FredsterX

Steve187, thanks. I didn't know I could use the tourist visa 3x60+30.

And thank you too, UbonJoe.

For what it's worth, the LA consulate website lists among the "qualifications of an applicant" the following:
"Having the nationality of or the residence in the country where his/ her application is submitted."

What would be the advantage of a single-entry non-O visa from one of the honorary consulates?

Right now Steve's suggestion to get the O plus extensions makes the most sense. I can go to Bangkok.

I'm a citizen of Finland (EU) and the US, 59 years old, male. Until recently I was living in the UK, but I decided I want to split my life between nine months a year in Thailand (Udon Thani) and three summer months in Sweden. I'm now in Sweden, where I've registered as a resident and just bought a place to live in while here. I'm heading to California (SF) for the first two weeks of January and then coming to Thailand. I don't want to change my travel plans.

The consulate in London didn't even accept my application for an O-A retirement visa, saying the money had to be in a UK current account for the specified time, whereas I have almost all of my money in the US. The requirement makes no sense, it was not mentioned on their site, and it was not mentioned when I called and asked what the requirements were. Oh well. Instead, I went ahead and got a triple-entry tourist visa, which I believe can be extended in-country from 60 to 90 days. But I would like to get a retirement visa, or at least an O visa with retirement extensions. I have enough funds for the retirement visa. I do have a girlfriend in Thailand, but I'd like to take it slow and not marry her for at least a year.

From here, I'm not sure which option is best.

(1) I could attempt a visa in LA, but having only two weeks in the US seems to make the outcome a bit uncertain. I'm not sure it's worth the cost of the paperwork and consulate visit (fingerprinting, criminal clearance, bank statements, notarization, doctor visit, travel, car, hotel, visa fee), which according to some posting I read in TV came to $500 for one person. I am on a fairly tight budget.

(2) I could enter on the tourist visa, extend and then go to Laos or Cambodia and get a new tourist visa, which should get me from mid-January to mid-June (right?), when I plan to travel to Sweden for the summer. I could then presumably get the retirement visa in Sweden, being technically a resident here. This would make my life relatively easy in the short run, but I'd have a visa that needed extending every summer, exactly when I plan to be outside LOS. Transferring money as needed is doable.

(3) I could enter on my tourist visa, try to convert to a 90-day O visa and get the retirement extensions forever, or until I get tired of them and upgrade. I believe this might present some problems during my three-month absences, but I'm not sure. If that works, this route should mean a smaller financial investment.

I'd like to hear what people think of these options. Is there something I'm missing? In your experience, which one makes the most sense?