Airport JAIL!

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, yogavnture said:

did he contact us embassy ?  can they help

Read the OP and the thread.

[khunPer]

21 hours ago, Senechal said:

But they insist that the law states that he must return to the USA only on the airline he flew to Ukraine on (???) and this airline has a flight on Saturday.

Seems like he can fly out without any further problems on Saturday – just have to wait in airport detention, even it may not be that pleasant – no big deal, is it..?

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

The airline has to return him at their cost in these situations.

 

Yes, if the airline allowed the passenger on the plane with something erroneous in his passport or visa--less than six months on passenger's passport, for example. However, would the airline have knowledge that the passenger had overstayed the last time he was in that country?

[Kieran00001]

21 hours ago, mikebell said:

This story should be splashed all over the foreign press to warn other potential visitors how Thailand cherishes tourists.  

 

Cherishes tourists who other countries have refused entry due to breaking their laws?

[impulse]

Wonder what they'd do if he flew into Thailand on an airline that was barred from flying to the USA, even under code-share agreements.  Like many of the Asian, African and some of the Eastern European airlines that can't pass a US safety or security audit, but can fly into Thailand.

 

Lots about this story don't make sense...

 

Edit:  I'm not doubting the OP's story, just pondering what would happen to any one of us turned away after flying into Thailand from Malaysia (for example) on one of the smaller airlines.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by impulse

[Petchou]

Thousands are treated even worst than this by bullies with no manners at US Immigration and customs.

[BritTim]

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

Edit:  I'm not doubting the OP's story, just pondering what would happen to any one of us turned away after flying into Thailand from Malaysia (for example) on one of the smaller airlines.

In the first instance, you talk to the airline that is responsible for you to discuss what they can offer. They would try to arrange a flight to a country willing to take you. There are two issues. First, being confident the country would take you (assuming it is not the country of which you are a national). Second, the airline, if they know you were an inadmissible person in Malaysia and Thailand, might very well refuse to carry you. (There is no obligation, unlike with deportation, to tell them, but they may well figure it out.) Eventually, you might end up needing to fly to your home country on the national carrier. If the national carrier does not have flights out of Bangkok, it would be up to your embassy to negotiate with another airline to take you. If your country has no diplomatic representation in Thailand (or another country's representation have an agreement to act for nationals of your country) it might take quite a while to sort out.

[Russell17au]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Wonder what they'd do if he flew into Thailand on an airline that was barred from flying to the USA, even under code-share agreements.  Like many of the Asian, African and some of the Eastern European airlines that can't pass a US safety or security audit, but can fly into Thailand.

 

Lots about this story don't make sense...

 

Edit:  I'm not doubting the OP's story, just pondering what would happen to any one of us turned away after flying into Thailand from Malaysia (for example) on one of the smaller airlines.

 

Then that airline has to fly him back to where he boarded that plane, then it is up to him how he gets home from there

[Russell17au]

There are a lot of posts on here about "deportation". This man was not deported because he had not entered Ukraine he was denied entry to Ukraine which is something entirely different. It is entirely different laws.

This is how it works in every country in the world.

The airline is responsible for all passengers until they pass through immigration and enter the country, if a passenger is refused entry then that passenger is still the responsibility of the airline that the passenger flew on.

Reading this thread the OP has stated that his friend had returned to Ukraine on a Tourist Visa 2 weeks after he left Ukraine after being there for 91 days. Ukraine immigration law states that you can only spend 90 days in 180 days. The way it works is you go in for 90 days and then you cannot re-enter for another 90 days, so this chap has breached Ukraine immigration laws by trying to re-enter Ukraine within the 90 day exemption period, so he has been refused entry, which I would say that a refused entry stamp was placed in his passport as the same as every other country in the world does, and he has been handed back the the airline company to remove him from Ukraine. He has been given the choice of either returning to the country where he had departed from (Thailand) or going to his home country (USA) and he chose to return to Thailand. Ukraine immigration would advise Thai immigration that he is returning as a refused entry traveler. When he has arrived in Thailand, Thai immigration have decided that they will refuse him entry into the country and he is still under the responsibility of the airline because he has not entered Thailand. It is now the responsibility of the airline to remove him from Thailand. Thai immigration cannot allow him to proceed through the immigration point to enter Thailand to go and buy another ticket on a different airline because it means he legally has entered Thailand.

Ukraine and Thailand immigration have not done anything incorrect in this matter, so to those that say tell the world about how Ukraine and Thailand treat tourists I say that the only one that has done the wrong thing is the OP's friend.

[Russell17au]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Wonder what they'd do if he flew into Thailand on an airline that was barred from flying to the USA, even under code-share agreements.  Like many of the Asian, African and some of the Eastern European airlines that can't pass a US safety or security audit, but can fly into Thailand.

 

Lots about this story don't make sense...

 

Edit:  I'm not doubting the OP's story, just pondering what would happen to any one of us turned away after flying into Thailand from Malaysia (for example) on one of the smaller airlines.

