BritTim

The F visa is a Non Immigrant visa, and you have all the same possibilities for extensions as anyone else on a Non Immigrant entry (which means, very often, none). If aged over 50, you can possibly apply for a one-year extension based on retirement. If you have a Thai spouse or other close Thai family member, you can get a 60-day extension to visit them. An education extension might be possible, though difficult to arrange at short notice. Depending on nationality and vaccination status, you could consider a "visa run" to a nearby country, returning to Thailand visa exempt. This can be organised quite quickly, the journey (including quarantine) taking about three days of your life. However, the costs in current circumstances are considerable.

To me, the report has the ring of truth. It is consistent with the attitude towards visa exempt entry of Immigration at Thai airports prior to Covid. There are official announcements from several years ago to the effect that using visa exempt entry "to stay longer in Thailand than is consistent with regular tourism" will not be permitted. If you are lucky, you will be able to enter through an airport visa exempt, regardless of your prior immigration history. However, when deciding whether to grant you a visa exempt entry, immigration officials are basically providing the same function as consular officials do when you apply for a visa. They decide whether you are a genuine short term tourist and can deny entry if they decide you are not. I would note that, while airport immigration officials are well within their rights to deny you a visa exempt entry, they ought not to be allowed to deny you an entry when you have an actual visa. In that case, you have already been vetted by the consulate, and Immigration has no business overruling the decision of consular officials, except as laid out in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. However, this has been known to happen at some airports, including both Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang.

One question that may become relevant, and for which I do not know the answer: If your permission to stay expires on the same date as your passport, and you apply for a further extension (which is denied because of the expired passport) can you still get the regular seven days to leave the country, and be considered legal if you leave during that time?

It applies to Covid extensions by inference. What it means is that if you cannot qualify for any type of extension, your request is denied and you are ordered out of the country.

I agree with some of the points you make. However, multiple entry Non O visas (in normal times) provide a useful purpose for some. If you are working offshore with family in Thailand, the logistics of returning to your family when not working become very difficult any other way. In general, timing does not allow applying for a one-year extension, and waiting for the under consideration period before returning to work. The multiple Non O (to visit family) is intended for frequent visits and there will be hardships for some families if it is eliminated, which I concede current trends suggest is a very real possibility. [It is possible that the e-visa system might make use of serial single entry Non O visas a practical possibility, as these do not require contact with a consulate to have the visas inserted in your passport. It will be interesting to see if, long term, there are any restrictions on serial single entry Non O visas, as has been the trend with serial single entry tourist visas.]

No person should be discriminated against without a valid reason. Public health measures can be a valid reason. Before the emergence of Omicron, there was clear evidence that excluding the unvaccinated from settings with high Covid-19 infection risk was appropriate. Certainly, the benefits of such exclusions may now be significantly less. I am willing to trust the relevant experts in deciding on infection control measures.

Indeed, those who have been vaccinated have increased the chance that those who have not can receive hospital treatment when they become seriously ill will Covid. (By the way, the correct spelling is "role", not "roll", when used with the meaning of position or purpose, as in your post. Unimportant, but I though I would mention it. It is a common mistake.)

Well, i have stayed in SEA for years. Not only just in Thailand, many of us go work for a while in neighboring countries etc. Have really nothing in my passport country. And im sure that im not the only one in here with this same problem. There is alot of different people with different backrounds in here. ofc officials wont never understand this or they even need to understand, but for the people in here as a tought khrap Good luck to anyone who has succeeded in staying long term in Thailand using border bounces. They are harming no one, and will not receive any criticism from me. I still do not think Covid extensions were provided as a convenience for those who previously used border bounces in conjunction with visa exempt entry and/or visas that they scrambled to get by shopping around different consulates in the region. As for officials not understanding all the reasons why people want to live in Thailand, or visit very often, that may or may not be true. Where they do understand, they either decide it is something they want to facilitate (by providing suitable visa types) or decide it is something they want to discourage (at which point, people need to scramble to find ways around the restrictions).

Because The easiest approach is to give people what they want. Some officials are more sympathetic to foreigners who want to stay. Officials have the power to grant or deny the extension to tourists. We are not going to agree. You have your perception of the powers granted to officials and I have mine. I am not so conceited as to state that I cannot be wrong. Consider your views as vindicated if you are quite sure I am wrong.

If your point is that corruption can achieve immigration results that would not otherwise be possible, then we are in agreement. That does not mean that immigration officials do not have the official power to deny Covid extensions when they believe the tourist applying is not prevented by Covid from returning to their home country. I am not saying that denying foreigners the ability to stay in Thailand is in Thailand's best interests. I am also not saying that corruption in Immigration is non existent (indeed, it is widespread). I am saying that appealing denial of Covid extensions through official channels would be pointless because it reflects officials using powers they have quite deliberately been granted.

