Retirement Extension, Return on Multi-entry Permit

[Banana7]

When returning to Thailand, from a neighbouring country after being out for about 2 weeks, using a multiple re-entry permit based on extension of stay for retirement, which is valid until 2019, does one have to have 20,000 baht or equivalent in hand? Are there any other requirements to return, other than a valid re-entry permit?

[elviajero]

Under the rules, yes. However, it is highly unlikely that you’d be asked to show 20K unless they were looking for a reason to deny you entry. There is no reason why they’d be looking to deny you entry.

[Tanoshi]

Which rules - source please.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Which rules - source please.

All visa holders are required to have 20K. Having an extension of stay doesn’t exempt anyone from that rule.

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

All visa holders are required to have 20K. Having an extension of stay doesn’t exempt anyone from that rule.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the quality and informative posts you provide, on this occasion I must partly disagree.

The requirements for all Visa holders is indeed to carry 20K as per the conditions on the MFA website.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15398-Issuance-of-Visa.html

There is no such conditions posted on their site for 'extensions'.

 

Extensions based on marriage or retirement are not Visas, but Permits as we frequently advise.

Applications for such require proof of sufficient funds to be submitted to internal Immigration offices for approval.

Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance.

[Banana7]

50 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the quality and informative posts you provide, on this occasion I must partly disagree.

The requirements for all Visa holders is indeed to carry 20K as per the conditions on the MFA website.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15398-Issuance-of-Visa.html

There is no such conditions posted on their site for 'extensions'.

 

Extensions based on marriage or retirement are not Visas, but Permits as we frequently advise.

Applications for such require proof of sufficient funds to be submitted to internal Immigration offices for approval.

Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance.

Tanoshi, that is an excellent question. Proof of adequate finances has already been provided to  satisfy  the requirements in the Immigration Act, in order to obtain a 1 year extension. So that implies, there should be no further requirement to carry 20k on returning to Thailand up to the end of the extension of period.

 

I'm basically going on a vacation to another country and I normally carry  enough cash for the required vacation only, plus a little contingency. I really don't want to carry an extra USD$700/20K baht throughout the vacation, just to get back into Thailand.  But I'd hate to be denied entry, because I didn't comply with Thai law. This is Thailand, and I don't always understand Thai reasons, logic or law. I need to hear from the experts on immigration law.

 

[JackThompson]

23 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

I really don't want to carry an extra USD$700/20K baht throughout the vacation, just to get back into Thailand.  But I'd hate to be denied entry, because I didn't comply with Thai law.

If that happened, yours would be the first case I have heard of at an airport in the context of someone on an extension.   Repeat tourist-visa holders and visa-exempt entries are where this has been known to come up at airports.

 

There was one case on a known troublesome land-border point from Malaysia (Sadao), but the person protested, and the request was waived.  In that case they just had a bribery-scheme shut down, and were taking out their anger on travelers. 

 

I'm not saying it couldn't happen to you flying in, but it would be extremely rare / unlikely.  Maybe if extremely drunk, rude, or similar.

Edited January 12, 2018 by JackThompson

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the quality and informative posts you provide, on this occasion I must partly disagree.

The requirements for all Visa holders is indeed to carry 20K as per the conditions on the MFA website.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15398-Issuance-of-Visa.html

There is no such conditions posted on their site for 'extensions'.

 

Extensions based on marriage or retirement are not Visas, but Permits as we frequently advise.

Applications for such require proof of sufficient funds to be submitted to internal Immigration offices for approval.

Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance.

Your post is entirely logical, and I would definitely support that interpretation. I just have a sneaking concern that Thai immigration rules are not always entirely logical. In effect, re-entry permits replace visas as a means of entering the country. I could imagine a moronic immigration official deciding that made the re-entry permit a kind of visa subject to the 20K rule.

[elviajero]

17 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Whilst I have the greatest respect for the quality and informative posts you provide, on this occasion I must partly disagree.

