Court case over but black listed

[tropo]

2 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

They cancelled your original Non-O visa and give you a special extension because you waited for your court date?
How many days between your cancelled original Non-O visa and your court date?

It doesn't matter much, but I'm guessing he's been on a special extension since March last year. The courts move VERY slowly.

[tomacht8]

3 minutes ago, tropo said:

It doesn't matter much, but I'm guessing he's been on a special extension since March last year. The courts move VERY slowly.

That would explain the 5 year ban.
Looks like a procedural error.

[tropo]

29 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

That would explain the 5 year ban.
Looks like a procedural error.

That's a very interesting theory. The OP should come back and confirm, but he was discussing his court case in March last year - that's how I guessed the time frame. I would also think they had his passport the whole time as he would have been on bail.

[mstevens]

10 hours ago, Techno Viking said:

Those facial recognition camera's dont actually work ?

I doubt facial recognition software is being used in Thailand at this point in time.  There certainly have not been any verified reports of it being installed and used.

[Techno Viking]

1 minute ago, mstevens said:

I doubt facial recognition software is being used in Thailand at this point in time.  There certainly have not been any verified reports of it being installed and used.

Why do they take a picture then ?

[mstevens]

9 hours ago, vasudev said:

No ,,, i was not overstayed even for a single day,,, i was on court case under consideration visa

So the bit I don't get is that you have been banned from returning for 5 years i.e. banned for a period of time.

 

Why I don't understand this is that my understanding was that in the case of a foreigner being found guilty of crime in Thailand that you were deported (and could return again) OR in the case of conviction for a serious crime, were blacklisted and could never return to Thailand again.  This banning for a period of time only came in to effect with the recent overstay laws.....at least that has always been my understanding - or do I have it wrong?

[mstevens]

5 minutes ago, Techno Viking said:

Why do they take a picture then ?

To save it in their files.

 

Immigration authorities all over the world have been taking photos for many years....having cameras at immigration taking travellers' photos does not necessarily mean the system is hooked up to facial recognition software.

[ubonjoe]

Some baiting and bickering posts have been removed.

[Jim7777]

18 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

He was not on an overstay. From the OP.

If I recall correctly he was getting extension based upon being involved in litigation.

Ah ok that's what I figured he was in some sort of legal trouble that's why he was deported.  One thing I know is that you don't mess with the law or immigration in this country if you plan on living here. 

[Jim7777]

18 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

He was not on an overstay. From the OP.

If I recall correctly he was getting extension based upon being involved in litigation.

Sounds like a ban based on some sort of legal trouble.  What does "fake nominees" mean?  

[007 RED]

11 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

If it is not in the written judgment, then it is the question on which legal basis the immigration gave the 5 year ban.
I think the Immigration officers did not know that the op is married to a Thai?
 

As has already been indicated, it was immigration that would have ordered the deportation of the OP under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522.  In the OP’s case, I suspect that Section 12(6), or possibly Section 16, would have been invoked and this would then have allowed his deportation under the provisions of Section 22.

 

Regarding the ban from entering the country for 5 years, I suspect that would be covered by a Ministerial Order (I'm not able to lay my hands on it at the moment).  No doubt there is a ‘tariff’ relating to various types of offences for which deportation is applicable.  When you think about it, there would be no point in deporting someone for them to be able to return on the next available flight.

 

Regarding appealing against the ban, I personally would not be over optimistic, particularly as the OP is now out of the country.  Again under the Immigration Act Section 22, a person who is subject to a deportation notice must give notice of appeal within 48 hours of receiving that deportation notice.  If this was not done, then he has effectively forgone his right to an appeal and it is unlikely that the Minister of the Interior will consider such an appeal.

 

As a number of posters have indicated, I believe that his best option is to contact a decent lawyer who specialises in immigration law.  The trouble being that it is going to be very expensive with only a slim chance of success.

 

OP…. I feel for you in your predicament and I wish you the very best in trying to sort thing out.

[Jim7777]

5 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

As has already been indicated, it was immigration that would have ordered the deportation of the OP under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522.  In the OP’s case, I suspect that Section 12(6), or possibly Section 16, would have been invoked and this would then have allowed his deportation under the provisions of Section 22.

 

Regarding the ban from entering the country for 5 years, I suspect that would be covered by a Ministerial Order (I'm not able to lay my hands on it at the moment).  No doubt there is a ‘tariff’ relating to various types of offences for which deportation is applicable.  When you think about it, there would be no point in deporting someone for them to be able to return on the next available flight.

 

Regarding appealing against the ban, I personally would not be over optimistic, particularly as the OP is now out of the country.  Again under the Immigration Act Section 22, a person who is subject to a deportation notice must give notice of appeal within 48 hours of receiving that deportation notice.  If this was not done, then he has effectively forgone his right to an appeal and it is unlikely that the Minister of the Interior will consider such an appeal.

