as Immigration has pointed that department has written a order which is in conflict to the Ministerial Regulations.

And that the ministry regulation actually was older, and it's superior to the police order.

It is the superior regulation, as its from the Ministry under 5 ( 11) enacted in 2002 and section 34 (15) is the Immigration Act of B.E 2522 in the name of his Majesty the King Bhumbibol Adulyadej enacted on the 24th day of Feb 2522.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[ZZZ]

"be private servant according to Section 15 (7)."

So what is Section 15 (7) ?? Looks like a perfect description for the missus

[ZZZ]

(2) Providing patronage to any Thai Citizen or to receive the patronage from any Thai Citizen or person who has the residence in the Kingdom by being the father, mother, spouse or children under patronage or being a part of the household of such person.

This should cover a spouse. This clause says that a spouse of anyone who has residence (NO mentioning of permanent residence) can stay in Thailand.

[dutch]

Incorrect.

Your quote concerns article 1 till 14 and NOT 15/4 (re:retirement).

at least that is how I read all.

Edited September 13, 2007 by dutch

[lopburi3]

I read it the same - not included are 3/4/8/9 and 15.

[cclub75]

It took them 5 years to figure out that there was a little conflict.... ? !

More like one year as the National Police Order only went in effect in Oct 2006.

The new admendment to the National Police Order will come from the Police Commander as Immigration has pointed that department has written a order which is in conflict to the Ministerial Regulations.

My mistake

However, it's still strange.

What was the situation between 2002 (ministry regulations) and 2006 (police order) ?

I guess it was possible to get an extension.

[ZZZ]

My quote was from Section 34 (15).

That condition (2) has no reference to any other condition, it has nothing to do with the limitations listed in condition (1). Condition (2) clearly states that any one who resides in Thailand can bring in father, mother, spouse or children.

The sticky point may be the definition of "resides" but as far as I know you reside here (temporarily) if you have a retirement visa (or whatever that visa is called).

Edited September 13, 2007 by ZZZ

[dutch]

I really would like this thread to stay dedicated to the original post.

If anybody doesn't understand we can discuss.

We can ask Sunbelt or others for more info but,pleeeeeeeeeeaase stay on topic!!

[Cyberstar]

It appears that visa based on marriage to a Thai is in the same categories as retirement extensions in this context. That would mean that e.g. a foreign child (from a previous marriage) can't piggy back on a marriage extension neither. Right?

[cclub75]

I really would like this thread to stay dedicated to the original post.

If anybody doesn't understand we can discuss.

Yes. And it would be interesting to have the opinion of Sunbelt, rather than them reporting what Immigration is saying (which is already good, don't get me wrong).

I read it again and again, and it really looks like a pathetic "Z-turn-operation-save-face" from the authorities.

And this delay (1 year) is really strange.

I mean, it must be like a novelty : an authority issuing a regulation, and then 1 year after, saying "sorry, we've made a mistake, it's against another regulation enacted... 4 years before".

Even by thai standards, it's amazing.

And I repeat my question : how authorities were dealing with extension before 2006 (date of the police order) ?

Did this police order change something regarding the extension ?

I'm not expert in visa regulation, but the whole story smells bad.

[Maestro]

This should cover a spouse. This clause says that a spouse of anyone who has residence (NO mentioning of permanent residence) can stay in Thailand.

But what we call “Permanent Residence” is meant.

A person with an extension for retirement is not a resident. He has what the application form TM.7 calls an “extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom”

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

It appears that visa based on marriage to a Thai is in the same categories as retirement extensions in this context. That would mean that e.g. a foreign child (from a previous marriage) can't piggy back on a marriage extension neither. Right?

That’s covered by the Ministerial Regulation’s subsection 34(15)(1): “…children under patronage or being a part of the household of such foreigner’s family…” and is reflected by Police Order 606/2549 paragraph 7.19(4)

--

Maestro

[Maestro]

First it was supposed to be a new regulation.

Was it?

...This National Police Order will be dated Sept 1st 2007 and will be published in the Gazette in the next 10 days. However this order is effective immediately...

Sunbelt used the correct term: National Police Order.

--

Maestro

[retiredusn]

Ok, the wife and I have lived in Thailand since 2004 with a "OA" visa issued in the U.S and extension's granted from then until Feb.08 for one year at a time. Your telling me that the laws have not been looked at or discussed since at least 2004? Which if this is the case my wife should never have been issued her "OA" in the first place and the Thai gov has allowed her to be here even though she should have been put in jail or deported long ago? Crazy ...............What are the visa options for my wife and other wifes, kids, mothers ect. NOW without having to leave Thailand, there must be some type of visa being issued............ Thank You

[Maestro]

Reteiredusn, I believe you misunderstand the new situation. Your wife can continue to get her extension for the reason of retirement. It is the wife of a retiree who had a different type of extension, as a dependent of the husband, who now has a problem if she is younger than 50.

