Airport JAIL!

[007 RED]

27 minutes ago, BritTim said:

 

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).

Tim... I'm not sure that this is quite correct. I think you will find that under ICAO rules the airline is only responsible to repatriation and costs if they have not exercised due diligence. 

 

For example:   The airline allowed the PAX to board and fly with an invalid passport or against a do not board message from the APIS.  It is very unlikely that they would accept the cost of repatriation if the refused entry was based on the PAX not having the required 20K BHT in his/her pocket.

 

As it basically says in the Immigration Act, the PAX may be returned by any conveyance and route that the competent official may decide.

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

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

They didn't post anything that is incorrect. They quoted the immigration act currently being used by Thailand.

 

Deportation is the act of removing someone from a country. It doesn't matter what the deportees immigration status is. How the deportation is documented is a different matter. 

[tolsti]

Back and forth with Ukraine International Airlines..... I hope that he registered for his airmiles 

[Russell17au]

17 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They didn't post anything that is incorrect. They quoted the immigration act currently being used by Thailand.

 

Deportation is the act of removing someone from a country. It doesn't matter what the deportees immigration status is. How the deportation is documented is a different matter. 

There is a difference between "deportation" and "refusal of entry" but some people cannot understand that.

To be deported you must have legally entered the country and a deported stamp will be placed in your passport which is far more serious because to be deported normally means that you have committed a serious crime in the country whereas a refusal to enter is only a minor thing because it can mean that you are refused entry because you have too many tourist exempt visa in your passport and you have not legally entered the country

[elviajero]

1 minute ago, Russell17au said:

There is a difference between "deportation" and "refusal of entry" but some people cannot understand that.

To be deported you must have legally entered the country and a deported stamp will be placed in your passport which is far more serious because to be deported normally means that you have committed a serious crime in the country whereas a refusal to enter is only a minor thing because it can mean that you are refused entry because you have too many tourist exempt visa in your passport and you have not legally entered the country

It doesn't matter whether you've been denied entry, or had a permit to stay revoked, or are in the country illegally. If immigration decide to remove you from the country you are being deported.

 

What gets stamped in your passport will depend on a countries immigration policy. Thailand don't, for example, put a deportation stamp in the passport for someone being denied entry and deported. They on occasion don't even stamp a denied entry stamp.

 

[Russell17au]

The incorrect section of the act has been previously quoted, this is the correct section of the Immigration Act that applies to this thread

Immigration Act, B.E. 2522

Chapter 2: Entering and Departing the Kingdom

 

• Details

Chapter 2: Entering and Departing the Kingdom

Section 11

 

Persons entering into or departing the Kingdom must other and leave by way of immigration check points, designated landing, stations or areas and in accordance to the prescribed time as published in the Government Gazette by the Minister.

Section 12

 

Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom:

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances. Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against small pox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court; or by a lawful injunction; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country, except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution, the trading of woman of children, drug smuggling, or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him.
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, 007 RED said:

Tim... I'm not sure that this is quite correct. I think you will find that under ICAO rules the airline is only responsible to repatriation and costs if they have not exercised due diligence. 

The difference between due diligence and the lack thereof does not actually affect whether the airline is responsible for removal from Thailand. What it does affect (in theory, at least, but not always adhered to by certain countries including Thailand) is who must foot the bill, and try to recoup it from the traveler. Where the airline cannot reasonably be expected to know the traveler would be denied entry, they must take the same actions as would be true if they were deemed to be at fault. However, they can claim reimbursement of their out of pocket expenses for doing so. As I say, this is the theory.

[mstevens]

15 hours ago, Happy enough said:

most embassies can't do anything but put you in touch with family or friends who could help and very minimal legal advice. embassies nowadays are more for trade and investment stuff as far as i know

This is absolutely true.  Many people misunderstand the role of their embassy and think it is an 0800 hotline that is fully funded to help them out when they are overseas no matter where or what or how big the problem is.  That is, of course, not the case.