The requirements for all Visa holders is indeed to carry 20K as per the conditions on the MFA website.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15398-Issuance-of-Visa.html

There is no such conditions posted on their site for 'extensions'.

 

Extensions based on marriage or retirement are not Visas, but Permits as we frequently advise.

Applications for such require proof of sufficient funds to be submitted to internal Immigration offices for approval.

Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance.

Back in 2010 immigration confirmed that all visitors, regardless of visa type, should carry sufficient funds when entering the country.

 

1. Transit Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 10,000 per passenger or THB 20,000 per family.

2. Tourist Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 20,000 per passenger or THB 40,000 per family.

3. Visa on Arrival: Must hold minimum THB 10,000 per passenger or THB 20,000 per family.

4. Non Immigrant Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 20,000 per passenger or THB 40,000 per family.

 

So the debate comes down to whether or not someone re-entering the country with a 1 year permit to stay (extension) is considered a non-immigrant visa holder. I would argue that they are and always will be until any permits to stay from the visa end, and the visa expires.

 

An extension of stay is not a visa type, which is why it's not listed. When you are granted permission to stay you receive confirmation in the form of a 'permit' stamped in your passport. The visa associated with that permit to stay is a non-immigrant visa.

 

"Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance."

The financial requirements to meet an extension of stay are not the same as the entry requirements, ordered by the minister, under section 12.9 of the immigration act. The minister issued rules which say that a "non-immigrant visa holder" must hold a minimum of 20K when entering the country.

 

I agree that someone with an extension of stay shouldn't need to show 20K, and I only ever recall one report of someone being asked (no doubt there have been more), but as there is no exemption for a non-immigrant visa holder that has extended their stay I will continue to advise of the unlikely possibility.  

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by elviajero

[bkkguy1970]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

So the debate comes down to whether or not someone re-entering the country with a 1 year permit to stay (extension) is considered a non-immigrant visa holder. I would argue that they are and always will be until any permits to stay from the visa end, and the visa expires.

 

My actual Non-O visa expired 10 years ago, since then I have had retirement extensions and Re-Entry permits

 

when re-entering the country on a Re-Entry permit you have to enter the Re_Entry permit number (not your old visa number) in the visa box on the Arrival Card, so are there any extra rules for re-entry permits - which are not visas either

 

though supporting your line of reasoning when applying for the extension you usually have to show your original visa as well as last extension and entry stamp...

 

bkkguy

 

[Tanoshi]

35 minutes ago, bkkguy1970 said:

when re-entering the country on a Re-Entry permit you have to enter the Re_Entry permit number (not your old visa number) in the visa box on the Arrival Card, so are there any extra rules for re-entry permits - which are not visas either

The only rule regarding a re-entry permit is contained within the Immigration Act.

Section 39 : After having received permission for temporary entry into the Kingdom , if the alien leaves
the Kingdom it is considered that his temporary entry permit has expired. But , if prior to leaving the alien
is granted permission to return by the competent official , and the alien returning is not excluded from
entry under Section 12.and the period of time previously authorized has not expired , the alien shall be
authorized to stay in the Kingdom for the rest of the authorized time.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

So the debate comes down to whether or not someone re-entering the country with a 1 year permit to stay (extension) is considered a non-immigrant visa holder. I would argue that they are and always will be until any permits to stay from the visa end, and the visa expires.

Taking that argument at face value, then many members of this forum are wrong when informing members 'you don't have a visa', when they actually have an extension of permission to stay.

Your logic would then suggest we actually extended the Visa, so technically I am still the holder of a Non Imm O Visa even though the validity of that Visa expired a long time ago.

 

I totally agree that those entering on a Visa, are subject to the financial requirements as stated on the MFA website, but until such time you can provide a rule or link where proof of income is required when entering on a re-entry permit, to an extension of stay, where a financial condition has already been met in order to receive such, forgive me for being sceptical of your opinion.

[elviajero]

52 minutes ago, bkkguy1970 said:

though supporting your line of reasoning when applying for the extension you usually have to show your original visa as well as last extension and entry stamp...

