zorroverde

The extension must be made at te office for the area where you are living.

But extensions of stay can be made up to 30 days early and start n the day your current permission to stay ends, so you don't lose any days.

90 day reports can be done 15 days early (and up to 7 days late), so Monday should be fine to do both and you could try it tomorrow.

I tried to do the 90 days report about 10 days before due and the infamous Nok told me to come back next week because he was very very busy.I did it then by mail,as allowed by current regulations,and never got any back feed like the confirmation slip.Samui immigration is a complete disaster.

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

That comment confirms my original suspicion !

Please do not feed it !

Hear hear - judging from his rambling postings his agenda is obscure in the extreme IMHO, not to mention completely oblivious to rhyme or reason!

Thank you,OJAS,for your invaluable contribution.You are right,I should keep my sentences shorter so even the mentally handicapped can understand:)

As to rhyme,is that a new forum rule??What about limericks or rap?

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

If there is no known specific rule in regard to non-im OA visas then we have a legal void,causing nasty consequences for the dependent

family members of a retiree.Conclusion:Retirees should by all means avoid to get the OA visa in their respective home country ...

The OA visa is only good for a single person or for a married couple if both can qualify for it.

I always worn people about the dependent extension problem in topics about the OA visas.

The Thai embassies and official consulates will not tell applicants for OA visas about it or will give false info to encourage people to apply for the visa. I suspect it is because they are ill informed about extensions.

There was a recent discussion about a embassy telling an applicant for the OA visa that the multiple entry non-o visas they sold to him for his dependents allowed them stay to for a year. They were on overstay because of this with the wife needing to pay the 20k baht overstay fine. The resolution for their problem was for the the child to get an extension for education and his wife getting an extension as their caregiver which requires putting 500k baht in the bank here.

Thanks,Ubonjoe,for the proposed solution.I was aware of it,but I trusted the info given by the General Consulate abroad,so the objections by the local immigration regarding dependent -based extensions were hitting us like a lightning out of blue sky.In the end we obtained the dependent extensions in BK,but maybe we were simply lucky this time.Next year wife and daughter will go the edu/caregiver (guardian) way and I will squeeze out of my OA another 11 months or so by re-entering on the very last moment before visa expiration.Thanks again for bearing with me...

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

If there is no known specific rule in regard to non-im OA visas then we have a legal void,causing nasty consequences for the dependent

family members of a retiree.Conclusion:Retirees should by all means avoid to get the OA visa in their respective home country ...

...Fact is that non-im OA visa did not exist when this police order was promulgated in Nov.2008...

Wrong: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nxIuMFlaruw/TuD6lp4SsQI/AAAAAAAAKZw/jM2ZC1qkdZk/s460/Non-O-A%2520multiple%2520entries%2520Washington%252020080925.gif

Thanks for the link,Maestro.I was obviously wrong,just trying to find a logical explanation for the lack of applicable rules for non-im OA visas.

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

The O-A visa is much older than since 2008, let alone 2011. The 2008 rules also didn't change anything for retirees.

But on an O-A visa entry you are not on an extension of stay, you are on a visa entry. The rules require that for an extension of stay as a dependent, the person you are depended of is on an extension of stay.

Very interesting indeed and I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the chronology of Thai visa history in the 21. century.Since when exactly are existing non-im OA vias?

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

As the OA requires its first extension at earliest 12 months after entry,the dependents of an retiree would be left hanging in the air with at least 3 visa runs due before they could avail themselves of the first extension of the head of family.I can't believe that such a serious discrimination of family members is intended by Thai legislation and law enforcement. I also can't see any logical reason for that.

The idea is that you scan it but make details that can identify you unreadable, those are not needed anyway.

That means no passport number or number of the extensions or visa for example.

Pls read my post #58 in reply to Mario.It may answer some of your doubts.I agree, with some parts of the scan made unreadable I wouldn't give too much away.But what would you gain in knowledge of the facts?Or are you doubting the facts as described by me?