 

Some of the better consular affairs officers in embassies nurture relationships with their Thai counterparts and may call on them when one of their citizens faces problems, such as this guy who is confined to the airport.  But that doesn't mean that they can help in all situations.  We should all take responsibility for ourselves and we should do everything we can to minimise the changes of coming a cropper while outside our own country.  Our embassies and their staff are limited in what they can do and should not be relied upon to help over and above pointing you to a good lawyer, conveying messages between family back home, issuing emergency travel documents and a few other core duties.

[arithai12]

Lesson learned: whenever we complain about Thai immigration, let's be happy we are not in Ukraine.

 

btw, if he overstayed on his previous visit there, shouldn't the Ukrainian immigration have caught him on the way out?

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, arithai12 said:

Lesson learned: whenever we complain about Thai immigration, let's be happy we are not in Ukraine.

 

btw, if he overstayed on his previous visit there, shouldn't the Ukrainian immigration have caught him on the way out?

It would appear that he paid whatever fine on the way out of his last visit to Ukraine - but it ticked them off that he overstayed even one day, so they have "banned" him for some time.  Other countries have similar "no tolerance" policies. 

 

What really sucks, is that Ukraine did not reject his boarding the flight to Ukraine, via the passenger pre-check system, which would have avoided this whole mess. 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, JackThompson said:

It would appear that he paid whatever fine on the way out of his last visit to Ukraine - but it ticked them off that he overstayed even one day, so they have "banned" him for some time.  Other countries have similar "no tolerance" policies. 

 

More likely that he had stayed more than his limit , which is 90 days out of 180 days .

[Tanoshi]

4 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

What really sucks, is that Ukraine did not reject his boarding the flight to Ukraine, via the passenger pre-check system, which would have avoided this whole mess. 

I'd hazard at a guess that he was added to the passenger list last minute  and he could have already been in the air before a notice 'do not board' was received.

[007 RED]

5 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

It would appear that he paid whatever fine on the way out of his last visit to Ukraine - but it ticked them off that he overstayed even one day, so they have "banned" him for some time.  Other countries have similar "no tolerance" policies. 

 

What really sucks, is that Ukraine did not reject his boarding the flight to Ukraine, via the passenger pre-check system, which would have avoided this whole mess. 

Jack... Although the Ukrainian airline is required to provide advance passenger information (API) to many of their destination countries, the Ukrainian authorities do not require API prior to a flight's arrival.  If they had adopted the APIS the problem would not have occurred.

[BritTim]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

What really sucks, is that Ukraine did not reject his boarding the flight to Ukraine, via the passenger pre-check system, which would have avoided this whole mess. 

I am not sure Ukraine is yet one of the countries that has implemented the Advance Passenger Information System.

[eddysmit]

On 01/02/2018 at 4:33 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In retrospect, it would seem that choice was a pretty big mistake on his part, unfortunately.

 

Meanwhile, why is no one here asking -- why would Ukraine be deporting a U.S. citizen attempting to enter their country because he had, according to the poster here, a ONE day overstay on his prior tourist visa???

 

By contrast, if you have a tourist visa in Thailand and overstay by one day, you pay a relatively small fine at exit and go on your way. And AFAIK, having a one day overstay in Thailand now doesn't harm or impair your ability to come back later on a subsequent tourist visa...

 

So someone should be asking, what the heck is up with Ukraine?

 

Good sensible comment,sounds like a few in different countries have gone into overdrive with 'Legalities', I could understand this happening  if the person had done something bad,but, a small overstay, where a small fine could have been implemented, should have sufficed.

[yogavnture]

the human ping pong ball. maybe he can get a job cleaning toilets on the airliner so no country has to let him in.  

[1happykamper]

Refused entry to Thailand. Ok fine fine.. whateeever. But not allowing him to leave? I smell a rat.. they must know he has some money and need an angle to get at his money! Today is Saturday.. so I hope he has been able to leave? yes?

[rockingrobin]

40 minutes ago, 1happykamper said:

Refused entry to Thailand. Ok fine fine.. whateeever. But not allowing him to leave? I smell a rat.. they must know he has some money and need an angle to get at his money! Today is Saturday.. so I hope he has been able to leave? yes?

