CbrLad

OZ Embassy visa (outsourced) section in Bangkok grants one year multiple entry visas routinely even when a three month is requested.

Hair splitting but this is not 100% true. The outsourced section accepts and processes the applications it does not rule on nor issue visa's in any way shape of form. The granting of a visa is still done by DIAC which is attached to the embassy. Even then the approval and issue is officialy done by an Australian working for DIAC, not by a local Thai worker working for DIAC or the application centre. Having said that clearly the approval for tourist visa's in particular will be on the advice of a local working for the embassy.

Good news my GF got her passport back today with the news that the French tourist Visa app was a succesful, so we are both happy about that. She arrives in the UK this weekend, so will certainly be an eye opening experiance for her.

Two notes for others, firstly they didn't accept my letter of 'sponsorship' they gave it back when she handed over the doco so don't bother. The second was she submitted a eurostar itinary (with hotel), this was not booked and payed for as they asked. Clearly that was enought for them. The GF reckoned the main 'concern' when she submitted the app was that she had health insurance.

So maybe the UK visa helps matters and makes it easier.

Did any of you actually read the article? They are not talking about green spaces and parks, but "green" from enviromental initiatives. Having said that I am scratching my head over Bangkok being on that list, same too with Sydney for that matter. I think the guy was smoking something green.

You will find they will ask questions they don't know the answer to. They are looking for the physical repsonse and not the actual answer itself.

Just looking at the questions above if my GF had been asked some of them she wouldn't have been able to answer a good 1/3 of them, because they are not things that would come up in normal conversation.

What he should be looking at is called a Work and Holiday visa (subclass 462). You can read about it further on http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/working-ho...y/462/index.htm . It is intended for tertiary educated people from Thailand, Chile and Turkey aged 18 to 30 who are interested in a working holiday of up to 12 months in Australia.

It is a sub group of another Working Holiday Visa.

That is the one I was thinking of and as pointed out it is slight different to other working holiday visa's for say people from the UK and other places.

Well I've never seen staff ever talking to passengers whilst chewing gum but the overall impression is that nobody smiles. This is typical of all of London really especially on the Tube and outside. I expect most of that because I think most Londoner's are generally miserable and I can certainly understand why. But there are simply too many people allowed in that airport who aren't travelling. As for the long lines I'd say it's similar or slightly worse to what I've seen in America. Overall the security experience is generally quicker than those I've experienced in America but I've never had to walk outside the terminal to get to my check in area before. What are you suppose to do if it's raining?

So then is it just Terminal 3 that's like this? I definately want to avoid T3 next time.

T3 is bad at the moment because of reburbishments. T1 and T2 are shit holes that are well over due for reburbishment too. I reckon knocking them down would be a good start, which I understand they will do to T2.

But what you have written above is so true of the UK in general (sorry to my pommy mates). Customer service is poor, they have the attitude that they are doing you a favour rather than you doing them one by giving them a bloody job. This is everywhere, not just the airport and the tube, but shops.

The worst exerpiance I had was being accused of shop lifting at my local boots. I went to buy some things, 1 person serving, 3 gossiping around the counter. I lined about, about 10th in the line, and after 5 minutes got the shits because it moved only two people, so put my stuff on the nearest shelf and left. I got physicaly stopped about 20m down the footpath and accused of stealing. On the way back into the shop I showed this thug where I left the goods, but no off the the manager. This prick searched my bag and found nothing, offered no apology for the false accusation or the poor service so I ripped into him. The clown then had the hide to say he didn't have to put up with personal abuse and that if I continued he would call the police and have me charged. Look around the UK most shops have similar signs. Maybe if the stopped and thought why customers go so pissed off they could solve the problem rather than coming down heavy handed with threats. The UK is an odd place indeed.

Oh one other thing I hate in shops is you go to the local Tesco (Sainsburys where ever) and it seems as if the staff have 'right of way'. In most places staff will avoid getting in the way of customers and give them the right. But no the just barge their trollys through. Then you get to the counter and have to pack your own bag, in Aus in most supermarkets they know how to do it properly, as they scan the put it in the bag. Simple, no double handling no trouble.