That's the point I'm making. In order to extend your permission to stay you have to be a non-immigrant visa holder. Whether or not the original visa has expired is irrelevant. It is why immigration will always note the details of the original visa when you get a new passport.

 

57 minutes ago, bkkguy1970 said:

when re-entering the country on a Re-Entry permit you have to enter the Re_Entry permit number (not your old visa number) in the visa box on the Arrival Card, so are there any extra rules for re-entry permits - which are not visas either

Notice the your re-entry permit will have "Non Immigrant" stamped on it. And when you enter the IO will usually write "Non RE" next to the entry stamp. Meaning non-immigrant re-entry.

[elviajero]

52 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

The only rule regarding a re-entry permit is contained within the Immigration Act.

Section 39 : After having received permission for temporary entry into the Kingdom , if the alien leaves
the Kingdom it is considered that his temporary entry permit has expired. But , if prior to leaving the alien
is granted permission to return by the competent official , and the alien returning is not excluded from
entry under Section 12.and the period of time previously authorized has not expired , the alien shall be
authorized to stay in the Kingdom for the rest of the authorized time.

As highlighted in red, when using a re-entry permit you are not excluded from section 12, which includes the need to meet the finanical requirements under 12.9.

Edited January 13, 2018 by elviajero

[sfokevin]

I doubt you would be asked for fund when entering with a re-entry permit... That being said... if you need to show funds there are ATMs before Immigration... you can always withdrawal  funds from a Thai or Foreign bank in a pinch...

 

Btw... What ever you do don’t forget to put the reentry permit number on the arrival card where it asks for the visa number - and as soon as you get past immigration check the date stamp you have been given allows you to stay matches your retirement extension date and they did not accidentally give you a 30 day visa on arrival... ;-)

Edited January 13, 2018 by sfokevin

[Tanoshi]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

As highlighted in red, when using a re-entry permit you are not excluded from section 12, which includes the need to meet the finical requirements under 12.9.

The reason for refusal if not having 20K would be under;

12.2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

 

The holder of an annual extension would have already provided sufficient financial proof to internal Immigration, to meet section 12.2 and 12.9 of the Immigration Act. Why would proof be requested again by an ECO.

[tgeezer]

Back in 2010 immigration confirmed that all visitors, regardless of visa type, should carry sufficient funds when entering the country.
 

1. Transit Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 10,000 per passenger or THB 20,000 per family.

2. Tourist Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 20,000 per passenger or THB 40,000 per family.

3. Visa on Arrival: Must hold minimum THB 10,000 per passenger or THB 20,000 per family.

4. Non Immigrant Visa holder: Must hold minimum THB 20,000 per passenger or THB 40,000 per family.

 
So the debate comes down to whether or not someone re-entering the country with a 1 year permit to stay (extension) is considered a non-immigrant visa holder. I would argue that they are and always will be until any permits to stay from the visa end, and the visa expires.
 
An extension of stay is not a visa type, which is why it's not listed. When you are granted permission to stay you receive confirmation in the form of a 'permit' stamped in your passport. The visa associated with that permit to stay is a non-immigrant visa.
 
"Why would 20K be requested when the proof of funds has already been submitted in advance."
The financial requirements to meet an extension of stay are not the same as the entry requirements, ordered by the minister, under section 12.9 of the immigration act. The minister issued rules which say that a "non-immigrant visa holder" must hold a minimum of 20K when entering the country.
 
I agree that someone with an extension of stay shouldn't need to show 20K, and I only ever recall one report of someone being asked (no doubt there have been more), but as there is no exemption for a non-immigrant visa holder that has extended their stay I will continue to advise of the unlikely possibility.  
 

I am trying to find the Government Gazette announcement where it lays down a sum of money to be carried, you say 2010 (2553) I can find only three and they are all adding to the list of countries nationals of which can get a visa at port of entry. Usbekistan Malta Ethiopia to name but a few but I can’t see any money mentioned. Do you have link? It is more likely to be the Director General (Atibadi) rather than the Minister of Interia. Police Orders, can we get access to them?
By the way, Immigration, for those interested, Comes under The Interior Ministry. (Mhadtai) .