 

He would be put back onto a plane from that airline and returned to Malaysia where he would be able to board an aircraft to his home country unless he is refused entry to Malaysia which would mean that he would be given the choice of returning to Thailand or being sent as a refused entry passenger to his home country.

[unblocktheplanet]

There also may be a lesson here as to choosing airlines with daily flights. In a cell or not, it's a drag to wait a week for the next flight!

[Mattd]

US citizen visiting Ukraine will get a visa free 90 day entry upon arrival, so the assumption here is that the OP's friend stayed for 91 days and we are all thinking that they refused him entry because of the 90 days in 180 days rule, however the OP does clearly state that his friend indeed had a Ukrainian visa for the visit and if this was the case, then the only visa that would have been issued for a US citizen is the long term visa, which allows him to stay over this 90 day rule, they do warn to ensure that the date on the visa is valid.

All very strange.

ENTRY / EXIT REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. CITIZENS

You need a valid passport to enter Ukraine. If you are a U.S. citizen, you do not need to have a Ukrainian visa as long as you will be in Ukraine for fewer than 90 days within a 180-day period. You need a visa or valid Ukrainian residency permit for all stays longer than 90 days. You cannot get a Ukrainian visa at the airport or at the border. If you need a visa, please get it in advance at a Ukrainian Embassy or Consulate.

Check your visa carefully so that you know the validity period. You are responsible for knowing the rules for the type of visa you have. Sometimes U.S. citizens try to come to Ukraine before their visa allows. Remember, in Ukraine the date is written day-month-year. If you come to Ukraine before your visa allows, you can be stopped at the border, not allowed to enter Ukraine, and required to return to your point of origin at your own expense.

 

[agudbuk]

What would be the situation if the airline he flew with to the Ukraine did not have flights from Thailand to the USA?

[Russell17au]

3 minutes ago, agudbuk said:

What would be the situation if the airline he flew with to the Ukraine did not have flights from Thailand to the USA?

It appears that Ukraine Airlines do not fly from Bangkok to USA so he must go back to Ukraine and stay in transit and fly from there to USA

[lkv]

6 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

It appears that Ukraine Airlines do not fly from Bangkok to USA so he must go back to Ukraine and stay in transit and fly from there to USA

And using the same logic, why can't he stay here in transit and catch a flight from BKK to the US? Because Ukraine does not have the same stupid rule of flying with the same airline if you get rejected?

 

There's something I'm not getting here.

Edited February 2, 2018 by lkv

[yogavnture]

this is too confusing to follow. how does your friend like the airport jail////  the thais might start charging him to stay thier

[Russell17au]

3 minutes ago, lkv said:

And using the same logic, why can't he stay here in transit and catch a flight from BKK to the US? Because Ukraine does not have the same stupid rule of flying with the same airline if you get rejected?

 

There's something I'm not getting here.

Because there is no direct flight from Bangkok to America by Ukraine Airlines and Ukraine Airlines is responsible for bringing him here to Thailand. He not permitted to go through Thai immigration to another airlines customer service and purchase a ticket from them and fly direct to America.

It is worldwide that the airline that takes you to any country is responsible for you until you have passed through the countries immigration

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

What if Ukraine rejects him again and thus becomes a human ping pong ball ?

Sent from my 602ZT using Tapatalk

[Russell17au]

3 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

What if Ukraine rejects him again and thus becomes a human ping pong ball ?

Sent from my 602ZT using Tapatalk
 

Ukraine Airlines fly from Ukraine to America but they do not fly from Thailand to America

[007 RED]

22 minutes ago, yogavnture said:

this is too confusing to follow. how does your friend like the airport jail////  the thais might start charging him to stay their

They do... 600 Baht per day

[sanemax]

O.P.

Your friend overstayed his visa in the Ukraine , he then tried to go back to the Ukraine , even though he had already used up his 90 day out of 180 days time spent there , he still decided to go back .He then decided to fly to Thailand without taking into consideration that he may not be allowed to enter Thailand .

   I know that hes your friend , but as hes acted to stupidly, you should just let him sort his own problems out and maybe in the future , he will think before he acts

[007 RED]

The reason as to why he apparently being returned by the Ukrainian airline is covered in the first part of Section 55 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522.

 

“Aliens being deported under this Act shall be sent back by any conveyance or route as the competent official may consider appropriate.  The expense of deportation shall be charged to the owner or person in charge of the conveyance which brought the alien into the Kingdom.

 

If there appears to be no owner or person in charge of the conveyance, the alien committing the act against the provisions of Section 63 or 64 will have to pay the expense of deportation. The competent official shall have power to ask for deportation expenses from one of the aliens committing the offense or from all of them.

 

However, if the alien concerned wishes to go by and other conveyance or by another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so”.

 

What is interesting is the last part of this Section of the Act in so far that if the alien concerned wishes to go by other conveyance or another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so.

 

So why hasn’t the OP’s friend been given that option when the OP’s friend has stated the he is willing to pay for his flight back to the USA?