And lastly why do poms put up with queues? Everywhere. A queue is just a sign of a business that does not know how to surge to handle the customers. Ie if the queue gets long put extra staff on to cover the surge.

Anyway end rant.

I don't know the full details but there are also special 1 year visa's for uni graduates to go and work in aus for 1 year. Not sure if that is the same as the one you have mentioned above. It is worth a call to the visa office to ask.

As has previously been stated your girlfriend will require evidence of the details of your trip to Paris, ie Eurostar Tickets, Hotel Reservations and as Scouse has indicated medical insurance.

I am a UK national and my wife was visiting me and she had to apply for her visa in Bangkok for our short trip to Paris, she didn't find the French Embassy particularly helpful or user friendly,though the application was in English. We had to supply bank statements even for a pre-paid three day trip.

As you are an Ausie I believe you might need a visa which you will probably have to apply for in London, their website indicates that as they have to talk to other Schengen states this could take some time.

http://www.consulfrance-londres.org/articl...?id_article=318

Good Luck

Thank you all for your input, we will see how we go. If she doesn't get it, it doesn't really matter, there is enough to see in the UK anyway and that was the main thing anyway.

Governor, what you have said is the impression my GF got too that they are not overly helpful!!. I am still amazaed at having to provide details of a firm booking. The cheapest I could find for 2 nights in Paris and Eurostar was about 250-300 quid, non refundable. So no visa there is 300 down the drain. On top of that I would rather stay somewhere nicer than a flee pit at Gare du Nord which is even more. For a refundable trip it is even more again. A very odd way for the embassy to do business.

As for me, Aussies can enter without a visa for up to 90 days for tourism purposes, but thanks for thinking of me too, there are places where I would need a visa, but France isn't one! It's funny I've been a few times now on the Eurostar and I get more of a hard time trying to come back in despite having a UK visa that clearly shows why I am here. The 3rd degree every single time. At least Heathrow I can use the IRIS gate (when it is working)

My Thai GF has received her tourist visa to come visit me in the UK next month. We were thinking about going to Paris to for a few days. Does anyone have any experiance or advice in applying for a visa to France? Specificaly do documents in English need to be translated to French? They ask for evidence of a hotel booking and flights/train. On searching this forum and the net in general (yes I did that before asking this question) I saw some people view the return flight as a meaning flight back to Thailand not specificaly back to the UK. My concern is if I book the Eurostar and a couple of nights in a hotel and she doesn't get the visa, then the money is more or less blown as many companies these days have no refund policies or heavy penalties for cancelling.

Are there any other issues to be aware of?

Oh better say because I know it makes a little bit of a difference, I am an Aussie living and working in the UK for a few years, so am not an EU national.

Thanks....

Sorry here are the facts:

She went to oz in Jan for three months she then returned for a six month visit returning in Dec 06.As a point of fact she owns her own business with 3 other girls thai massage of the correct variety no happy endings here in afraid.In fact she is fully qualified and has all the college certs etc,she met Marc at songkran this year and finished with her boyfriend who was arriving in May to marry her.The reason was she came back from her last trip and in my opinion should have finished with him then as she was unsure of the age diference and if she loved him obviuosly she met Marc and fell in love.

ECO STATEMENT READS:

You intend to travel to the UK for 3 months to visit your boyfriend whom you met in April 2007 whilst he was on holiday. You have failed to submit satisfactory evidence of close contact with each other, am not satisfied it is as close as is claimed.I can see your sponsor has given you some financial support and there may be some relationship between you both however this is yet to be consilidated over a longer period.You spent 3 months on Australia last year and you only commenced your current employment in a massage parlour in Jan 2007.You are now seeking to take 3 months leave from work i note your sponsor has asked for 6 months i doubt whether you will have employment upon your return.You have modest funds and no other assets i am not satisfied you are well established and settled in your home country.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are entering the UK as a visitor and that you intend to return at the end of your stay.

He clearly has not even loked at it she was in oz twice last year not once any thoughts.