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

The reason for refusal if not having 20K would be under;

12.2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.

No it's not. 12.2 is often used by IO's when denying entry, but 12.9 is the category that applies to showing cash at the border.

 

12.9 Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him

 

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

The holder of an annual extension would have already provided sufficient financial proof to internal Immigration, to meet section 12.2 and 12.9 of the Immigration Act. Why would proof be requested again by an ECO.

Again, you are conflating the requirements for getting an extension of stay with the requirements for entering the country. As I've already pointed out, when entering with a re-entry permit you are not excluded from complying with section 12.

Edited January 13, 2018 by elviajero

[elviajero]

44 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

I am trying to find the Government Gazette announcement where it lays down a sum of money to be carried, you say 2010 (2553) I can find only three and they are all adding to the list of countries nationals of which can get a visa at port of entry. Usbekistan Malta Ethiopia to name but a few but I can’t see any money mentioned. Do you have link?

Sorry, I no longer have a link. I'm going by memory in saying it was 2010, but I'm pretty sure that was the year. The amounts quoted in my earlier post are correct.

Edited January 13, 2018 by elviajero

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I totally agree that those entering on a Visa, are subject to the financial requirements as stated on the MFA website,

The MAF website is detailing the financial requirements for getting a visa, not for entering the country. It appears that the Ministry of the Interior/Immigration decided to set the amounts required to meet 12.9 to be the same.

 

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

but until such time you can provide a rule or link where proof of income is required when entering on a re-entry permit, to an extension of stay, where a financial condition has already been met in order to receive such, forgive me for being sceptical of your opinion.

Proof of income is not required. You are required to hold a sum of money determined by ministerial regulation and the type of visa you hold, which has nothing to do with the financial requirements for an extension of stay.

 

The only way you can argue that someone is exempt from holding 20K when entering with a re-entry permit is to prove they are not a non-immigrant visa holder. That will be tough considering they need a non-immigrant visa to gain the permit of stay that the re-entry permit is protecting.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The only way you can argue that someone is exempt from holding 20K when entering with a re-entry permit is to prove they are not a non-immigrant visa holder.

Well they wrote 'used' on mine a long time ago.

They allow entry on production of a re-entry permit to my extension of permission to stay, not on production of my old Non Imm Visa.

 

Without any proof to support your statement, it remains only your opinion.

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Well they wrote 'used' on mine a long time ago.

They allow entry on production of a re-entry permit to my extension of permission to stay, not on production of my old Non Imm Visa.

 

Without any proof to support your statement, it remains only your opinion.

It is 'used' for it's original purpose of entering the country, but it is not used for the purpose of your continuing permission to stay.

 

A non-immigrant re-entry permit.

 

Fair enough.

[BritTim]

52 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It is 'used' for it's original purpose of entering the country, but it is not used for the purpose of your continuing permission to stay.

 

A non-immigrant re-entry permit.

This kind of issue is one where intelligent individuals in possession of the same facts can easily see things differently. The question, I think, is whether you must show money only to get the initial permission to stay, or whether the money must be shown in order to pass through immigration.

 

To me, the logic of the situation is that you already have been given permission to stay, and the re-entry permit protects you from the need to meet the original requirements for entry to Thailand again. Consider the following example. Say you enter originally on a tourist visa (having the required 20k at the time). You subsequently leave with a re-entry permit and return two days before your flight home. Should you still have to shoe 20k to cover the two day stay because your original permission to stay was with a tourist visa?

 

In the end, though, what matters is what immigration at the border decide and, absent a clear directive in the Ministerial Regulations, that may depend on the senior immigration official's perspective at the time.

