Visa extension nightmare.

[TKDfella]

23 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

I corrected my post by inserting a not that should of been in it.

I am saying the officer could of done it but refused to do it.

Thanks for the reply. That's a shame that there was a refusal. ubonjoe, is there a difference in the documentation/process for Non-B and Non-O which would make an IO prefer one to the other?

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

My wife read Police Order 327-5227 Thai text.

There is no mention of any class of Visa other than Non Imm.

 

I certainly know one individual who obtain an extension based on retirement form his ED Visa at my IO.

 

It appears Sri Ratcha have adopted the anomaly that you must have a Non Imm O type Visa (that being the most common type) to apply for an extension based on retirement and you were just a victim of their opinionated stance.

This is what happens when you have a Country where Provinces government administrations act autonomously.

 

I'm glad you were able to sort out your problem though and at least you had a positive outcome.

 

"There is no mention of any class of Visa other than Non Imm."

Yes but they all say that, does that mean you can get any type of extension on any category of Non Imm.

 

Thanks for last comment.

[Tanoshi]

51 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Yes but they all say that, does that mean you can get any type of extension on any category of Non Imm.

 

I understand exactly your train of thought and logic, but let me turn your question around.

 

If a B type Visa is obtained to work in Thailand, and ultimately obtain a work permit,  why is it you can obtain a work permit holding a Non Imm O Visa, or holding an extension of stay based on marriage.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

It is my understanding that government sets immigration policy and the police(immigration) are only responsible for implementation but quite prepared to bow to superior knowledge on that.

You're right, however, the police orders that are often quoted on TVF should be considered as minimum standards. In order to qualify for a 1 year extension of stay based on retirement you must have, as a minimum, a non-immigrant visa/permit. Each immigration office has a certain amount of autonomy, and it seems that offices like Sri Ratcha exercise that power and impose additional conditions. I've no idea why some offices insist on someone needing a particular category of non-immigrant visa, but they do. There is nothing published in the public domain to support that extra requirement. IMO Sri Ratcha are imposing extra conditions as opposed to others that just insist on the minimum conditions being met.

 

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

I fail to see why a senior MFA official would be required to sign my passport if immigration had got it wrong.

The MFA changed your visa category because it was issued incorrectly by the Thai embassy in the UK, not so that you could meet Sri Ratcha's conditions. Had the visa been issued correctly Sri Ratcha would have sent you out of the country for a new 'O' visa. The MFA govern consular services worldwide, which is what gives them the power to alter the visa.

 

8 hours ago, sandyf said:

Bottom line here is, people should ignore your opinion and check with immigration on their interpretation.

Forums like this can be useful for general information and opinion, however, you are right that people should always check with the office processing any application, because each office can have it's own way of doing things under the management of that office. If your unlucky to deal with an office like Sri Ratcha you may have to jump through more (extra) hoops than others. 

[Mattd]

Just for the record, I know of 4 people who fairly recently changed their reasons for extension of stay from employment to either retirement or marriage, all were extending for work from non b visas originally and all were working up until redundancy and for the naysayers, they all did this at Sriracha Immigration office.

Admittedly this was done with the help of the company HR department, however, it just shows it can actually be done.

[ericthai]

15 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That is not correct as others have written before. All he needed to apply for the extension was a non immigrant visa entry and he had one. The rules do not state a particular non immigrant visa category for extensions. He had all the required document for his extension of stay based upon retirement.

Sorry Joe,  I was replying to the one guy asking why a non-B wouldn't be extended.  I should have clarified this better.  He has a non-B since he is not working for a company impossible for him to extend the non-B for work purposes.  As for extending for other reasons I'm positive you are correct as I dont think I have ever seen you wrong when it comes to these matter.  

[ericthai]

14 hours ago, sandyf said:

Exactly what the senior IO at Sri Ratcha said. 

What people are referring to is an English translation of a Thai document so it really comes down to what the implied requirements were in the original policy and who has oversight in such matters.

actually in Thailand it really dont matter what the rules are, each office interpretes the rules themselves so what is accepted at one office is not accepted at another office. 

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

There is nothing published in the public domain to support that extra requirement.

The issue really revolves around context, something that many on here would prefer to ignore.

The Police order 327-5227 is presented as a set of categories and most of the categories have the same statement to the effect that the alien must have been granted a non immigrant visa. Out of the 22 categories that require a non immigrant visa, none of them specify a visa category.

Does that mean that for all of those 22 categories any non immigrant visa would be acceptable or are they saying that a non immigrant visa relating to the category being addressed is required?