Those facts quite clearly speak for themselves and paint a different picture to that in your first post. I can certainly see why the alarm bells would be ringing, no offence to your mate for the following reasons.

1. They only just meet, ie about 3 months.

2. She only just got rid of her old BF.

3. There were inconsitancies in what she asked for and what her sponsor said in terms of length of visit.

4. With the money issue I would say they took the sponsors money into account. That may have satisfied the costs of the trip, but the other facts speak for themselves, Ie she is not settled in Thailand which would be a reason to return. Like gee she went to Aus twice in 2006, although she returned I can see why they would think she isn't settled.

Visa's are not a trivial matter and one has to look at all the facts. Your first and last post quite clearly show the difference of a little bit context puts into a story.

Nicko, there's only so much you can do. What sponsors often forget is that it is the applicant's intentions that are under scrutiny, not theirs, and once you have supplied evidence that you can support and accommodate the applicant for the intended period, and of the claimed relationship, that's it. Flowery declarations or "guarantees" are not worth the paper they're written on, and are best left out.

Well put that was what I was trying to get at. Provide what is relivant to show your support and sponsorship. Which is the reason why (Ie you relationship), what you are going to pay for and you own situation. The rest is all up to her.

One other important thing remember it is her that is applying not you.

I tell you what though, it certainly doesn't feel like that!

I feel as though I have to prove myself just like she does...

The amount of paperwork that I've had to pull out has made me take a long long look at myself.

Don't know if others feel this?

Yes I know what you mean. When my GF applied a month or so back she had a pile of supporting documents relating only to me. Copies of 2 passports, 6 months phone records, banks statements from both the UK and my aussie home, payslips etc about 150 pages, plus my 2 page sponsorship letter. The thing is I provided nothing they didn't ask for and didn't tell them anything they didn't need to know (not that there was anything to hide, it gets back to not saying too much and making them ask the question what has this person got to hide). The only thing that was asked of my GF when she dropped it off was how do we know you know this guy. I still laugh at that one and though when she told me that the chances were slim. There were no pictures they didn't ask, but it was no problem, as iot turned out the other facts made the case clear. UK tourist visa in 1 week and no interview and no futher questions of either myself or my GF.

Oh the one thing I didn't realise was the orginal post was in relation to a perspective marriage visa.

I quite agree that whether someone has had a previous relationship should not necessarily be relevant, but where someone has had two or more foreign boyfriends in quick succession, the visa officer might infer that the relationship is of little value and that the applicant is using the boyfriend as a means of getting out of, in this case, Thailand.

Of course, that's not to say that everyone who has had two or more foreign boyfriends is bound to be refused a visa. Ultimately, the decision will depend upon the applicant's circumstances in their entirety.

Scouse.

Yes that was the point I was trying to make. The circumstance has now changed, indeed even the country being applied for has changed.

AZZZEY68 I miss read you initial post, I think you are missing an s in the word friend, I read that she is your girlfriend, not that it changes anything. The bottom line is different situation, they would have taken the two trip to aus into account, but there is clearly more they are looking at that you haven't mentioned, for example how long ago was the last trip to aus and how long has she been with your friend.

My friend thai girlfriend has been to Australia twice and returned to Thailand last year with her previous boyfriend and has been refused a UK visa because the ECO does not think she will return.In my opinion this has already been proved as she has been out as above.

Also he said she has insufficent funds its her boyfriend who is paying for the trip not her ?

Opinions welcome.

On the first point her situation has clearly changed. Yes she has a good history, which would have been taken into account, but the situation is now different and she has now been judged to be a risk of not returning.

On the second what are you saying it doesn't make sense? Aren't you her boyfirend now? If you are paying then you should have provided a letter saying so proving you have the funds to cover the trip.

Just keep it simple, remember this is a sponsorship letter. As someone mentioned there is a guide to the UK which gives a good idea of what is needed. The basics are stating your relationship, the letter is not the place to prove that btw. You also need to address your own status in the UK (this is where mine got complicated), your financial status, why you have invited your friend, what you intend to do (length of visit) and most importantly what you are going to pay for. As I said keep it simple. I know people who work in immigration (my old neighbours in aus) and I can tell you the more you waffle and try too hard, the more sus they get. Keep it simple, let the facts speak for themselves and you should be right. One other important thing remember it is her that is applying not you.