The core of the problem seems to be that there is the opinion of some immigration staff that the case of retirees given an non-im OA visa abroad is

not the one contemplated in 777/2551 clause 2.22.Fact is that non-im OA visa did not exist when this police order was promulgated in Nov.2008.

But the verification requirements and verification procedure as to solvency are nearly identical,only that the deposit to be proved has to be in the country

of the applicant.All other requirements of 2.22 are unchanged.So it is only logical that 2.22 should also be applied to non-im OA visas issued abroad

and the resulting temporary stays permitted upon arrival.Any other policy would result in an unacceptable discrimination of dependent familiy members

of retirees with OA visas.This my view is shared by the General Consulate which had issued our visas and obviously also by BK immigration when

they granted said extensions to my wife and daughter.

Just read my post #47.If not clear enough,just ask.

Post #47 is the post where you assume that the permission to stay given with the arrival stamp is the same as a permission to stay under clause 2.22 of Police Order 777/2551. However, this is not so.

Why is this not so,pls elaborate...

After carefully analysing 2.22,I appears that this ,my case is ticking all boxes of the 2.22 requirement.

The only difference is that under 4.) the account deposit has to be proved at a bank abroad and not at a Thai bank.Also,that the non-im O,issued previously abroad required an extension 90 days after entry,whereas on the OA you get the full 365 days admission immediately upon entry/arrival.

It seems that 777/2551 has not been amended to newer developments like the introduction of the non-im OA visa which came into existence only about 2 years ago,i.e 3 years after at its promulgation in Nov.2008.

Consequently,giving the dependents of a retiree holder of an non-im OA visa an extension of stay completing the 365 days stay of the head of family,can only be considered as a logical further development of this somewhat dated police order.Both,the info given at the issuing Thai General Consulate,as well as the practice we experienced at the BK immigration seem to confirm my view.

?

zorroverde, I would like to suggest that you scan and post the stamp of your current permission to stay in your passport so that we may know what you actually have and explain matters to you accordingly.

Maestro,I doubt that this would be a smart move,as I have no interest in revealing our identity.For some reasons none of the members of this forum

are revealing their identity.Making our case traceable might have dire consequences....Just second thoughts.

We,me,wife and daughter arrived a couple of months ago the same day in Thailand.We had been issued visas abroad,for me a non-OA (M) as retiree,for them a non-O .I was admitted to stay for 365 days,they for 90 days.Before their permitted stay finished,they applied at BK immigration for an extension as dependents,based on my own permitted stay of 365 days as retiree,.It was granted until the same date as my own.

I agree now that our case seems not to be contemplated in 777/2551 2.20,as this regulations deal with extensions and I don't need an extension for the the next 12 or more months.But why should Immigration discriminate against families where the head of family got his retiree visa abroad and not as an extension of stay or conversion from tourist visa inside the country?There may be a legal void or there is another piece of legislation unknown to us.In any case Immigration acted in a fair and equitable way,w.o the need for tea money or exorbitant fees paid to visa handlers or law firms.

...

First of all,I didn't say anywhere that non-OA visa and non-O visa would be the same.Secondly,if you read carefully the wording of 777/2551 clause 2.20 there is not said anywhere that the holder of an non-OA visa needs to have gotten his/her first extension before his dependents can avail of this extension clause.It simply says "...of an alien who has been permitted temporary stay under clauses....(2.22 retirement among others).

Now,if a non-OA visa holder is entering the country,he/she gets the first stamp "admitted to stay until...".With that the condition required by 2.20

is given,i.e having been permitted temporary stay...

I think I see where the muddle is. When you arrive with a non-OA visa, with the arrival stamp "ADMITTED <date> UNTIL <date> you are being "permitted temporary stay", but with this stamp you are not being "permitted temporary stay under clause 2.22" of Police Order 777/2551. Do you see the difference now?

