Retirement Extension, Return on Multi-entry Permit

[elviajero]

12 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

If you read the relevant part you will see that it says ‘money or bond’

If you read the relevant part in full you will see it says ‘money or bond’ as prescribed by the Minister. The minister has prescribed it to be 20K in cash/travellers cheques. No mention of a bond as an alternative to the 20K. And the finances proven to get an extension of stay are not a ‘bond’.

 

The IO’s clearly have discretionary power to decide who they insist shows 20K, and it’s reasonable to expect that IO’s wouldn’t bother asking an expat, on an extension that’s entering with a re-entry permit. But the fact remains that the finances shown to get an extension do not meet the requirements for entry under section 12, so if they wanted to an IO could insist on the non-immigrant visa holder showing 20K.

 

Anyone entering with a re-entry permit can be denied entry for any reason under section 12. Fact.

[tgeezer]

Actually 2-12-9 says not having money or bond as stipulated by the minister in 2-14 which says that the minister has the power to stipulate cash or bond or cancellation of any conditions and whatever he stipulates will be published on the Government Gazette. It is a pain trying to find that so you say that it is unlikely and I say that it won’t happen.
It would be nice to see it on writing I suppose that I have to troll through years worth of material if I want to find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JackThompson]

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Anyone entering with a re-entry permit can be denied entry for any reason under section 12. Fact.

And they have done exactly this.  I am guessing you remember the case a few years back - a French guy on an ED Extension with re-entry permit, who was coming back from Hong Kong, denied entry, and sent to France.  They wouldn't even let him go back to Hong Kong. 

 

That was during the beginning of the "ED-Visa Crackdown" - used as leverage to set up the brown-envelope money-laundry from school-officials in exchange for hassle-free ED-extensions.

 

But the thing is, considering reports I've read, the connection to "the law" and their behavior is somewhat tangential.   They could always deny anyone, with or without a "really valid" reason, and shoe-horn something into some immigration-law clause.

 

The only somewhat-reliable info we have to go by,  are "reports" of their recent behavior.  In this case, so far, no denials based on the 20K rule for those on Extensions of Stay for Retirement or Marriage, or those using Non-Os for either case.  This could, of course, change with no notice.

[tgeezer]

Jack Thompson , Is an Ed visa the equal of a non-Imm visa? By that I mean does the applicant get it by proving financial status?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

Jack Thompson , Is an Ed visa the equal of a non-Imm visa? By that I mean does the applicant get it by proving financial status?

It is a "Non-Imm" type, but the only "financials" are paying for the school-tuition, to get the paperwork for the visa and extensions. 

 

Expect to be treated as bad or worse than a Tourist Visa holder by Airport immigration.  The case I cited above, he did not have the 20K Baht, returning on a re-entry permit, and this was used as the excuse to deny-entry.

 

No problem coming back with a new ED Visa, from Vientiane into Nong Khai by land - but I wouldn't try to go somewhere and fly back in with it.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

Is an Ed visa the equal of a non-Imm visa? By that I mean does the applicant get it by proving financial status?

The Non Ed visa is a non immigrant visa. However, there is no need to show finances to get it (or the related extensions). Of course, for many years, you have needed paperwork from a school which in most cases implies to have had the money to pay them.

 

I think the reason people sometimes get into trouble with Non Ed visas is they are suspected of working illegally using them. Immigration officials tend to become suspicious when you periodically take a week or two off, supposedly in the middle of a course, and cannot speak any Thai after 9 months study. At the time of the original crackdown, people were getting 12 month extensions without ever attending class.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Actually 2-12-9 says not having money or bond as stipulated by the minister in 2-14 which says that the minister has the power to stipulate cash or bond or cancellation of any conditions and whatever he stipulates will be published on the Government Gazette. It is a pain trying to find that so you say that it is unlikely and I say that it won’t happen.
It would be nice to see it on writing I suppose that I have to troll through years worth of material if I want to find out.

There you have it. The Minister has the option to issue an exemption, so unless someone can show that any group/s with a 1 year permit to stay have been given exemption they are subject to section 12 for every entry just like everyone else.

 

When the announcement was made in 2010 it was widely reported and no report I've seen mentions any exemptions. Here is a post on TVF about the announcement. 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by elviajero

[tgeezer]

Well the Act says money on person or ‘guarentee of property’ (bond is the word chosen in your translation) . Property could mean a credit card or in those days travellers cheques, it is basically something which guarentees that you can support life and the fact of having the non-imm visa proves that.
I am interested in breakdown in communication which I think is one of the prime causes of problems which we have with Immigration. If the act says that the equivalent of money is qualifying can the minister change that? 20.000 baht is a lot of money to be carrying around and I think probably considered unreasonable at the time.
Thank you for posting the link but unfortunately it doesn’t work on my iPad, they never do.



