Airport JAIL!

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

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?

Read the thread. He was offered the choice between traveling to Thailand or the USA, and made the wrong choice.

[elviajero]

13 hours ago, BritTim said:

Being an inadmissible person to another country does not qualify for denied entry to Thailand under Section 12 of the Immigration Act 1979.

That is simply not true. Section 12.11 may not use your preferred language, but it is clearly meant to deny anyone 'removed' from a foreign country. And if not, section 12.10 gives immigration the power, with ministerial approval, to deny anyone entry to the country. Denial under 12.10 cannot be appealed. They will, almost certainly, be using one of those sections to "lawfully" deny this person entry to Thailand.

 

13 hours ago, BritTim said:

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.

You seem to be applying the immigration terminology of other countries to Thailand. Thailands immigration act refers to people being 'removed' from the country as being deported whether they are "forbidden from entry" and given notice to leave, have their permit to stay revoked, or are found in the country illegally.

Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final. Appealling cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10) , ...  When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned , the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. ...

 

However, like other countries, Thailand do not formally process someone being denied entry as being deported, even though that is in effect what is happening, because of 'deportations' association with illegal status or having permission revoked.

 

Deport

past tense: deported; past participle: deported

1. expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.

Expel

force (someone) to leave a place.

synonyms: banish, exile, deport, evict, expatriate, ...

 

Immigration seem to have processed this "inadmissible" persons 'removal' (deportation) from the country under section 55. They could have let him fly directly to the US, but have decided to send him back from where he came via the airline that carried him to Thailand.

Section 55 : 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 an other route, at his own expense , the competent official may permit him to do so.

Edited February 4, 2018 by elviajero

[rockingrobin]

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

That is simply not true. Section 12.11 may not use your preferred language, but it is clearly meant to deny anyone 'removed' from a foreign country. And if not, section 12.10 gives immigration the power, with ministerial approval, to deny anyone entry to the country. Denial under 12.10 cannot be appealed. They will, almost certainly, be using one of those sections to "lawfully" deny this person entry to Thailand.

 

You seem to be applying the immigration terminology of other countries to Thailand. Thailands immigration act refers to people being 'removed' from the country as being deported whether they are "forbidden from entry" and given notice to leave, have their permit to stay revoked, or are found in the country illegally.

Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final. Appealling cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10) , ...  When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned , the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. ...

 

However, like other countries, Thailand do not formally process someone being denied entry as being deported, even though that is in effect what is happening, because of 'deportations' association with illegal status or having permission revoked.

 

Deport

past tense: deported; past participle: deported

1. expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.

Expel

force (someone) to leave a place.

synonyms: banish, exile, deport, evict, expatriate, ...

 

Immigration seem to have processed this "inadmissible" persons 'removal' (deportation) from the country under section 55. They could have let him fly directly to the US, but have decided to send him back from where he came via the airline that carried him to Thailand.

Section 55 : 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 an other route, at his own expense , the competent official may permit him to do so.

Inadmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions. They determine who is responsible with regard to repatriation.

Deportation results in the state being fully responsible for the deportees to such an extent that the airline captain can refuse to fly the person being deported

[rockingrobin]

The ICAO normally charge for their documents, however, Pakistan airlines have uploaded the relevant ICAO annexe 9, that deals with deportations and inadmissible persons

 

http://www.caapakistan.com.pk/upload/Annex 9 Facilitation - 14th edition Oct 2015.pdf

It is a large pdf around 92 pages

[Air Smiles]

14 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

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.

 

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.

Did you miss the bold in my post? I never mentioned deported, however all these words are mere semantics, the fact remains he was forcibly removed from Ukraine for breaking their visa laws, so his right to stay in Ukraine was revoked as he was trying to enter on an expired visa, you can call that anything you like, but it all means the same thing.

 

The 'right to stay' being 'revoked' in regards to the Thai immigration act is referring to other countries(before coming to Thailand) ...not in Thailand.

 

Or are you saying he had a 'right to stay' in Ukraine?

 

14 hours ago, jackdd said:

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

Can you link to that post?

Edited February 4, 2018 by Air Smiles

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

Can you link to that post?

On 2.2.2018 at 10:22 AM, jackdd said:

This law says "revoked", which implies that the right of stay would have been granted in the first place. But in case of OPs friend he wasn't granted entry to Ukraine, so nothing to be "revoked", so this law does not apply here. This law would only apply if OP would have been deported from Ukraine, which he wasn't, he was just denied entry.

[elviajero]

26 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Indmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions

Can you show me where they are defined in Thai Immigration law.