 

As a number of posters have indicated, I believe that his best option is to contact a decent lawyer who specialises in immigration law.  The trouble being that it is going to be very expensive with only a slim chance of success.

 

OP…. I feel for you in your predicament and I wish you the very best in trying to sort thing out.

What does he mean by "fake nominee"?  

[007 RED]

1 minute ago, Jim7777 said:

What does he mean by "fake nominee"?  

Take a look at the OP's previous posting on the subject

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/901933-fake-nominee-case/

[mstevens]

2 hours ago, 007 RED said:

Regarding the ban from entering the country for 5 years, I suspect that would be covered by a Ministerial Order (I'm not able to lay my hands on it at the moment).  No doubt there is a ‘tariff’ relating to various types of offences for which deportation is applicable.  When you think about it, there would be no point in deporting someone for them to be able to return on the next available flight.

You're applying Western logic to Thailand which does not always work.  I repeat that I have never before heard of this being banned for a period due to being convicted of any crime other than overstaying.  For all other crimes it is supposed to be mandatory deportation (but in effect is not) and in the case of serious crimes, possible blacklisting.

[vasudev]

14 hours ago, tropo said:

That's a very interesting theory. The OP should come back and confirm, but he was discussing his court case in March last year - that's how I guessed the time frame. I would also think they had his passport the whole time as he would have been on bail.

No i was not on bail dear because i have paid the fine on the day 1st when court gives his verdict

[tomacht8]

Normally, the police keep the passport as security until the court's time.
I think you have the 5 year Ban erroneously get for overstay.
Do you have payed a penalty to immigration?

Edited September 9, 2017 by tomacht8

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, mstevens said:

You're applying Western logic to Thailand which does not always work.  I repeat that I have never before heard of this being banned for a period due to being convicted of any crime other than overstaying.  For all other crimes it is supposed to be mandatory deportation (but in effect is not) and in the case of serious crimes, possible blacklisting.

Blacklisting (aka banned) can be from 1 year to 100 years. It is not always for life.

For overstay it can be for 1, 5 or 10 years.

[ubonjoe]

A reply to a removed post has been removed. 

[007 RED]

2 hours ago, mstevens said:

You're applying Western logic to Thailand which does not always work.  I repeat that I have never before heard of this being banned for a period due to being convicted of any crime other than overstaying.  For all other crimes it is supposed to be mandatory deportation (but in effect is not) and in the case of serious crimes, possible blacklisting.

The possible reason that you have only heard a about a ban being applied to over stayers is as a result of the wide exposure that it was given when introduced last year, both in the media and through this forum.

 

Deportations, and re-entry bans, following criminal conviction only affect a small number of people, hence we very rarely hear about them.  Perhaps because the individual concerned are too embarrassed to advertise the fact.

 

Deportation, and re-entry bans, relating to a criminal convictions (handed down by a Thai Court) have been available within the Immigration Act since 1979.  However, a formal “tariff” prescribing the type of criminal offence and the length of re-entry ban was only introduced through a Ministerial Order in 2011 and it has been amended several times since.  Re-entry bans for criminal offences can range from one year up to life.

 

The decision to deport an individual, and any subsequent re-entry ban, is normally taken by a senior immigration officer and is based upon the criminal offense(s) in question.  The immigration officer has a limited degree of discretion when it comes to minor criminal offences as to whether he/she decides to deport and impose a re-entry ban on the individual.  As a consequence many minor criminal offences do not result in deportation and a re-entry ban.

[007 RED]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

Normally, the police keep the passport as security until the court's time.
I think you have the 5 year Ban erroneously get for overstay.
Do you have payed a penalty to immigration?

The OP has already indicated in an earlier post that the ban was not for overstay.

I think you will find that the re-entry ban was imposed by immigration as a result of the OP being convicted of a criminal offence.

[Preacher]

5 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

The possible reason that you have only heard a about a ban being applied to over stayers is as a result of the wide exposure that it was given when introduced last year, both in the media and through this forum.

 

Deportations, and re-entry bans, following criminal conviction only affect a small number of people, hence we very rarely hear about them.  Perhaps because the individual concerned are too embarrassed to advertise the fact.

 

Deportation, and re-entry bans, relating to a criminal convictions (handed down by a Thai Court) have been available within the Immigration Act since 1979.  However, a formal “tariff” prescribing the type of criminal offence and the length of re-entry ban was only introduced through a Ministerial Order in 2011 and it has been amended several times since.  Re-entry bans for criminal offences can range from one year up to life.

 

The decision to deport an individual, and any subsequent re-entry ban, is normally taken by a senior immigration officer and is based upon the criminal offense(s) in question.  The immigration officer has a limited degree of discretion when it comes to minor criminal offences as to whether he/she decides to deport and impose a re-entry ban on the individual.  As a consequence many minor criminal offences do not result in deportation and a re-entry ban.

