Maestro

Correct.

I thought as much. Could perhaps holders of a an eVisa, with its QR code, be made an exception, from a technical feasibility point of view?

That sign must have been in the arrival hall. This topic is about departure via the automatic line without getting the re-entry permit invalidated and we already have a successful report about that.

There is this report by a member who left through the automatic gate and on his return with his valid re-entry permit used a manned immigration desk, without any problem. Has there been any report yet from fom someone with a re-entry permit who both left and re-entered via the electronic gates?

In both cases, you can apply for a one-year extension of stay.

A blue house registration book is issued for every new dwelling regardless of the nationality of the purchaser. A foreigner with permanent residence is by law entered in a blue house registration book as residing there. This aspect is off topic in this here topic and further posts on this, if any, need to be removed.

In my view, this is an absolutely nonsensical and useless form.

As DrJack54 has mentioned, we have gone off topic with this discussion which, if one wants to go into the academics of it, would really have to be done in Thai language and therefore in the Thai Language forum.

There are various English words to translate Thai words and it is not for me to say that one word is correct and the others are not. Taking the example of the "actual legal definition of the law in Section 38 of the Immigration Act of 1979", for which you kindly Quoted the source as https://herorealtor.com/simple-guide-to-tm30-thailand-immigration-requirements/, I called the quoted text an unusual translation because I have rarely seen "landholders" and have never seen "leaseholders" in connection with a definition of Section 38 of the Immigration Act. Admittedly, the quoted text is merely the website owner's personal definition of the meaning of Section 38 and does not pretend to be a translation of the Thai text of that section, but it serves as an example of the confusion this can create when one considers that the Thai term for which "landlords" appears to have been used here is variously translated elsewhere as house-master, housemaster, householder, owner, lessor, and perhaps a few more things.

There are different factors that make it difficult and confusing to understand the discussions about the requirement to make the notification of the arrival of a foreigner at a private dwelling, the so-called TM.30 notification. There are many different English translations of the Immigration Act and rules and regulations on this subject with different English terms used for the Thai term that defines the person responsible for making the notification. Different people involved in the discussions use different English terms for this person. Sometimes, one participant in a discussion uses different terms for this responsible person in different topics and sometimes even in the same topic.

That's an unusual translation of Section 38 of the Immigration that herorealtor.com uses.

If you arrive in Thailand on 15 April 2024, your next 90-day notification will be due 89 days after 15 April. You can start submitting it as early as 15 days before the due date.

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