 

I understand other countries like the UK and US make a legal distinction when dealing with the removal of people being ‘refused entry’ or ‘deported’, but we are discussing Thai immigration law.

 

Thai immigration law refers to anyone removed from the country as being deported, including “inadmissible persons”, even though they don’t remove “inadmissible persons” by formal deportation.

[rockingrobin]

34 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Can you show me where they are defined in Thai Immigration law.

 

I understand other countries like the UK and US make a legal distinction when dealing with the removal of people being ‘refused entry’ or ‘deported’, but we are discussing Thai immigration law.

 

Thai immigration law refers to anyone removed from the country as being deported, including “inadmissible persons”, even though they don’t remove “inadmissible persons” by formal deportation.

Its defined in the annexes to the Chicago convention which Thailand is part of, see earlier link 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by rockingrobin

[Air Smiles]

On 02/02/2018 at 3:22 AM, jackdd said:

This law says "revoked", which implies that the right of stay would have been granted in the first place. But in case of OPs friend he wasn't granted entry to Ukraine, so nothing to be "revoked", so this law does not apply here. This law would only apply if OP would have been deported from Ukraine, which he wasn't, he was just denied entry.

 

Did you forget the reason why he was refused entry to Ukraine?

 

From the OP:

Quote

 

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. 

 

The Ukranian customs officers told him he would have to fly back to Thailand on the same airline he flew to Ukraine on

 

 

Furthermore, Thai immigration law doesn't make any distinction between 'deported' and a 'revoked right of stay' in the foreign country you are coming from, this is plainly illustrated in the Thai immigration act, where it includes both in the same paragraph under the heading "Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom".  The wording uses "or" which means the concepts of 'deported' or 'the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked' are effectively the same thing under Thai immigration law:

 

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.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Air Smiles said:

 

Did you forget the reason why he was refused entry to Ukraine?

 

From the OP:

 

Furthermore, Thai immigration law doesn't make any distinction between 'deported' and a 'revoked right of stay' in the foreign country you are coming from, this is plainly illustrated in the Thai immigration act, where it includes both in the same paragraph under the heading "Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom".  The wording uses "or" which means the concepts of 'deported' or 'the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked' are effectively the same thing under Thai immigration law:

 

 

As far as I understand, the person in question never obtained a right of stay. Thus  it could not be revoked, and since they did not actually enter Ukraine could not be deported from Ukraine.

[Air Smiles]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

As far as I understand, the person in question never obtained a right of stay. Thus  it could not be revoked, and since they did not actually enter Ukraine could not be deported from Ukraine.

 

I think you're tying yourself in knots with useless semantics ...if the person in question had a right to stay(in Ukraine) then why did Ukraine immigration deny him entry and force him to leave the country.  Does that sound in anyway shape or form like 'a right to stay' to you?????

 

The person in question as an American has, assuming all his paperwork is in order, an automatic 'right to stay' in Ukraine, he didn't even need a visa if staying less than 90 days, only a valid passport ....however, because he over stayed  his previous visa his right to enter, and yes, stay, was revoked.  This is the part you guys are failing to understand, they refused entry based on his previous visa overstay.

 

Right to stay just means you can legally be in that country ...nothing more nothing less.

[BritTim]

12 minutes ago, Air Smiles said:

 

I think you're tying yourself in knots with useless semantics ...if the person in question had a right to stay(in Ukraine) then why did Ukraine immigration deny him entry and force him to leave the country.  Does that sound in anyway shape or form like 'a right to stay' to you?????

 

The person in question as an American has, assuming all his paperwork is in order, an automatic 'right to stay' in Ukraine, he didn't even need a visa if staying less than 90 days, only a valid passport ....however, because he over stayed  his previous visa his right to enter, and yes, stay, was revoked.  This is the part you guys are failing to understand, they refused entry based on his previous visa overstay.

 

Right to stay just means you can legally be in that country ...nothing more nothing less.

It is unfortunate that the Thai Immigration Act was written in 1979 when the terminology and international practices were different. Nevertheless, as I understand it, even 40 years ago, there was a distinction between those denied entry into a country (for instance having no visa or a travel document that did not qualify for entry) and deportation or withdrawal of permission to stay which implies breaking the law in some way.

 

Whatever. The fact that you do not meet the qualifications to enter one country does not automatically imply you do not qualify for entry into another (including Thailand). Section 12 of the Thailand Immigration Act indicates that those deported or having their permission to stay in a country revoked should be denied entry into Thailand. Most other countries do the same. When someone is an inadmissible person to another country, it is up to Thai immigration to decide whether the circumstances that rendered the traveler inadmissible to another country also apply to attempted entry to Thailand. We do not know what the Ukrainian stamp said, but lack of the correct documents to enter Ukraine would not normally be considered good grounds for denying entry to Thailand (assuming his paperwork OK for that).

 

Has it occurred to you that Ukraine Airlines  would have been remarkably stupid to return the traveler to Bangkok if they knew Thailand Immigration Law would automatically deny him entry? Why do you think there is an international regulation that mandates informing Thailand in advance if someone is being deported to Bangkok, but no such regulation exists when it is simply a matter of denied entry?

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

Has it occurred to you that Ukraine Airlines  would have been remarkably stupid to return the traveler to Bangkok if they knew Thailand Immigration Law would automatically deny him entry?

One guess I have about this - Thailand is using this guy as a pawn to punish the Ukraine Airlines for allowing him to return here after being refused-entry into Ukraine. 

 

Ukraine Airlines likely made the same assumption others have made - that "denial of entry" persons would not be treated the same as "deported" persons by Thailand Immigration.

 

And since Ukraine Airlines is not happy about this, and wants to stay on good terms with Ukrainian Immigration, they are not taking him back to Ukraine until there is a quick connecting-flight.

[rockingrobin]

7 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

 

I think you're tying yourself in knots with useless semantics ...if the person in question had a right to stay(in Ukraine) then why did Ukraine immigration deny him entry and force him to leave the country.  Does that sound in anyway shape or form like 'a right to stay' to you?????

 

The person in question as an American has, assuming all his paperwork is in order, an automatic 'right to stay' in Ukraine, he didn't even need a visa if staying less than 90 days, only a valid passport ....however, because he over stayed  his previous visa his right to enter, and yes, stay, was revoked.  This is the part you guys are failing to understand, they refused entry based on his previous visa overstay.

 

Right to stay just means you can legally be in that country ...nothing more nothing less.

An automatic right of stay is there are no restrictions or conditions placed on the individual.

What I do not know is whether on his previous stay in Ukraine ( one day overstay) if he left voluntarily or deported by the state.

The interpretation of Thai immigration law suggested, no difference between denied entry and deportation would be problematic at land borders

[Mattd]

8 hours ago, Air Smiles said:

The person in question as an American has, assuming all his paperwork is in order, an automatic 'right to stay' in Ukraine

The ONLY country that the person in question has an automatic right to stay in is America, as an American.

[elviajero]

19 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

Can you show me where they are defined in Thai Immigration law.

Its defined in the annexes to the Chicago convention which Thailand is part of, see earlier link 

The answer was no. You started by saying that "Inadmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions.", which is not the case for Thai immigration law. 

 

The convention you quote is not Thai law, it defines "International Standards and Recommended Practices". Some countries have included the difference between "Deportation" and "Inadmissible person" within their immigration law, but as yet Thailand hasn't. Thai immigration law still considers anyone removed from the country as being deported. However, they as they don't process most people denied entry as deportees they seem to be following the recommended practice of the convention.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The answer was no. You started by saying that "Inadmissible persons and deportation are 2 separate legal definitions.", which is not the case for Thai immigration law. 

 

The convention you quote is not Thai law, it defines "International Standards and Recommended Practices". Some countries have included the difference between "Deportation" and "Inadmissible person" within their immigration law, but as yet Thailand hasn't. Thai immigration law still considers anyone removed from the country as being deported. However, they as they don't process most people denied entry as deportees they seem to be following the recommended practice of the convention.

 

 

The Thai emergency decree in  BE2558 placed the Chicago convention in domestic law. As regards the Annexe 9  differences , the only AIP I can locate for Thailand is one issued in 2012, which stated Thailand does not acknowledge the costs associated with either Inadmissible or deported person and seeks to place the burden of expenses on either the individual or airline operator.

As a person who is denied entry at the immigration checkpoint is deemed not to have entered the country, they cannot be regarded as being deported.

[BritTim]

51 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Thai immigration law still considers anyone removed from the country as being deported. However, they as they don't process most people denied entry as deportees they seem to be following the recommended practice of the convention.

It is my view that Thai immigration law does not explicitly mention inadmissible persons for two reasons. First, the law was written about 40 years ago when such matters had less focus. More important, there was no real need to include inadmissible persons within the law. It was already understood that (i) until a person is admitted into Thailand, they remained the responsibility of the airline; and (ii) someone being inadmissible to another country was not grounds for denying entry to Thailand, and did not need to be included in Article 12.