The person is regarded as an inadmissible person and remains the responsibility of the airline operator. There are a number of administrative tasks to be undertaken, the Thai immigration is required to inform the airline of the denial of entry. Since the person as already been refused entry to  Ukraine the airline can only send the person to a country where he will be admitted.

[vaultdweller0013]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:41 PM, Russell17au said:

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

There is no direct flight from Thailand to the US. I assume that is part of the problem. This means that another airline would need to accept the responsibility for him transiting in another country and the police/immigration problems associated with someone in his situation -- he is now not an ordinary traveler, but instead someone who will need to be under official supervision until he's back in the US.

[JackThompson]

8 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

On 2/2/2018 at 5:41 PM, Russell17au said:

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

There is no direct flight from Thailand to the US. I assume that is part of the problem. This means that another airline would need to accept the responsibility for him transiting in another country and the police/immigration problems associated with someone in his situation -- he is now not an ordinary traveler, but instead someone who will need to be under official supervision until he's back in the US.

He doesn't need to go through Thai immigration to purchase a ticket.  A friend could buy it, or he could buy it from his phone. 

 

Also, Thai Immigration has *forced* people they thought stayed too many days on Tourist-type entries to buy an outgoing ticket, before letting them in the country.  In other cases they denied-entry and forced them to buy their ticket out.  So, there is precedent for them taking a "non-admitted" person to ticket-purchasing.

 

He doesn't need a direct-flight to the USA, because he doesn't need to leave "air-side" on his way back and enter any other country.  Countries en-route may be informed he was denied-entry to Thailand (just as Ukraine reported him to Thailand), but this would not prevent him changing flights air-side.  He is not being deported for a crime, or considered dangerous.  He was was only prevented-entry to a country.

 

If he is still in detention, this is truly crazy.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

If he is still in detention, this is truly crazy.

While we do not have all the facts, it was probably a very harsh decision by immigration initially not to give him a visa exempt entry into Thailand.

Having declared him an inadmissible person, Thai immigration handed responsibility for dealing with him back to Ukrainian Airlines. There is no reason for immigration to interfere unless the airline takes too long to remove him from Thailand. Indeed, while I cannot imagine the airline objecting if immigration find a way to take the traveler off their hands, immigration has no official say in how the airline resolves the problem.

I have a feeling that Ukrainian Airlines is irritated that the traveler asked to go to Bangkok rather than the US, and now needs to go back to Kiev and on to the US. They may not be trying as hard as they might to rapidly resolve the situation.

It is worth noting that other countries and airlines may not want to accept him if they are aware of his status (which, unlike with deportation, they do not need to be told officially, but may figure out by looking at his passport).

[Air Smiles]

23 minutes ago, BritTim said:

While we do not have all the facts, it was probably a very harsh decision by immigration initially not to give him a visa exempt entry into Thailand.

 

 

Although, we do have the facts on Thai immigration rules which seem to have been followed correctly in this case.  I'm not sure where your getting the "very harsh decision" from?

 

Quote

 

Immigration Act, B.E. 2522

Chapter 2: Entering and Departing the Kingdom

 

Section 12

Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom:

Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

 

 

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Although, we do have the facts on Thai immigration rules which seem to have been followed correctly in this case.  I'm not sure where your getting the "very harsh decision" from?

 

 

Being denied entry is different to being deported...also his right to stay was not revoked, he was simply denied entry.

 

The 'right to stay' being 'revoked' is how Thailand often chooses to remove foreigners from the country, it's not deportation though.

Edited February 3, 2018 by ukrules

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

Although, we do have the facts on Thai immigration rules which seem to have been followed correctly in this case.  I'm not sure where your getting the "very harsh decision" from?

It was explained several times already why the law that you quoted is not relevant in this case

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Although, we do have the facts on Thai immigration rules which seem to have been followed correctly in this case.  I'm not sure where your getting the "very harsh decision" from?

Being an inadmissible person to another country does not qualify for denied entry to Thailand under Section 12 of the Immigration Act 1979. To take an example I gave earlier, if his passport was only valid for a further four months, he would not be admitted to Ukraine, but there would be no reason to deny him entry to Thailand. Like many others, you still do not understand the distinction we have tried to get through to people in this thread between deportees and inadmissible persons.