In my case my GF applied just the other week on the monday. Checked the net on Thursday and collected it Friday with a nice 6 month ME entry visa. This was the week before they shut shop so not sure if they rushed things through, guess we will never know.

what happens when the marriage fails in under 12 months in australia with a thai girl?

do they need to return to thai,no questiond asked, or are there other circumstances that may rule the desision?

If the relationship breaks up before the permanant visa is granted then the girl would have to return as her sponsorship has been withdrawn...the Immigration will need to be notified of the breakdown.

However there are circumstances where it is not necessary for her to return and she can apply for a permanant visa off her own bat....

Due to the vagueness of your post I am hesitant to list the circumstances....I am sure that you will find them if you so desire.

I'll post one such reason if you won't, domestic violence. If the lady reports that then that is one reason why she will not be automaticaly kicked out. Apparently there are a large number of 'mail order brides' from former Russian countries who report domestic violence months after they come to Aus and then live happily ever after without their beloved husband.

the charges were for seeing the case manager to hand in documents, they wanted to see her passport, and the originals of birth certificate, of which they already had certified copies and certified translations for as well as to drop off the por kor 14 that was requested,

i dont know if an invoice was given i shall have to find out from my wifes sister, still sounds like and extra cash grab to me

once i get the full details and the visa approved then i might stir some s### with them and their dept

If you paid them they would have given you a receipt, no two ways about that. Oh before going to stir some mud get your facts right. I have read your other posts and you clearly have some grounds to be angry, but I will tell you now that getting upset and angry over every thing will do you no favours. This is an example, your two posts (no offence) clearly show you don't know specificaly what the charge was for. With this one I cannot see why you are angry when you haven't been able to identify specificaly what the charge was for. I have never heard of being charged to see someone.

Oh the other fact to get right, the charge is not being made by the embassy it is (depending upon what it is) being made by DIAC. There is another post about this but a lot of people don't realise that, they talk of an embassy as a single entity, when in fact each home department operates their own portfolio, in the case of visa's it is DIAC and consular services DFAT.

hi all,

my wifes sister went to the oz embassy thursday to drop off the remaining requested paperwork to the case manager to complete our application for a child visa for her daughter and was charged 2000 baht for the privelige of doing that for me

what a load of s### already paid $1400 oz dollars to lodge the damm thing, they request other paperwork not on there own application checklists and then charge you for doing it.

is this the normal procedure now or did i just get ripped off??

has anyone out there heard of this before

does this mean that i will have to fork out another 2000 baht just to have the pleasure of their company again to put the visa in her passport ??

It would help if you could say what the charge was for, I assume you have a receipt with that written on it? I am willing to bet it was a notarial charge. That is a charge for certifying that what ever copies your dropped off is genuine. Was it charged by the visa office (straight in front as you go up the stairs) or the glass office just to the left of the entry stairs? The rates are quite high, it is something like $30 aus for the first page and then a lesser charge per additional page.

Why is Thailand now enforcing a security measure that the Britain and other countries have relaxed?

Is it a response to the Muslim problem in the south?

P.S A note to all the PC brigade. Islam and Muslims do not comprise a 'race'. Therefore pointing out that they are to blame is not racism.

Read the very first paragraph of the thread.

BANGKOK: -- Airports throughout Thailand on June 1 began enforcing a requirement that passengers display liquids, gels and sprays in transparent containers in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations.

Thialand is signed up to the ICAO, so is following suit. Also you will have seen a post about someone going to Aust in May, that would have been an Australian regulation enforced in Bangkok, it would have been done at a secondary check-point just before the boarding gate.

There seems to be some racism against Muslim here. I have quite a few 'modern' Muslim friends; they are like you and me, but follow their faith. People who blow up planes are maniacs, and saying they do it in the name of religion is twisting their religion. I am not a Muslim, but I respect my friends enough to understand they are entitled to follow whichever religion they wish.