--

Maestro

[Naam]

Reteiredusn, I believe you misunderstand the new situation. Your wife can continue to get her extension for the reason of retirement. It is the wife of a retiree who had a different type of extension, as a dependent of the husband, who now has a problem if she is younger than 50.

--

Maestro

pardon me Maestro, but now i am really confused. please clarify whether my wife (today is her birthday, she is 57) can get her extension as before or does she have to acquire her own status of a retiree with her own bank account showing THB 800k? our third extension is due end of january, i.e. if the latter applies she has to open her own account and transfer the dough not later than next month.

thanks in advance.

[retiredusn]

Reteiredusn, I believe you misunderstand the new situation. Your wife can continue to get her extension for the reason of retirement. It is the wife of a retiree who had a different type of extension, as a dependent of the husband, who now has a problem if she is younger than 50.

--

Maestro

pardon me Maestro, but now i am really confused. please clarify whether my wife (today is her birthday, she is 57) can get her extension as before or does she have to acquire her own status of a retiree with her own bank account showing THB 800k? our third extension is due end of january, i.e. if the latter applies she has to open her own account and transfer the dough not later than next month.

thanks in advance.

You and I are in the same boat. I am confused also. Is she legal or not? She is 53 and I am 60. As with yu my extension has to be renewed in Feb/30 days prior would be Jan. does she need the 800K or not.......................

[Naam]

You and I are in the same boat. I am confused also. Is she legal or not? She is 53 and I am 60. As with yu my extension has to be renewed in Feb/30 days prior would be Jan. does she need the 800K or not.......................

well... good to know that i'm not the only one who is confused

[lopburi3]

Both husband and wife will be required to qualify for extension of stay for retirement and present proof of financial means to be provided one year extensions of stay.

For those under age 50 that option will not be open so they will have to qualify by employment/study or revert to non immigrant O visa entry in 90 day blocks.

[tim77]

Will it ever end?

For at least 15 years, foreign citizens came to Thailand and were permitted – by Thai authorities and institutions – to openly use the Company scheme to buy houses and to officially record their ownership interest. Starting about a year ago, Thai authorities started to take the position that such buying and ownership violates the clear words of Thai law.

For over 15 years (probably longer) most foreigners could renew their permission to remain in Thailand, by simply crossing the boarder and renewing their permission. Starting a year ago, such renewing was categorized as “tiptoeing around the law”, and has been restricted.

For years, dependents (wives, children, parents) of retired people were permitted by Thai authorities to stay in Thailand as dependents. Now, a regulation issued some four years ago is being read in a manner so as to prohibit such wives, children and parents from staying in Thailand as dependents.

In each case, a long permitted activity is being found to be contrary to a long existing, but not strictly enforced or not correctly understood Thai law. In many situations, foreign citizens have relied on continuing and consistent application of Thai law as it was presented by Thai authorities. Their reliance may now put many of them in economic peril and genuine human hardship.

Thailand – as a nation State – is entitled to laws of its choosing. Thailand is not permitted to selective enforce or selectively reread its own laws in a manner that violates human decency or that acts as a confiscation of property.

How many more surprise laws are out there?

[Naam]

Both husband and wife will be required to qualify for extension of stay for retirement and present proof of financial means to be provided one year extensions of stay.

thanks Lopburi, that means another 800k but no visa runs for my wife.

[cclub75]

First it was supposed to be a new regulation.

Was it?

...This National Police Order will be dated Sept 1st 2007 and will be published in the Gazette in the next 10 days. However this order is effective immediately...

Sunbelt used the correct term: National Police Order.

--

Maestro

You confusing me.

It's not a new national police order. It's an interpretation between a ministry regulation of 2002 and a police order of 2006.

However, in its first message (end of august) Sunbelt spoke about a new regulation, a new police order that will be published in Gazette (your quotation).

Therefore my observation.

[PeaceBlondie]

I beg to differ, cclub75. The above quote where Sunbelt Asia calls it a police order IS from the first of more than 800 posts in that topic. If you can go through the entire list and find where Sunbelt Asia calls it a regulation, give it a go. Even if you're right and Sunbelt even once called it a regulation, the point is moot. The LAW which apparently supersedes both police orders and regulations, is now being 'interpreted' as if the law was quite clear.

I agree with tim77: how many more surprises are out there in the Siamese woodwork, ready to bite us in the asp?