Maestro

10 January 2024

I see no reason why there should be any problem.

The web page to which the first link you have given leads correctly quotes the notification requirement stated in Section 37 of the Immigration Act. The web page to which the second link you have given leads correctly quotes a) Section 84, under which an immigration office can issue a fine for contravention of Section 37(5), and b) Section 76, under which a judge can impose a penalty for contravention of Section 37(5) if the foreigner is arrested and prosecuted. Neither of these two sections states that "If a foreigner who did not make the notification of staying over 90 days is arrested, he will be fined 5,000.- Baht"

Yes, it is clearly stated on the immigration website, and that statement is clearly wrong.

For a start, there is no application for something to be granted or rejected. It is important to understand this. There is a notification to be made by the foreigner to "the competent official at the Immigration Division" as prescribed by Section 37(5) of the Immigration Act. It is tacitly understood that the notification must be made in the form required by the immigration office (IO) and the IO can either accept it – tacitly or explicitly – as correctly submitted or, if it is incorrectly or incompletely submitted, inform the foreigner accordingly.

The sentece "If a foreigner who did not make the notification of staying over 90 days is arrested, he will be fined 5,000.- Baht." is wrong. It is not based on any law or any regulation based on any law. Immigration officials can arrest a foreigner, but the implication that immigration can then fine him 5000 Baht is wrong.

That screen message is erroneous. No "application" for staying longer than 90 days was made. The legally required notification of the intention to stay longer than 90 days was submitted and no apprroval of this notification is legally required.

No law allows immigration officials to issue a fine of "up to 5000 Baht" for the late sumission of the notification of the intention to stay in Thailand longer than 90 days.

Thank you for the update. This means that this topic can now be closed.

This taxation subject is already discussed elsewhere and is out of plase in the visa forum.

Thank you.

Too many bickering posts.

The nephew can get his own non-ED visa and one-year extensions under the clause 2.8 or 2.9, depending on the type of educational institution. https://aseannow.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=804079

Who is the child in this scenario? How old is it and what is its nationality?

Seeing that your son is in fact living with you I suggest thar you discuss with your immigration office the possibility of applying for a one-year extension of stay under clause 2.18(5) of this Police Order about extensions: https://aseannow.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=804079

The OP uses the monthly income method, not 800k in the bank.

Is this for the Pattaya immigration office?

The topic title mentions that the OP uses the Pattaya immigration office.

Has this been at the Pattaya immigration office?

I suggest you take Kasikorn's letter in whatever format they are using for their other customers and submit this to immigration. If the official has a problem with it, ask to consult with the chief of the immigration office and if he also has a problem with it, let him call the bank manager. If after the call the chief still refuses, ask him to give it to you in writing, saying that you need it to sue the bank.

Thank you. It makes one wonder whether VFS pays the Buriram immigration office an advertising fee for the placement of the link to their site on a page of the official website of the Buriram immigration office. P.S. It's even worse. The VFS link and an abvertising message about a special inaugural offer are on a page of the Immigration Bureau's official website immigration.go.th, not just on the site of a provincial office.

Something must be wrong with my phone. Tapping on the link you posted displays none of the text quoted in th OP.

The text quoted in the OP is not from the website of the Immigration Bureau. As far as I know, applicants for an extension of stay, which the VFS website seems to mean when they write "visa extension", continue to have the choice of applying directly at the local immigration office.

Agreed

Yes, that sounds right.