Maestro

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.

It has to be CW, which is obviously your local immigration office, as you did your last extesion of stay there.

I have seen posts indicating that an immigration office granted the extension on the basis of the birth certificate combined with the personal confirmation of the child, who accompanied the father, that the latter was indeed the father and that they lived together. As I remember it, the child had to at least seven years old for this purpose. This procedure may vary from one immigration office to another. @Udonthai 1. How old is your child? 2. Is your child in fact living with you on a continuous basis?

Got it. You are currently on the 90-day permission you received when you entered with a non-O visa, for which you had applied at a Thai embassy for the reason of travelling to Thailand to visit your child of Thai nationality. Now, you wish to apply for a one-year extension of stay for the reason of living with your child. Clause 2.18(5) first paragraph, applies to this. Note: The correct translation of the Thai text would be: "In the case of a parent, that parent must..."

Aren't the automatic departure gates now available also to non-Thai nationals?

On whom are you depending, or who is depending on you?

What "valid visa" do you mean with VFE?

My apologies, and thanks for your helpful posts in this topic.

Your house registration book does not say "Status: Host (เจ้าบ้าน)". "Status: Host" is the English translation you have chosen to use, but this English text does not appear in the house registration book.

Yes, you quoted correctly an incorrect text from an unofficial website, not a text from a relevant law or a Ministerial Regulation or an official communication from the Immigration Bureau.

Since "householder" is clearly and unambiguously defined in section 4, it is silly to use the terminology "The householder, the owner or the possessor of a dwelling" in Section 38. I should be only "The householder of a dwelling". If I live in the dwelling, eg condo-unit, myself I am the possessor and therefore the householder. If I rent out my condo, I am no longer the possessor. The tenant is now the possessor and therefore the householder.

It should be noted that Immigration officials have no authority to issue fines under section 77 for violations of section 38. It is section 84 that applies to immigration officials

That's a good translator, Ms. Somkulawee Pothinam of International Languages and Educational School, you used. I say this because she translated เจ้าบ้าน as Householder, the same as used in the English translation of the Immigration Act I downloaded from krisdika.co.th, the website of the Office of the Council of State, ie the Cabinet.

Sadly, the website to which you linked has a lot of incomplete and false information. Preferably, you should quote from the law (Immigration Act), from Ministerial Regulations issued under the authority of the law, and from Police Orders, regulations and guidelines issued by the Immigration Bureau issued under the authority of the law and Ministerial Regulations.

See here what the law says: https://aseannow.com/topic/1318382-tm30-for-the-first-time/?do=findComment&comment=18657131 See here what the website of the Immigration Bureau says: https://www.immigration.go.th/?page_id=2163#

Please stop using the unusual and incomprehensible acronym MENO for the multiple-entry non-O visa.

I have seen it mentioned today in this post on this topic: https://aseannow.com/topic/1318367-immigration-lawyer/?do=findComment&comment=18655615

According to section 38 of the Immigration Act, it is the duty of the householder, the owner or the possessor of the place the OP is renting to submit the TM.30 According to section 4 of the same law, the OP is the householder, ie the chief possessor of the place he is renting in the capacity of tenant.

I don't think so. I have not read or heard about any case where an immigration official issued a fine of THB 200 per day for the late submission of the TM.30 notification and I doubt that immigration would have the authority to do so.

No fee for the submission of the TM.30

Yes.

The only thing I can think of is that the person doing the documents you need from the NGO for immigration should be prevented from knowing your real salary.

You seem to know that the volunteer, Mr. Stefan Claudio Specogna, has travel insurance. What insurance is it?