Very well put my friend. We don't need ant racism around this board of all places, I would have thought most of us would be more tolorent.

Funny enough I have a Thai nick name.

The wife calls me "nah maa" from time to time.

Sounds cute dont you think?

dog face or horse face, depending on the tone...

Ok getting a bit off topic, but what is the history of the expression dog face? When I was going through the process of breaking up with my ex that is one of the things she called me. Although not a nice thing in english I take it the english translation tones its real and historical meaning down a bit, so in Thai it has more punch as an insult. So what does it really mean in Thai culture and why is it so bad?

PS. I get the impression it has the same level of effect as calling somone in english that word that rhymes with hunt.

I was refused in February during a stop over in Zurich on my way to Brussels to carry a bottle of whisky bought at the tax-free shop in Bangkok as hand luggage. To avoid confiscating this expensive whisky, I had to exit the airport, re-enter and re-check in (although I had a valid boarding pass already) at the counter, handing over this bottle of whisky to be separately boarded as checked-in luggage in a special bottle container. I had to pay 3 Swiss Francs but the counter refused Euro or US$. Go to the bank, exchange Euro in Swiss Francs (I only had a 5 Euro bank note), lose petty money, pay and then board the plane whilst on my way to the gate I passed a number of duty free shops in Zurich airport selling exactly the same brand of whisky as I had been refused to board.

Switzerland is not member of the EU. But when it fits their interest they adhere to EU regulations. How can their taxfree products be accepted (as safe) on board a plane to Europe whilst the same identical articles, procured in Thailand, cannot! And how will the EU now consider these tax-free products procured in Thai airport tax free shops as "safe", whilst in February they were not?

This problem has nothing at all to do with Switzerland not being part of the EU, money issues aside nor is it an issue with the tax free nature. The problem would have been your bottle of whisky brought in Thailand wouldn't have been sealed so the 'security' state of it couldn't be assured. If you had flown say London, Zurich, Brussels and had brought the whisky in London it wouldn't have been a problem. As of today you should not have the same problem as your Bangkok purchased whisky should be sealed.. Provided you don't open it.

See the whole point (and I don't agree BTW as I can see 1,000,000 loop holes) is anything you bring through security can be considered tampered with. So for example you bottle of whisky may have a compartment inside where you have put some explosives which you are going to take out mid flight and blow the plane up. But if you make the purchase in a controlled area then it is ok. See one problem I have is anyone who wants to do something now only needs someone on the inside to get around it. For me I would be happy to take the small risk, walking down the street is still more dangerous.

Problem with that is, by the time you get to the Duty Free to buy the booze, you've already checked your suitcase in !

As for lense cleaner, I keep a large bottle (250ml) in my luggage along with my toiletry kit, and carry a small (20ml) bottle in my carry on. I also carry a small kit with some of those "hotel-size" tooth-paste tubes, mouth-wash, aftershave and shampoo. Together they might be 200mls total. Guess I'll have to pack those in a clear bag.

But then what ? Once customs/immigration/security sees my little bag of tubes, and I enter the Duty Free zone, can I put the bag back in my carry-on ?

That is the whole point, what ever duty free booze you buy AT THE AIRPORT is ok because you are already in the controlled zone, ie after security.

As for you little plastic bag once through security yes it can go back in your carry bag, you only have to bring it out again if you then pass through another airport security zone, ie in transit.

You are also right with your hotel sized ammenities. Provided each is less than 100ml, are no more than 100ml in total AND fit into the maximum allowed bag size then you are ok. I haven't tried it but I guess if you get an amenities kit on a flight and then have to make a transit the liquids and gels in that kit will also then have to be put into a clear bag and shown on transit.

Yep it is all BS in my opinon. Proves the crazies don't have to blow up and aircraft or what every, by having us go through the and other BS they have already won. And yes as someone pointed out cannot blame the yanks for this one, the poms were first.

PS Question for those in Thailand are they now limiting the amount of carry on bags taken through security to 1 like they do in the UK, or is it still up to what every policy is in force with each airline?

no it is just that the consulair section is a lot friendlier, open and client orientated then the visa department.