[watcharacters]

 

 

 

 

And NOW the rest of the story,     PLEASE??

 

 

 

[Russell17au]

5 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

The reason as to why he apparently being returned by the Ukrainian airline is covered in the first part of Section 55 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522.

 

“Aliens being deported under this Act shall be sent back by any conveyance or route as the competent official may consider appropriate.  The expense of deportation shall be charged to the owner or person in charge of the conveyance which brought the alien into the Kingdom.

 

If there appears to be no owner or person in charge of the conveyance, the alien committing the act against the provisions of Section 63 or 64 will have to pay the expense of deportation. The competent official shall have power to ask for deportation expenses from one of the aliens committing the offense or from all of them.

 

However, if the alien concerned wishes to go by and other conveyance or by another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so”.

 

What is interesting is the last part of this Section of the Act in so far that if the alien concerned wishes to go by other conveyance or another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so.

 

So why hasn’t the OP’s friend been given that option when the OP’s friend has stated the he is willing to pay for his flight back to the USA?

Simply because he is NOT being deported he is being refused to enter which are 2 different things. To be deported you must first be allowed to enter the country for which he has not been allowed.

The big words that are different are "deported" and "refused entry"

[watcharacters]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Cherishes tourists who other countries have refused entry due to breaking their laws?

 

 

 

Chinese, due to certain considerations,  are to be excluded from that admonition.

 

 

 

 

[007 RED]

3 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Simply because he is NOT being deported he is being refused to enter which are 2 different things. To be deported you must first be allowed to enter the country for which he has not been allowed.

The big words that are different are "deported" and "refused entry"

Section 55 of the Immigration Act applies to anyone who has been 'refused entry' under Section 12 of the Act. 

 

FYI -  Although the Immigration Act (which was approved in 1979) uses the word deportation, that is word has been replaced by removal.  The UN decided several years ago that the term deportation had connotation with criminal activities, which did not apply to an individual who may just have been refused entry.

[BritTim]

32 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

The reason as to why he apparently being returned by the Ukrainian airline is covered in the first part of Section 55 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522.

 

“Aliens being deported under this Act shall be sent back by any conveyance or route as the competent official may consider appropriate.  The expense of deportation shall be charged to the owner or person in charge of the conveyance which brought the alien into the Kingdom.

 

If there appears to be no owner or person in charge of the conveyance, the alien committing the act against the provisions of Section 63 or 64 will have to pay the expense of deportation. The competent official shall have power to ask for deportation expenses from one of the aliens committing the offense or from all of them.

 

However, if the alien concerned wishes to go by and other conveyance or by another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so”.

 

What is interesting is the last part of this Section of the Act in so far that if the alien concerned wishes to go by other conveyance or another route, at his own expense, the competent official may permit him to do so.

 

So why hasn’t the OP’s friend been given that option when the OP’s friend has stated the he is willing to pay for his flight back to the USA?

I am not sure if this is a misleading translation, or if the situation with arrival by air has changed drastically since 1979 (or, perhaps, a mix of both). Today, there is a huge difference between denied entry (inadmissible person) and deportation (deportee) and both are covered by extensive international agreements.

 

Today, in the case of denied entry, the airline is automatically responsible, and immigration has very little further say in the matter. If the airline cannot discharge its responsibility of removing the person from Thailand within a reasonable period of time, immigration can become involved again (with unpleasant repercussions for the airline). The airline can negotiate with the traveler on appropriate solutions subject to what other countries (and potentially other airlines) are willing to accept. The default is to return the traveler to his last embarkation point, or if that country will no longer accept him, to his home country.

 

The situation today with deportees is totally different. Once a traveler has been admitted into Thailand, the airline that conveyed him to Thailand has no further responsibility. In addition, countries which the deportee wants to be sent to, and airlines he plans to use, must be formally notified in advance of his deportee status. With the exception of a country of which he is a national, and that country's national carrier, the third country and airline can refuse to accept him, and will automatically do so without special negotiation.

 

The above is a bit of a simplification, but sufficient for the discussion in this thread.

[Russell17au]

43 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Section 55 of the Immigration Act applies to anyone who has been 'refused entry' under Section 12 of the Act. 

 

FYI -  Although the Immigration Act (which was approved in 1979) uses the word deportation, that is word has been replaced by removal.  The UN decided several years ago that the term deportation had connotation with criminal activities, which did not apply to an individual who may just have been refused entry.

Then before you submit the post check it and edit it so that it is correct because to leave it with the word "deportation" you are sending the wrong information

[007 RED]

2 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Then before you submit the post check it and edit it so that it is correct because to leave it with the word "deportation" you are sending the wrong information

It is not for me, or you for that matter, to correct the wording of the Immigration Act.  I only quoted what is there and put the update at the end of the post.

[Russell17au]

16 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

It is not for me, or you for that matter, to correct the wording of the Immigration Act.  I only quoted what is there and put the update at the end of the post.

then I suggest that you do not post anything that is incorrect