Indeed. Covid extensions are not outright forbidden for those on tourist entries. Where we part company is your belief that Covid extensions are automatic for those on tourist entries, whereas I believe Immigration is being given the power to decide on a case by case basis whether the request for an extension is justified. Rogue officials or senior immigration officials using the discretionary powers they possess? I think we will need to agree to disagree on this point.

In my opinion, Covid extensions were not created as an aid for people who would previously have used border bounces as a way to stay long term in Thailand. There is no consensus among officialdom as to how easy it should be made for long term tourists to remain in Thailand. Some, especially those trying to stimulate the Thai hospitality sector, would like to make it as easy as possible for foreigners to come and to remain. They managed to force through the Special Tourist Visa and to maintain the possibility of Covid extensions for the moment. However, unlike you, I do not think keeping the possibility of Covid extensions for those on tourist entries is an order to immigration offices to provide them under all circumstances. The easiest course for immigration offices is to allow Covid extensions where they are not forbidden to issue them. In immigration offices where the senior official decides that Covid extensions are being applied for improperly, and feels strongly about the matter, I am not surprised that extensions are being refused, and do not think such refusals are being made by "rogue officials". As a practical matter, it would be in Thailand's best interests to keep the current low number of foreigners here in Thailand in most cases. That is true regardless of whether they are on tourist or Non Immigration entries. However, an element of antipathy towards foreigners exists in all countries, Thailand being no exception. It is better to deal with reality rather assume the world works the way you believe it ought to operate.

Considering that an STV is intended for tourists intending to spend 90-270 days in Thailand, requiring an onward ticket out of Thailand is ridiculous, especially in Covid days. Few are going to want to make firm plans for what they will be doing nine months from now, and forcing people to buy throwaway tickets to satisfy the embassy when applying for a visa is nonsensical.

Thai embassy websites regularly contain outdated or downright inaccurate information (though the London embassy's site is often accurate). In this case, the information about the STV on the London Thai Embassy website was accurate for much of last year. However, the special tourist visa scheme was extended for a further year. See https://www.tatnews.org/2021/09/thailand-extends-special-tourist-visa-scheme-for-one-more-year/.

When using a Non Ed visa with an informal school, there is a long standing rule that you can only extend up until the one year anniversary of your arrival in Thailand. Assuming that rule is still in effect, the school cannot provide you with the education course (and associated extensions) unless you leave and re-enter Thailand first.

As @ubonjoe has informed you, you are extending the 90 day permission to stay you received when you entered Thailand, not the Non O visa that you presented to Immigration when entering Thailand. Thus, the extension of stay will run from the admitted until date on the entry stamp, not the valid until date on the visa (which is now used and no longer of any significance except that it determined that you have a Non Immigrant entry).

Short of paying a huge bribe, leaving the country before his immigration record reveals the overstay is necessary and urgent. Unless this is done, blacklisting resulting from the long overstay becomes inevitable. It should then be possible for your prospective employee to arrange to re-enter Thailand as a tourist with no drastic immigration consequences from the overstay. However, the failure to formally cancel his previous work extension is going to complicate the process of applying for a new work permit and visa. Bribes will probably be necessary, but should not be too painful.

Immigration may sometimes hold onto your passport overnight at some offices. "Immigration holding the passport for a long time" means that you are using an agent who is holding the passport, but may have told you it is in the possession of immigration.

In spite of the fact that this convincingly suggests an Thai official communication, everything else points to this being a phishing email.

It is better to avoid agents who hang onto your passport for long periods for just this kind of reason.

What price were you quoted for this "tour"?

The window that confused you is a warning screen, telling you to ignore the message it shows should you ever receive it. Unfortunately, while the warning is in both Thai and English, unless you scroll down and read the entire content of the window, it is rather confusing. The warning (of what is termed a phishing attempt) is potentially useful, but should have been constructed differently. Best, I think would be to wait until you select Thai or English before displaying the warning window in the appropriate language. Using a watermark of "IGNORE THIS" across the phishing message is also fairly easy technically, and would be helpful.

When and if this occurs, the authorities will answer the question. This is not something where knowing the current answer will be helpful. The authorities are liable to change their minds on how they want such cases dealt with based on prevailing conditions at the time.

You know, the funny thing is that physical and psychological differences, present at birth are a real thing. I do not think that, for instance, recognising that intersex, sexual orientation and inherent sexual identity are real is bad in principle. What I question is whether it is necessary to completely change the language because it may not 100% reflect all human variations. To me, it is as logical as claiming that we should no longer use the generic term "fish" on the basis that modern science has shown that those we call "fish" today are genetically so far apart that, in some cases, they share more in common with mammals than some other "fish". Changing the language is generally only necessary when current usage impedes accurate communication. We know what we mean by "he", "she" and "fish", including the fact that "he" or "she" can sometimes be used as a placeholder for someone of any gender (male, female or less common genetic variations).

I do not think there would be any chance of crossing legally at Hat Lek/Koh Kong at the current time.