Probably a fair assessment but then the isues they deal with; lost, stolen or expired passports, registering births etc., swearing self serving documents and generally doing British type things are all relatively non contentious issues easily resolved provided the 'form' has been completed and the fee paid. The consular function in any Embassy is defined as one of assistance and to complain would be churlish.

But to confuse the consular section with the visa section, as the OP seems to have to done, is perhaps a mistake akin to sitting on a slumbering crocodile thinking it a log.

One hopes the OP doesn't get bitten.

Who would want a consular officers job? Other than the stuff above they are also the ones who deal with the crazies who go troppo on holiday, go to the morgue to assist in identifying dead bodies, give monthly visits to prisoners and a myriad of other unpleasent tasks. Basicly they are looking after all the unfortunate nationals who need help in way form or another.

You are right though you should never confuse a consular section with a visa section, or with the political section or a trade section or the aid section etc etc etc. I know for Australian Embassies and I would presume UK, US etc they are mostly all seperate departments just sharing the same building and coming under the title of the 'xxxx Embassy". In the case of Australian Embassies and High Commissions, the building is usually owned and managed by DFAT (Foreign Affairs). The political and consular sections are DFAT, but the visa section (for foreign nationals wanting an Aussie Visa) is DIAC (new name for Immigration Department). The only things they have in common is they share the same building and all answer to the same Ambassador for administrative purposes, but for portfolio specific tasks, such as visa's they answer to their home department and Minister.

this is a little confusing - does this apply only to carry-on's? i wear contact lens and the bottles of solution are over 100 ml - also it would appear that i can no longer bring back a bottle of wine or spirits unless i buy it at King Power

Its not really that confusing. Firstly it is just for carry-on. For checked in stuff you need to confirm with the safety rules that have been around for a long time.

With you contact lense fluid, yes 100ml is all you can take WITH YOU INSIDE THE CABIN, unless of course you would use more than 100ml for the FLIGHT, yes the flight not the trip, in which case you need the persciption to prove it. I know you wouldn't use that much, but for example if you had some other medicine and you had to take 200ml during the course of the flight you would be ok provided you had the letter to say so.

As for grog, you can buy before you get to the airport but it needs to go into check-in luggage. You cannot take it with you, unless it meets the 100ml rule. Other than that only goods you buy at the aiport are allowed as carry on. What (duty free shops) now have to do is seal your purhcase in a clear bag with the receipt clearly inside. If it is like that then you will be able to transit other airports without a problem. For example if you flew Bangkok-London-Paris it would be ok in London, but if you break the bag open then you would not get through London with it.

I have heard there have been problems on flights to Australia, who seem to have taken a different view and are more worried about bringing stuff in then out as is the case elsewhere. For example I heard of someone flying THROUGH Auckland and also Singapore having duty-free grog confiscated in Auckland/Singapore because it wasn't brought in that airport. I am not sure how true it is, I cannot see why they would be going against ICAO procedures which seem simple. Ie so long as it was brought in a controlled space at the airport and is in a sealed bag it is ok.

Hope that clears it and doesn't make it anymore confusing.

Actually I should point something else out it is not just Thai's that get questioning at the airport, come to think of it everytime I come into the UK I get questioned too, despite having a valid visa which states quite clearly what I am there for. I am Aussie with a visa to live and work in the UK, but everytime I come and go, which in my job is about once every 6 weeks I get questioned. The issue is the same as the jist of this thread, I have a valid visa, but must play 5 questions everytime I enter. If I didn't have the visa then I can understand but with it why? Well I don't need to worry anymore as one nice immigration person told me, upon seeing half a dozen entry stamps that as someone is is allowed to live in the UK I could register for the iris system and not have to face them again, unless of course you come on the Eurostar, the place where I have found the worst UK immigration people.

I am glad I started this thread to highlight the treatment Thai's get on arrival, it's shocking after they have gone through the selection process in Bangkok. I hope the Embassy ARE reading it!

I know what you are getting at, but what happens when someone arrives has nothing at all to do with the embassy, so it doesn't matter if they are reading it or not.