If the OP used false documents to obtain an extension of stay to obtain an extension of stay from immigration his stay was in Thailand was void. Immigration has always considered fake or falsified documents a very serious matter. Much more serious as a simple case of overstay and under the policy of good guys in,  bad guys out that certainly will not have been changed. Thus the ban.

 

If however the documents have not been used to obtain an extension of stay, the situation might be better from the viewpoint of immigration and the OP probably stands a better chance.

 

 

[tomacht8]

21 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

The OP has already indicated in an earlier post that the ban was not for overstay.

I think you will find that the re-entry ban was imposed by immigration as a result of the OP being convicted of a criminal offence.

This would be an out of court, arbitrary second punishment.
On which legal basis would the 5 years be imposed?
Why he did not get 1 or 100 years?
Was considered in his case that he has a Thai family?
In any case, the OP needs a good lawyer.

Edited September 9, 2017 by tomacht8

[jeab1980]

1 minute ago, tomacht8 said:

This would be an out of court, arbitrary second punishment.
On which legal basis would the 5 years be imposed?
Why he did not get 1 or 100 years?
Was considered in his case that he has a Thai family?
In any case, the OP needs a good lawyer.

Why would they consider he had a thai family?

When they ban an overstayer (seems he wasnt) do they take into account he has a thai family?

Having a thai family has nothing to do with it. (Maybe wrong but its the way it is)

[Preacher]

Family live is protected under international treaties, also signed by Thailand and his family live should be taken into consideration and might be a good reason for a judge to lessen the ban. It does not mean that no ban should be imposed, but often immigration does not take family live into account in the first place. A judge might rectify that and perhaps impose no ban or a shorter ban.

 

[tomacht8]

12 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Why would they consider he had a thai family?

When they ban an overstayer (seems he wasnt) do they take into account he has a thai family?

Having a thai family has nothing to do with it. (Maybe wrong but its the way it is)

I would see that differently.
Perhaps family members depend on him?
He is not a tourist without any bond, but he has a thai family.

For the overstay cases, there are clear penalties that can impede immigration.
But if the 5 year ban was not for overstaying, then for what?
The punishment for his offense was indeed punished by judicial judgment in a court.
He has paid the penalty, his offense has been eradicated.

On what legal basis the 5-yearBan was imposed, I ask myself.



 

Edited September 9, 2017 by tomacht8

[jeab1980]

3 minutes ago, Preacher said:

Family live is protected under international treaties, also signed by Thailand and his family live should be taken into consideration and might be a good reason for a judge to lessen the ban. It does not mean that no ban should be imposed, but often immigration does not take family live into account in the first place. A judge might rectify that and perhaps impose no ban or a shorter ban.

 

Many countries have signed it and pay at best lip service to it. Many have been deported from the UK regardless of having a UK husband. Ops problem is hes already deported i belive which makes any court case both hard and very very expensive

[Preacher]

1 minute ago, tomacht8 said:

I would see that differently.
Perhaps family members depend on him?
He is not a tourist without any bond, but he has a thai family.

For the overstay cases, there are clear penalties that can impede immigration.
But if the 5 year ban was not for overstaying, then for what?
The punishment for his offense was indeed punished by judicial judgment in a court.
He has paid the penalty, his offense has been eradicated.

On what legal basis the 5-year-old Ban was imposed, I ask myself.



 

Using fake documents/false statements to obtain an extension of stay perhaps?

[jeab1980]

2 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

I would see that differently.
Perhaps family members depend on him?
He is not a tourist without any bond, but he has a thai family.

For the overstay cases, there are clear penalties that can impede immigration.
But if the 5 year ban was not for overstaying, then for what?
The punishment for his offense was indeed punished by judicial judgment in a court.
He has paid the penalty, his offense has been eradicated.

On what legal basis the 5-yearBan was imposed, I ask myself.



 

As we seem to have no idea as to why he was deported its only speculation.

Yes op says Immigration deported him but we dont know the Facts. 

[Preacher]

3 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Many countries have signed it and pay at best lip service to it. Many have been deported from the UK regardless of having a UK husband. Ops problem is hes already deported i belive which makes any court case both hard and very very expensive

Indeed, it will not be easy and an appeal based on family live is no guarantee. Often judges will say one can have their family live abroad.  But it will be his only chance.

If as I suspect the documents were used to obtain an extension of stay immigration by it self will not come back on their decision and only a court (or the minister)  can change the 5 year ban.

[The manic]

On 08/09/2017 at 8:10 AM, csabo said:

What is "fake nominess"?

Illegal, false shareholders in a false company established to circumvent Thai land ownership laws to illegally own land.