That is a good,valid and constructive argument,not as so many others of "the pope has spoken" type.Really a muddle!When you are issued

a non-OA visa abroad (i.e outside Thailand),you are still required to give a reason and you are scrutinized accordingly,in my case for "retirement".You don't get a OA just so...Did I then get my temporary stay granted under 2.22 or not? After checking 777/2551 again I have to admit that you may be right,as this police order is dealing with extensions,not with with the issuing of visas.Inside Thailand the temporary permit of stay is a 2-stepped process:First conversion of tourism visa to non-O.Then extension to 1 year.The same abroad is 2 steps in one.But same result.In both cases the retiree is admitted to stay for 1 year.Looks to me like a legal void,because it would be unethic and discriminatory to favour retiree families who obtained their retiree/dependents extensions after having converted their tourist visa inside Thailand to a non-O and subsequently to a retiree/dependents extension compared to families who have applied for their visa abroad.My point of view is shared by the visa issuing General Consulate which assured us that they couldn't give wife and daughter an OA,but only an O 90 days which could w.o problems be extended to a total admitted stay of 365 days after the 90 days period.Obviously this view was shared by BK immigration when we asked for an dependents extension.Why should the law or the absence of a specific law punish those who are following the instructions given on all Thai embassy websites,i.e getting their first visa in their country of origin as being the normal way?

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

Interesting,if it is so clearly stated in the rules,would you be so good as to quote the relevant part?

As you seem so certain of your position why not just simply share your knowledge ?

Just read my post #47.If not clear enough,just ask.

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

Interesting,if it is so clearly stated in the rules,would you be so good as to quote the relevant part?

Since you are on a OA visa your wife and child are not eligible to get dependent extensions from immigration. If they only have single entry visas they will need to get multiple entry non-o visas.

You don't need a re-entry permit because I am certain you have a multiple entry visa.

Ubonjoe,what is the source or basis for your statement,that wife and child of a OA visa holder,holding a 90 days O visa,are NOT eligible to get

dependent extensions?

Is not clause 2.20 of the often cited police order of Nov. 2008 explicitly providing this possiblity?

A OA visa and non-o visa are not the same.

A dependent extension can only be obtained if you have an extension of stay based upon retirement from immigration under clause 2.22 of the police order.

A OA visa one year entry cannot be used to obtain a dependent extension because immigration does not have authority to do them.

With all due respect for an experienced longtime Star Member of TV who with patience and knowledge helps us newbies through the maze of Thai immigration regulations I dare to disagree with your opinion:

First of all,I didn't say anywhere that non-OA visa and non-O visa would be the same.Secondly,if you read carefully the wording of 777/2551 clause 2.20 there is not said anywhere that the holder of an non-OA visa needs to have gotten his/her first extension before his dependents can avail of this extension clause.It simply says "...of an alien who has been permitted temporary stay under clauses....(2.22 retirement among others).

Now,if a non-OA visa holder is entering the country,he/she gets the first stamp "admitted to stay until...".With that the condition required by 2.20

is given,i.e having been permitted temporary stay.

Even if we have sometimes the impression that Tahi immigration laws could be a bit more welcoming with retirees,I would not think that they would

be on purpose wanting to condemn the dependants of an retiree,permited himself to stay for one year upon entry,to numerous visa runs until the head of family has got his first extension from local immigration one year later.I simply don't want to insinuate that this kind of vexatious harrassment of family members of an retiree is the official policy of Thai immigration.

In all fairness,Ubonjoe, I have to admit that you are not alone with your interpretation of 2.20.I have heard the same from Samui immigration and also from a so-called law firm in BK.

In spite of all advice and opinion to the contrary I got recently from Bangkok immigration w.o any problem for wife and daughter an extension of their

non-O 90 days visas up to the date when my own "admitted to stay" period ends.Totally in line with the wording of the regulation of reference and the info we got at the Thai General consulate where our visas had been issued.

Since you are on a OA visa your wife and child are not eligible to get dependent extensions from immigration. If they only have single entry visas they will need to get multiple entry non-o visas.

You don't need a re-entry permit because I am certain you have a multiple entry visa.

Ubonjoe,what is the source or basis for your statement,that wife and child of a OA visa holder,holding a 90 days O visa,are NOT eligible to get

dependent extensions?

Is not clause 2.20 of the often cited police order of Nov. 2008 explicitly providing this possiblity?

