BritTim

My recollection is that only one can, though the regulations do not make this clear. If you have two children, each parent can use a different child for the process. It is fairly unusual for two foreign parents (neither working) and their child to decide on a long stay in Thailand. I would not be surprised if the way this is handled is inconsistent.

If you have all the right documents, yes.

As a fellow Brit, I can confirm that the typical cultured Englishman will act in a dignified manner, even in trying circumstances. But there is another tribe within the British Isles, typified by lager louts, whose behaviour cannot generally be accurately described as "polite".

Certainly, there was a reason. It does not follow that the reason was anything that the OP did wrong. On occasion, human beings (and that definitely includes Thai officials) can make decisions that defy normal explanation.

Their website does not suggest that their services include passport renewals. Which countries' passports are they empowered to issue?

One huge question that I have is: will the ability to upgrade from a five-year to a 20-year membership just by paying the difference in the membership price be retained? That is one of the biggest bargains currently on offer, and I think it may disappear.

I have not held a Non O-A visa myself, so I may be misunderstanding the requirement, but I think you are partly correct (in that a problem exists) but not accurate on details. There is no special immigration system that holds a record of all the insurance policies. The problem, as I understand it, is that if a policy does not specifically state that it provides coverage for you when inside Thailand that satisfies the requirements for health insurance for a Non O-A visa, then you must get a letter from the insurance company that guarantees this. As a practical matter, your home country insurance company will not provide such a letter. If you purchased a policy there, and the company has a Thailand branch, the management in Thailand will refuse to provide a letter that confirms what they know to be true (your home policy provides the necessary coverage). They insist that you buy a useless policy from them in addition to your existing policy from the same company. It should be noted that those applying for an LTR-WP (Long Term Resident Wealthy Pensioner) visa have sometimes been able to convince the BOI (that handles their application) that their policy qualifies (without a letter) even when Thai immigration has refused to accept the policy.

@paulikens Is it just possible that the original immigration official missed that you had a tourist visa, and believed you were seeking a visa exemption? That would make the original denial correct, and a desire to quietly bury it (with no passport stamp, no charge for the detention room and, hopefully, no record of the denied entry in immigration's system) logical.

They can agree to that, but they will probably refuse your request.

The only problem is that your extension will not be for a full year. Your extension will expire at the same time as your passport. You will need to apply for your following extension earlier.

All airlines have the ability to issue or modify reservations airside. Generally, they have transfer desks that can arrange it. If not, there are airline representatives that can be contacted. You will note that the OP received a boarding card for his flight back to Penang, which he also paid for. That is not only possible from the detention room, but anywhere airside.

Good advice. Further, many photo shops want to "beautify" the photos by removing imperfections. This is an absolute no-no in passport photos these days.

If you really want to make a trip back to England to apply for the Non O visa, there is nothing to stop you. It would be easier to do it at Immigration in Thailand, or at a consulate in a nearby country.

If you are going to make a trip during the "under consideration" period, whether domestically or internationally) it is important to ensure Immigration is aware of your plans. An international trip, especially, is better avoided if possible. It is allowed, and can be done.

Interesting. That suggests that they really might be trying to hide the whole incident. It is normal for the stay in the detention room to be billed. It is aggravating that there is no easy way to check what has been entered in immigration's system.

I think, even easier if you are going to leave Thailand and return anyway, is usually to spend a night in Savannakhet and get the Non O visa while there. This eliminates the more complex Non O visa application using form TM87 (especially since rogue immigration offices might make the Non O application impossible or painful).

Obviously, your post makes sense. There can still sometimes be good reason to use the Non O visas instead. According to my reading of Reason 2.18 for extension of stay, your child must be under 20 years old and (important) reside in the same household. That restriction does not apply when applying for a Non O visa in Savannakhet.

If you do not budge, they will eventually have to take you without advance payment. However, if you have the ability to pay, they will usually find a way to force you. Often, the officials at your arrival airport (Penang in this case) would side with the airline, and threaten to lock you up until you pay. As an aside, you can sometimes use this payment issue to your advantage. If you wanted to go somewhere other than Penang, the airline is allowed to take you there, but must agree. You can tell them that you will willingly go to, say, Vientiane, paying without protest, but refuse to pay to be taken somewhere you do not wish to go. If the airline flies to your chosen destination, the airline representative will usually agree to this.

I think it will. I guess there is an extremely small chance that they decided later that your denied entry was an error, and decided to scrub it. As you were willing to pay for the return flight to Penang, they could pretend nothing happened, and avoid losing face by telling you. Did they charge you money for your stay in the detention room?

At one time, this was a common practice at some land borders. It saved the officials work, and meant that there was no record of an attempted entry in immigration's system. I have also heard a very rare case of this happening at an airport, but a long time ago. It was a different situation to yours. Someone was told they would be denied entry if they did not depart voluntarily with no blemish on the immigration history. They never went to a detention room. It is very strange. Two possibilities occur to me. First, that the officials screwed up and forgot to stamp your passport. The second is that the official who would have stamped your passport was different from the original official who denied you entry, and disagreed with your denial in the first place. He kindly omitted the passport stamp so it cannot potentially cause problems at embassies and other countries' borders in the future. Unfortunately, I think the denial was still recorded in immigration's system.

You can do it. Should be problem free at the current time.

Just to nit-pick a bit, an METV allows you to stay for about eight months However, you can validly claim that the METV was not originally created with that in mind. The hope was that it would be mainly used by those making multiple discrete trips to Thailand, not by long stay tourists. That aside, the government has, at times, issued visas targeted directly at long stay tourists. For instance, during Covid, they created the special tourist visa to allow you to stay nine months straight in Thailand without leaving. Actually, even the Thailand Elite Easy Access visa is essentially a glorified tourist visa, in theory allowing you to stay up to 20 years.

I believe the Minister can identify individuals or groups to be denied entry. The law states that only the Minister has this power. The Minister cannot transfer his powers to anyone else without cabinet approval together with publishing an order in the Royal Gazette. This amounts to a change in the law.

They never do these days, unless they are pretty sure you do not have it. The last thing they want is for you to show them a lot of cash, and then tell you that you cannot enter sue to lack of money,

What you write is quite true, with a few caveats. Most important, what can be done by fiat by the Minister alone, while quite broad, is still limited by the law. Any order he wishes to make that contradicts current provisions in the law, at a minimum, must be approved by the cabinet and published in the Gazette.