Edited February 3, 2018 by BritTim

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, BritTim said:

Having declared him an inadmissible person, Thai immigration handed responsibility for dealing with him back to Ukrainian Airlines. There is no reason for immigration to interfere unless the airline takes too long to remove him from Thailand. Indeed, while I cannot imagine the airline objecting if immigration find a way to take the traveler off their hands, immigration has no official say in how the airline resolves the problem.

I would understand if the traveler had no funds or ticket, and so he "became the airline's problem."  But I don't see a scenario where Thai-Immigration is powerless in their own airport/country regarding this, and why the airline would or could say, "Oh, no, we want to fly him back to the Ukraine, instead; you cannot let him go."  Something just doesn't add up, here.

[yogavnture]

3 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I would understand if the traveler had no funds or ticket, and so he "became the airline's problem."  But I don't see a scenario where Thai-Immigration is powerless in their own airport/country regarding this, and why the airline would or could say, "Oh, no, we want to fly him back to the Ukraine, instead; you cannot let him go."  Something just doesn't add up, here.

yea what dont add up is the guy in story didnt disclose all the facts to us. 

 

[rockingrobin]

13 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

I would understand if the traveler had no funds or ticket, and so he "became the airline's problem."  But I don't see a scenario where Thai-Immigration is powerless in their own airport/country regarding this, and why the airline would or could say, "Oh, no, we want to fly him back to the Ukraine, instead; you cannot let him go."  Something just doesn't add up, here.

Under ICAO rules, the passenger remains the responsibility of the airline operator until they have been admitted by the state.

The extent of that responsibility is determined by the reasons for denial. If the denial is due to improper documentation then the airline is responsible for the care and security of the inadmissible person. If the denial is for other reasons such as cash, then the state is responsible for care and security of the individual. This includes such items as risk assessments and the need for escorts

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

12 hours ago, BritTim said:

Having declared him an inadmissible person, Thai immigration handed responsibility for dealing with him back to Ukrainian Airlines. There is no reason for immigration to interfere unless the airline takes too long to remove him from Thailand. Indeed, while I cannot imagine the airline objecting if immigration find a way to take the traveler off their hands, immigration has no official say in how the airline resolves the problem.

I would understand if the traveler had no funds or ticket, and so he "became the airline's problem."  But I don't see a scenario where Thai-Immigration is powerless in their own airport/country regarding this, and why the airline would or could say, "Oh, no, we want to fly him back to the Ukraine, instead; you cannot let him go."  Something just doesn't add up, here.

All the rules are complicated, but international agreements essentially say that the traveler is the airline's responsibility until he has been admitted to the country (and that never happened). That does not mean the airline must necessary meet the cost of dealing with the issue. The traveler may be liable, and Thailand might, according to international agreement, be expected to reimburse the airline under some circumstances. It also may be that the airline is justified in requesting help from the Thai authorities under some circumstances (e.g. if the traveler requires medical treatment). However, as long as the airline has a reasonable plan for removing the traveler from Thailand without undue delay, the Thai authorities mostly have neither the power nor the motive to interfere.

 

Once Thailand refused to admit him (based on what we know to date possibly harsh) the Thai authorities have about as much to do with his treatment as they do with ensuring the airline food is palatable. Depending on the airline, the food might be non existent or inedible, but that is not Thailand's affair. Only if the airline breaches international guidelines for dealing with the inadmissible person will the Thai authorities again become directly involved.

[chrisinth]

On 2/1/2018 at 3:22 PM, Senechal said:

My friend (a US citizen) was flying from Thailand to Ukraine. He was here on a tourist visa (and did not overstay) and flew to Ukraine on a tourist visa.

 

When he arrived in Ukraine they informed him that on his prior visit to Ukraine (several weeks ago) he had overstayed his Ukranian tourist visa. This was news to my friend who thought he could go back to Ukraine. 

What I don't understand is the insistence that he returns to the US. As per the OP, his travel to Ukraine started in Thailand, not the US.

 

Why the return to the US? Because of his passport ? Unless coming from another country, I don't think he flew from US to Bkk with Ukraine air as there are no direct flights?