So it was a storm in a teacup. They were just arguing that the person applying for the extension should have 800k in his own name, not shared with anyone else in a joint account, even if that person was also applying for an extension as a dependent. Legally that is a perfectly defensible argument, since joint owners own 50% of the assets each, even though the implementation may be somewhat obtuse.

Obtuse???????Did you mean obscure or opaque?

What if the one spouse is younger than 50 years old?

No extension would be possible unless there was some exception allowed.

Joe

What happened to the concept of "dependency" ?

I have not seen/heard of any changes which would prevent an application

from a wife/child of a retiree for an extension based being a dependent.

Sceptic11,I totally agree.For under 50 yrs. dependents 777/2551 sect.2.20 would still be the way to go.OTH I can't see a reason why this same

clause could not be also used by dependents over 50 (spouses),avoiding thus the need for putting up another B 800K.There is nothing in the wording

forbidding it or limiting it to dependents under 50.

The rules since Nov. 2008 have already been posted in this thread and is how immigration handles cases.It might be that there is a lot lost in translation.

To me it seems that immigration might be trying to say is simply that a person applying for an extension based on retirement must fulfill the requirements by him/herself, so no joint accounts. (In the past a joined account was often allowed, provided it was at least 1,6 million baht).

If one of the partners doesn't have 800,000 baht or otherwise meets the financial requirements, he/she will have to apply as dependent and not for an extension based on retirement him/her self.

Mario2008,this is a sharp observation which could indeed explain the actual confusion.But would you agree that section/clause 2.20 of 777/2551

would allow the spouse of a retiree in any case,even when older than 50,to apply for an extension as dependent?So,the 2x B800K solvency requirement could easily be avoided,if only one of the spouses would apply for retiree extension of stay and the other,regardless the age,as dependent.

Would you agree on that?

I just checked the immigration website http://extranet.immigration.go.th/pibics/online/queue/EXTAction.do?cmd=term where under

"Reasons for Extension of Stay" said police oder 777/2551 is linked.

It remains there unchanged so far ,so one would think that it is still of application.

The Immigration Act authorises the Director General of the Royal Thai Police to issue rules for extensions of stay, and he did.

Right,the last time he did so,as far as has been publicly known,was the often quoted Royal Thai Police Order no.777/2551 0f Nov.2008,still standing.

Do you know of any abrogation or modification of the same? Do you know where can be found the mysterious 50% clause the immigration official was

commenting in the above newspaper article?

Immigration vows strictness on retirement visa requirements

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/686783-immigration-vows-strictness-on-retirement-visa-requirements/

I wonder to which regulation this high ranking immigration official is referring to.The only law which came into force at the date mentioned is

is the well-known Royal Thai Police Order nr.777/2551 of Nov.25 2008.

The only section dealing with the dependents of retirees is 2.20 where there is no trace of this mysterious ,allegedly often misinterpreted,

50% rule.In fact,there are no additional solvency requirements .The wording is totally clear and doesn't mention at all any further proof of solvency,whereas this same order or regulation,in all other cases where such proof is required ,says so explicitly.

I attach an excerpt of the relevant text in English.

Does any of forists with legal knowledge have a clue what law or regulation this gentleman is talking about?

Please explain...one person = 800k...two persons = 1.6k. If more, e.g., kids, should be more still. The past policy was basically a loophole in the rules that has now been fixed.

What's rapacious about it? The money doesn't go to the Thai government, it is for the maintenance of the retired couple while in Thailand and it doesn't even all have to be spent. Your post just looks like more generic Thailand bashing to me.

There is no loophole. There is a rule for this dependent extension in Police order 777/2551 that specifically allows it. If it is no longer allowed now it is not closing a loophole but changing the rule in such a manner as to disallow it.

I couldn't agree more.There is no loophole closed but simply an arbitrary raising of the bar,as long, at least,as they don't officially amend/change the quoted Police Order.Until now it was absolutely clear and uncontroversial that the so-called dependent visa didn't require additional funds to be shown

by the dependents (wife,children) of a retiree.In Thai immigration slang also called "following".