I am not saying it is one way or another but I would consider it unlikely that the Thai government would be advocating a mix and match scenario. Just because some offices interpret it the way most would prefer doesn't make it correct. Obviously it is ambiguous and should be clarified.

 

There is a classic example of context abuse on the previous page. The member separated 2 sentences I had posted and doing so took the sentence quoted out of context. He then made a laborious rant going in a different direction. It really is time people paid a bit more attention to context rather than looking at a piece of text in isolation.

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

The MFA changed your visa category because it was issued incorrectly by the Thai embassy in the UK, not so that you could meet Sri Ratcha's conditions.

 

Again out of context, putting your own interpretation on what was said. Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you when I said that the MFA had told me that an extension to a Cat B visa could only be granted for business purposes.

The reason on the application to change was exactly what you think it wasn't - to meet immigration requirements for a 12 month extension based on retirement. A reason that someone put their signature to.

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, Mattd said:

Just for the record, I know of 4 people who fairly recently changed their reasons for extension of stay from employment to either retirement or marriage, all were extending for work from non b visas originally and all were working up until redundancy and for the naysayers, they all did this at Sriracha Immigration office.

Admittedly this was done with the help of the company HR department, however, it just shows it can actually be done.

My wife used to work for a European company on the Pintong Industrial estate which comes under Sri Ratcha. Although she was finance manager rather than HR she handled all the affairs of the foreign nationals as they were all senior management. She always said that immigration was quite fair but stuck to the rules. I know in her day anyone that lost their job had to leave the country virtually straight away, they usually came back on a tourist visa to sort things out. She has been retired 5 years now so no recent experience from that perspective. In fact she retired some time before I ever did my first extension, I had done 6 years on a Non Imm O before I had any real dealings with immigration and life was certainly a lot easier. I was very tempted to go back to that this year but I am not so fit to travel as I was.

[mtls2005]

 

When I applied for my first extension of stay based on retirement, ~ 4 years ago, I had a 1 year, multiple-entry non-imigrant B visa "for purposes of investment" issued by a consul in the U.S.A. I was never employed, nor did I conclude any investments.

 

At Chaeng Watthana, the first IO processed my application, took the 1,900 baht, issued the stamp, then passed me on to her superior who also "approved" my extension by annotating various bits of the paperwork, and then she passed me on to her superior who also approved my extension, with more scribbling, and then passed me on to her superior who was unwilling to approve my extension, and she "redlined" (2 red lines and the word "VOID") my extension of stay stamp. I tried to get some clarification but was unable to determine her issue(s), and resigned myself to leaving the country to get a 90-day O, and return - I was "legal" for another few weeks. A Thai neighbor, hearing about my problem, arranged for a Thai Immigration lawyer to accompany me back to Chaeng Watthana the next day. She found the fourth level superior and sorted out my problem in a few minutes, and my extension of stay was re-done. I've done four subsequent annual renewals without any issues. The immigration lawyer wasn't able to clearly tell me what exactly happened, other than to say that this officer was just "being cautious".
 

[Mattd]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

My wife used to work for a European company on the Pintong Industrial estate which comes under Sri Ratcha. Although she was finance manager rather than HR she handled all the affairs of the foreign nationals as they were all senior management. She always said that immigration was quite fair but stuck to the rules. I know in her day anyone that lost their job had to leave the country virtually straight away, they usually came back on a tourist visa to sort things out. She has been retired 5 years now so no recent experience from that perspective. In fact she retired some time before I ever did my first extension, I had done 6 years on a Non Imm O before I had any real dealings with immigration and life was certainly a lot easier. I was very tempted to go back to that this year but I am not so fit to travel as I was.

Small life, the company I worked for was also based in Pinthong and one of the few there that employed expats, so likely I know your wife from this, I was one of the founding members of the women that swam in the sea in Denmark!

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, Mattd said:

Small life, the company I worked for was also based in Pinthong and one of the few there that employed expats, so likely I know your wife from this, I was one of the founding members of the women that swam in the sea in Denmark!

Possibly. She worked for Mermaid which was controlled by Danes but they had operations in Vietnam, Hong Kong and Singapore so there were a variety of nationalities in senior management. I trust you find the water a lot warmer here.

[Mattd]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Possibly. She worked for Mermaid which was controlled by Danes but they had operations in Vietnam, Hong Kong and Singapore so there were a variety of nationalities in senior management. I trust you find the water a lot warmer here.

Then I would definitely know her, as I worked there from 2004 until 2016 as a vessel manager, then latterly as Fleet Director, please tell her Matt says Hi!