BritTim

I cannot comprehend why anyone would want a single entry tourist visa for a two to four week visit. Both HCMC and Vientiane require applications in person and with an appointment. Tourist visas in HCMC are no longer easy to get.

Generally, Immigration wants to see proof that the 800k baht came from abroad (though most immigration offices will waive that proof if the money has been in the account for a few months). For the first extension, the money must have been in the bank at least two months. Income proof rules for the first extension are supposed to allow only two or three monthly extensions, but many (most?) offices are insisting on income letter from your embassy or money in the bank for a first extension.

To be honest, I think creating a fraudulent certified copy would be way easier than a fraudulent modern biometric passport.

There are no other good options other than the two you mention. I would suggest getting the extension (1,900 baht)

See https://pcscenter.sbpolice.go.th/en

While Immigration at Chiang Mai airport rarely denies visa exemptions, it has been known. If you were going to try to enter at either Bangkok airport, I would not fancy your chances at all. At Chiang Mai, you more likely than not would get away with it, but still a substantial risk.

In that case, it seems that the school has sorted out a suitable arrangement with immigration and the ministry. Your previous immigration history will not be a factor.

Appreciate that schools that offer lessons of some description can still be primarily visa mills that are viewed sceptically by immigration and embassies/consulates.

That is a big red flag. It suggests that the school has a bad reputation, and needs to grease the wheels to get extensions approved. If so, the school might well be on a blacklist Vientiane maintains. Non Ed visas for those schools are denied.

Discuss this directly with Phuket immigration. Maybe the income letter from your embassy might be sufficient but, for the original Non O at immigration, I have my doubts, especially as you cannot show fixed income sources like pensions.

For the guarantor fields just state N/A (not applicable).

The O-A and O-X visas already had an insurance requirement. I think it was difficult to introduce a new visa that excluded it. I think there are many in high places that feel insurance should be a requirement for one-year extensions of a Non O based on retirement, and that might well be enforced at some point in the future. It probably already would have been, but it would have a huge impact on some elderly folks who have long been here, but would find it impossible to comply with an insurance mandate.

There are several options. My suggestion would be the Thai Travel Clinic (a special clinic in Hospital for Tropical Diseases under the administration of Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University). A list of the vaccines they provide, and prices, is available at https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html

I do not expect that it would. Let us know if an application for a Non Ed visa in Vientiane is rejected.

Absolutely, it has never happened (as far as I am aware) that an extension was automatically cancelled when you failed to have the requisite funds in the bank during the duration of your permission to stay from your previous extension. The fact is that Immigration themselves are confused about what the conditions really mean. Apparently, the rules do not determine whether you are in compliance with the rules for your current extension. My argument would be that, when applying for your next extension for money in the bank, you must have satisfied the conditions 1-4; but to qualify based on income, your must have 12 monthly transfers of 65k+. I think it is totally absurd to say you do not need to comply with the rules during the term of your last extension, but cannot use income proof for your next extension unless you have met the optional compliance for money in the bank for your last extension.

Many years ago, there was an agent service that involved them taking your passport to a land crossing (typically with Malaysia) and getting you stamped out and in without you going along. That was often called a "ghost run" because only your invisible self crossed the border and returned.

It is true that the rules can be interpreted that way. However, I do not think that was the intended meaning. Number 4 is really intended as a condition to apply for the next extension. Suppose you leave Thailand 11 months after your last extension, and did not have 800k baht in your account for months 10 and 11. According to the logic that your extension is invalid if condition 4 has not been met, you would be on overstay from three months prior to the expiry of the permission to stay. Further, if you apply for an extension early, the official will also insist that you top up the account to 800k early before accepting your application. That surely confirms that 4 is a condition for the next extension, not the last.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with part of the logic you are assuming. My own interpretation of the rules is that, for the existing extension to remain valid, you need to have been in compliance for the entirety of the following year. To me, it is entirely logical that there should be an insistence of the 800k being kept in the bank for three months after the extension is granted. This requirement is largely to prevent people using short term loans to satisfy the 800k for two months prior to the application. However, it seems totally unreasonable that proof of 65k+ transferred from abroad every month since the last extension not be regarded as satisfying the ongoing requirement. Essentially, that implies that you must have a minimum of 24 months of 65k+ monthly transfers before you can switch to the income method. You probably cannot overcome this even with a new Non O visa as (although initially after income letters were stopped for some nationalities, it was stated that only two to three months of transfers would be required for a first extension) the actual implementation has been different.

In theory, you could be. However, it is extremely unlikely. You would need to be stopped by the police for another reason while on the short overstay, and have them decide to take action on the overstay (which they rarely would)

If both parents are going to be there, and it is a renewal, there might be some documents to sign, but I cannot believe there will be any real issue.

If you never again need to have dealings with the Labour Department, it is very unlikely to matter. However, out of an abundance of caution, I would do it properly. It is impossible to know what you might want to do later, and staying squeaky clean is prudent.

The OP is talking of a UK marriage certificate. Based on this, the following from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/notarial-and-documentary-services-guide-for-thailand#certified-copies-of-UK-birth appears relevant I have heard of notarization by the Thai embassy in the UK also being accepted but, as you say, there may be differences between provinces. However, I know for a fact that the British Embassy in Bangkok will refuse to certify.

That will depend on your local immigration office but, unfortunately, regardless of what the written rules might seem to imply, most offices will only allow the combination method if income is via embassy letter. Ask your local office. Even if allowed for extensions, you will need to figure3 out how to get the initial Non O visa. Combination can definitely not be used for the visa application.

I have not experienced this either, or even seen it happen at an airport. However, I have twice seen Immigration officials become verbally abusive in both English and Thai (not to me). Once was at a land border crossing, and once was years ago at an immigration office. In the latter case (which was unprovoked) when the abusive official was no longer in earshot, his colleagues apologised. I have heard third hand of rare occasions of officials blowing up at Don Muang.

So, what is the explanation for denying an extension with financial proof consisting of 17 months of minimum 65k baht transferred each month? Is my hypothesis that it is a misunderstanding plausible?