[tgeezer]

When returning to Thailand, from a neighbouring country after being out for about 2 weeks, using a multiple re-entry permit based on extension of stay for retirement, which is valid until 2019, does one have to have 20,000 baht or equivalent in hand? Are there any other requirements to return, other than a valid re-entry permit?

Definitely not. You live in Thailand you will never be asked to have such a large sum of money on your person. The neighbouring country would have been justified in asking to see some money if you were not permitted to work there.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ubonjoe]

10 hours ago, elviajero said:

Sorry, I no longer have a link. I'm going by memory in saying it was 2010, but I'm pretty sure that was the year. The amounts quoted in my earlier post are correct.

It was long before 2010 when the set the financial requirements for entry. I might be as far back as  the 1990's since the same requirements were in effect back then.

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

It was long before 2010 when the set the financial requirements for entry. I might be as far back as  the 1990's since the same requirements were in effect back then.

Sure, but around 2010 they publicly announced (confirmed) the financial requirements for entry, presumably because they intended to start enforcing them.

[elviajero]

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

This kind of issue is one where intelligent individuals in possession of the same facts can easily see things differently. The question, I think, is whether you must show money only to get the initial permission to stay, or whether the money must be shown in order to pass through immigration.

Every time someone enters the country they are subject to section 12 of the immigration act. People entering with re-entry permits are not exempt from section 12. That is made clear in section 39 of the act.

 

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

To me, the logic of the situation is that you already have been given permission to stay, and the re-entry permit protects you from the need to meet the original requirements for entry to Thailand again.

And yet everyone is subject to section 12 every time they enter, which would suggest your logic is flawed.

 

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

Consider the following example. Say you enter originally on a tourist visa (having the required 20k at the time). You subsequently leave with a re-entry permit and return two days before your flight home. Should you still have to shoe 20k to cover the two day stay because your original permission to stay was with a tourist visa?

• I don't think they should have to show 20K again, but that's irrelevant.
• I don't see why an IO would be less suspicious of a 'tourist' re-entering with a re-entry permit or entering for the first time, which seems to be the main motivation for asking to see 20K.
• They would be a tourist visa holder and as such, under section 12 of the immigration act, should hold 20K when entering the country.
• Even though they are using a re-entry permit they are still a tourist visa holder. The re-entry permit maintains a permit to stay, it doesn't replace a visa or visa status.

As I said at the beginning, the chances of an expat entering with a re-entry permit being asked to show 20K are highly unlikely. In the same way that they are unlikely to be asked the first time they enter. A tourist using a re-entry permit would, IMO, be more likely to get asked.

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by elviajero

[tgeezer]

If you can’t see why a person with no funds in the country and no funds on his person would be given different consideration than someone with funds in the country then there is no hope for you.
Also
Chapter 2 Entering and Departing the Kingdom Section 12 refers to people who will be excluded from entering the Kingdom. That is a first time instance of entering. The only reason it concerns us is because so many people are using visit visas (first instance of entering) and border runs to live in the Kingdom and certain Immigration officers take exception to this and treat them under the terms of the visas they hold.



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[elviajero]

57 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

Chapter 2 Entering and Departing the Kingdom Section 12 refers to people who will be excluded from entering the Kingdom. That is a first time instance of entering.

Everyone is subject to section 12 every time they enter the country. If an IO were to believe someone entering with a re-entry permit was illegally working they would deny entry under section 12.

 

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

If you can’t see why a person with no funds in the country and no funds on his person would be given different consideration than someone with funds in the country then there is no hope for you.

The financial requirements for an extension of stay have absolutely no connection to the entry requirements under section 12.

[tgeezer]

The financial requirements for an extension of stay have absolutely no connection to the entry requirements under section 12.

People can take their pick, they can believe you or me or read it themselves and make up their own minds.

There is a huge difference between having money on your person and having a ‘bond’. The visa and re-entry permit are annotated by type so if you have a non-Imm permit you proved that you had the financial property making cash on your person unnecessary. If you read the relevant part you will see that it says ‘money or bond’

Not all aliens are here on equal terms by any means.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app