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[sfokevin]

Curious?... Would showing them 20,00 via ones Bangkok Bank iPhone app be sufficient?

[ubonjoe]

19 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Curious?... Would showing them 20,00 via ones Bangkok Bank iPhone app be sufficient?

If asked for it on arrival they want to see it as cash.

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, tgeezer said:

I am interested in breakdown in communication which I think is one of the prime causes of problems which we have with Immigration.

In my experience, the problem is not communication, but our failure to accept many of them are part of a system which involves lining their pockets with brown-envelope money.  Thai people know this is how "government" works - just ask one. 

 

Those on longer-stay extensions are not currently not being given hassles on entry, and a percentage of the "non-hassle" entries just happen to be obtained via agents via a profit-sharing scheme with Immigration officials.  In some cases, you can only get these via an agent, to spite having the qualifying docs. 

 

Those with Tourist Visas and Exempt entries are hassled if the person is staying here considerable time. From the IOs perspective, TR/exempt repeat-users are staying long-term without joining an extension / "bonus money" pool - a return on their cash-investment to buy their job. 

 

Once you realize the type of people/system you are dealing with, it all makes sense - the "logic" works.  I think the reason for the confusion with Western foreigners, is that in our countries, these type of (adjective-here)-people are found at much higher levels of government, only - and the schemes are more convoluted/hidden.  We don't expect "clerk" level positions to part of such schemes.  But here, they are involved - or at the very least, "used" to maintain the viability of the schemes. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by JackThompson

[Mattd]

On 1/13/2018 at 7:43 PM, Tanoshi said:

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.

Actually, IMO, you are technically extending your permission to stay based on that original visa.

If this is not the case, then why do they refer to that original visa and entry on that visa each and every time that you renew your passport, I have been extending the same non b visa entry for over 14 years and that info has been transferred to 3 different passports during that time, it would make no sense to transfer that info if it was not connected. 

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, Mattd said:

Actually, IMO, you are technically extending your permission to stay based on that original visa.

If this is not the case, then why do they refer to that original visa and entry on that visa each and every time that you renew your passport, I have been extending the same non b visa entry for over 14 years and that info has been transferred to 3 different passports during that time, it would make no sense to transfer that info if it was not connected. 

Absolutely right.

[Tanoshi]

7 hours ago, Mattd said:

Actually, IMO, you are technically extending your permission to stay based on that original visa.

If this is not the case, then why do they refer to that original visa and entry on that visa each and every time that you renew your passport, I have been extending the same non b visa entry for over 14 years and that info has been transferred to 3 different passports during that time, it would make no sense to transfer that info if it was not connected. 

No argument with that.

 

So if you exited and re-entered the Country whilst on your extended permission to stay, using a re-entry permit, just where do the financial conditions of entering on a Visa come to force.

[Tanoshi]

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

There you have it. The Minister has the option to issue an exemption, so unless someone can show that any group/s with a 1 year permit to stay have been given exemption they are subject to section 12 for every entry just like everyone else.

 

When the announcement was made in 2010 it was widely reported and no report I've seen mentions any exemptions. Here is a post on TVF about the announcement. 

 

 

No different than the link I posted to the MFA site.

 

How can the Minister issue an exemption to a condition that doesn't exist.

Financial conditions for entry on Visa exempt and Visas are clearly noted.

You still haven't provided any conclusive evidence to support your opinion, re entry on annual extensions based on marriage or retirement, just changed the goalposts to say entry can be denied under section 12.9 of the Immigration Act.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mattd]

14 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

So if you exited and re-entered the Country whilst on your extended permission to stay, using a re-entry permit, just where do the financial conditions of entering on a Visa come to force.

It would stand to reason that an IO could ask for proof of funds upon entry in to the country, as the entry is still (in the examples cited) an non immigrant entry, they would be entitled to do this under the immigration act, using the same logic, it would also stand to reason that if this was to be asked, then the person entering could politely state that they have had to prove funds to enable the extension to be approved.

It is all a bit debatable regarding regulations, however, it has to be remembered that proof of funds doesn't necessarily mean that a person has liquidity, for both retirement and marriage this proof could be in the form of monthly income and is often abused, as is the funds in a bank, this we all know happens, I'm sure that immigration do also.

You could use the same argument for an O-A visa for example, to get this will have involved showing funds available to you, in reality, immigration are entitled to ask whatever questions they feel fit to ask, to determine the eligibility of an entrant. I suspect this happens only when they have any doubts, or perhaps somebody is rude to them etc.

In my case, in the 29 years that I have lived in Thailand, with at least 6 entries per year, I've never been asked one question by an IO whilst entering or departing.

[tgeezer]

We are now off the topic which is retirees re-entry. As interesting as it is to discuss supposed rules, without anecdotal evidence I say that the answer to the question is no.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect