Proof on onward travel with SETV

[SteveK]

Hello there,

 

I wonder if someone could clear this up for me seeing as there seems to be loads of conflicting reports on the internet.

 

When entering Thailand on a single entry tourist visa, do you need to have proof on onward travel? What if you are travelling several countries and haven't decided where to go next yet? If you don't have one will you be refused entry or will they let you buy one at the airport using your mobile?

 

Many thanks.

Edited May 5, 2018 by pr9spk

[elviajero]

3 minutes ago, pr9spk said:

When entering Thailand on a single entry tourist visa, do you need to have proof on onward travel?

No.

 

4 minutes ago, pr9spk said:

If you don't have one will you be refused entry or will they let you buy one at the airport using your mobile?

You cannot be denied entry for not having an onward ticket. They would have to come up with another reason to deny.

 

They only, usually, start asking about onward tickets if they aren’t happy about letting you enter. Most ‘tourists’ have onward/return tickets which is why they sometimes ask to see one. It’s possible they’d let you buy a ticket, but unlikely unless they have decided to let you pass.

[BritTim]

As long as you are entering with an actual tourist visa, there is no requirement to have an onward flight ticket. However, many consulates will require that you show one before issuing the visa.

 

Note that the situation is different if intending to enter visa exempt (entering as a tourist, but without a visa). In that case (although immigration on entry is unlikely to ask to see an onward ticket unless you are a frequent visitor to Thailand, or have spent significant time in the country) you will quite likely have trouble with the airline at check in. IATA recommendations to their member airlines is that someone entering Thailand visa exempt should have a confirmed onward flight booking out of Thailand.

[SteveK]

I have had several Tourist Visas in the last 12 months, from the Embassy in my home country. I love visiting Thailand and have a decent chunk of savings to do so.

 

Is there a rule about how long you can spend in Thailand using tourist visas?

 

I have heard they can refuse entry at Suvarnabhumi if you'd had too many visas. How much truth is there in this?

[jackdd]

There are no definite rules besides max two visa exempts at land borders. It's up to the immigration officer. But usually it's no problem if you are not staying in Thailand all the time

[BritTim]

27 minutes ago, pr9spk said:

Is there a rule about how long you can spend in Thailand using tourist visas?

 

I have heard they can refuse entry at Suvarnabhumi if you'd had too many visas. How much truth is there in this?

If you are entering visa exempt, immigration has a lot of discretion in deciding when you have spent "too much" time in Thailand. If you are entering with actual tourist visas, there is no limit. However, there are various reasons under Section 12 of the Immigration Act that officials can try to use. You ought not to have a problem if you can satisfy immigration that you are not working illegally, and have the financial resources to support your stay. Note that having 20,000 baht cash equivalent on entry is a necessary prerequisite if an official decides you could be an undesirable. However, in addition, it would be good to carry printouts that demonstrate significant additional resources.

[JackThompson]

There have been cases reported where IOs at the airports have insisted people buy tickets which were *not required* by law.  If denied for a non-legal reason, expect the IO stamp a "real law" reason in the passport, regardless of applicability to the individual being denied-entry, or anything they said before about non-existent laws/rules.  Do not expect any sort of oversight compelling enforcement of actual laws - there appears to be little to none. 

 

Upon realizing they were in a lawless-zone where "whatever he says goes," some have bought the unnecessary tickets upon an IOs insistence, to be avoid being detained and forced-back to where ever they just arrived from on the next flight (could be the next day or longer).  Recently, someone with a valid outgoing flight to a 3rd country, within the required time for a visa-exempt entry, was forced to by a "return home" ticket, to satisfy an IO's desire of pointless financial-pain infliction on a law-abiding traveler (money that would have likely been spent in Thailand, helping Thai businesses, absent the IO's actions).  This outcome is often considered, "You got lucky he let you in at all." 

 

You could try bringing proof of finances beyond the 20K Baht worth of cash, but there are some reports that IOs refuse to look at paperwork which proves that unsubstantiated guesses about a traveler's financial-solvency are incorrect.  It cannot hurt to bring it and try.

 

If you stay in Thailand for longer periods while using Tourist or Education visas, the safest path is to avoid dangerous checkpoints such as Bangkok (and some other) airports and the Poipet/Aranyaprathet land-border.  Never fly in visa-exempt (though 2x / calendar-year by law-abiding land-borders are ok).  We do not have reports of problems with those entering at Chang Mai airport with a valid Tourist Visa, nor any other border checkpoints - though the Malaysian border-points (if flying to Penang) sometimes require showing 20K Baht worth of cash. 

Edited May 6, 2018 by JackThompson

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, pr9spk said:

Is there a rule about how long you can spend in Thailand using tourist visas?

There is no definitive answer.

 

You can visit as often as you want, but you are not supposed to 'live' in the country as a 'tourist'. There isn't a published limit about how long you can stay (live) in the country as a tourist as they give 'lawful' discretional power to the IO's to decide when enough is enough. IMO spending more than 6 months per year will likely put you on the radar, but many people still get away with it for years.

[elviajero]

59 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

There have been cases reported where IOs at the airports have insisted people buy tickets which were *not required* by law.

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

 

2. TOURIST VISA 

	1. REQUIREMENT
	This type of visa is issued to applicants who wish to enter the Kingdom for tourism purposes .
	2. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
	- Evidence of travel from Thailand (air ticket paid in full)

[Polaky]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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

 

2. TOURIST VISA 

	1. REQUIREMENT
	This type of visa is issued to applicants who wish to enter the Kingdom for tourism purposes .
	2. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
	- Evidence of travel from Thailand (air ticket paid in full)

Not set in concrete, definitely need a flight out on visa exempt entry, however on setv some consulates do not require a ticket out, eg: Melbourne consulate in oz,  because you can get a 30 day extension after the 60 days, requirement for flight out after 60 days is ludicrous.

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, Polaky said:

Not set in concrete, definitely need a flight out on visa exempt entry

Where is it "set in concrete" that you need a flight out on visa exempt entry.

 

IO's waive the need for an onward flight for both visa exempt entry and TR entry, but they could insist on one for either.

 

7 minutes ago, Polaky said:

some consulates do not require a ticket out

True, but that doesn't mean you aren't supposed to have a ticket; they just don't insist on the evidence of one.

 

9 minutes ago, Polaky said:

because you can get a 30 day extension after the 60 days, requirement for flight out after 60 days is ludicrous

Not really. Extensions are not a guaranteed right. On entry you are only given permission to stay for a max of 60 days, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect to see a flight out within 60 days.

[BigT73]

In Australia (Sydney) its now a prequesite to show a copy of onward ticket during the visa application process so you wouldnt of recieved a metv or setv in the first place.  Theres even a section on the application form for date of arrival and departure to be completed.

[matador007]

I find that proof of onward ticket is usually asked at departing airport, by check-in staff.

 

I have had it asked of me just a few times.  Pointing out that I have a visa, can help.

Understand that check-in people are "just doing their job" so arguing is a waste.

 

You can do a web search for onward tickets/flights.

http://www.returnflights.net/

https://onward.flights/

 

These kind of things exist incase you get asked.

 

Good luck and safe travels.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

 

2. TOURIST VISA 

	1. REQUIREMENT
	This type of visa is issued to applicants who wish to enter the Kingdom for tourism purposes .
	2. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
	- Evidence of travel from Thailand (air ticket paid in full)

 

That is an MFA rule, which they have the option of enforcing when Visas are purchased at Thai consulates.  I am not aware of any ministerial order from Immigration requiring these - and if such exists, it should be reflected in the Airline (IATA)  rules for boarding flights to Thailand. 

 

To date, only uninformed airline personnel do not recognize that a valid visa removes a traveler's need for an onward ticket - and when a supervisor is called in, the matter is resolved without the need to purchase a ticket.

 

For Visa-Exempt entries, the requirement for the onward-ticket does exist, and is reflected in the Airline rules.

[asdfrules]

56 minutes ago, matador007 said:

You can do a web search for onward tickets/flights.

http://www.returnflights.net/

https://onward.flights/

 

These kind of things exist incase you get asked.

I'm not sure how reliable these things.  I believe anyone can check if the ticket is legit by plugging in your name and the 6 digit booking code.  I used a slightly different kind of service in the past that actually booked a real ticket (to be cancelled later on), and it worked.  But if it's not a real booking, I think there is a chance they can find out.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

That is an MFA rule, which they have the option of enforcing when Visas are purchased at Thai consulates.  I am not aware of any ministerial order from Immigration requiring these - and if such exists, it should be reflected in the Airline (IATA)  rules for boarding flights to Thailand. 

 

To date, only uninformed airline personnel do not recognize that a valid visa removes a traveler's need for an onward ticket - and when a supervisor is called in, the matter is resolved without the need to purchase a ticket.

 

For Visa-Exempt entries, the requirement for the onward-ticket does exist, and is reflected in the Airline rules.

The Thai authorities "rules" expect every tourist to have an onward flight out of the country, that is confirmed on the MFA website. However, as usual Thailands inconsistent/relaxed enforcement of it's "rules" gives some people the wrong message and causes misunderstanding.

 

You can't be denied entry for not having an onward ticket, which is why Thailand doesn't insist on the airlines insisting on one. The main reason airlines enforce the rule for visa exempt entry is due to the higher chance of being denied entry because the passenger hasn't gone through the visa vetting process (for what that's worth). But enforcement is the airlines choice.

 

The authorities give consular services, and border immigration, the authority not to insist on seeing evidence of a ticket. It is only non-immigrant visa holders that don't require pre-booked onward flights.

 

Airlines (they are not IATA rules) want an onward flight for visa exempt entry because of the higher chance of being denied entry. Immigration only want to see onward ticket when they are deciding whether or not the person is a genuine/typical tourist and is expected to have one.

 

The bottom line is that all tourists should have an onward ticket, but immigration will not, generally, insist on one.

 

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

The Thai authorities "rules" expect every tourist to have an onward flight out of the country, that is confirmed on the MFA website.

I agree with Jack on this. If the rules defined by the MFA for getting tourist visas were intended to be additionally applied by immigration on entry into the country, Section 12 of the Immigration Act would state this. Either that, or a Ministerial Order by the minister in change of the Immigration Bureau (not the Minister of Foreign Affairs) would need to note it as an additional requirement. According to your logic, someone entering with a METV could be required to show a letter from their employer giving permission for a leave of absence (because that is one of the requirements for an METV). Also, on entry, anyone with a Non O-A visa could be asked to show notarized medical certificates, and proof of 800,000 baht in their home bank account.

[elviajero]

6 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I agree with Jack on this. If the rules defined by the MFA for getting tourist visas were intended to be additionally applied by immigration on entry into the country, Section 12 of the Immigration Act would state this. 

The requirements for getting a visa aren't intended to be additionally applied by immigration on entry, and as I've pointed out there is no power for an IO to deny entry solely based on not having an onward flight.

 

You are missing the purpose of onward flights. Tourists are short term visitors and expected to be leaving within 60 days, which is why they are expected, as tourists, to have an onward/return flight, and why it's on the MFA document list. The job of ascertaining whether the person has an onward flight falls to consular staff. Some locations do not ask for proof, but that doesn't mean the applicant isn't expected, as a tourist, to have a ticket.

 

When one enters the country the IO can ask to see an onward/return flight, which they only do when they are in some way suspicious of the person entering for tourism. In those cases they are looking for a ticket as a way of validating the person as a tourist. Immigration are clearly not interested in enforcing onward flights to the majority of genuine/typical tourists.

[darrendsd]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

You can't be denied entry for not having an onward ticket, which is why Thailand doesn't insist on the airlines insisting on one.

 

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The bottom line is that all tourists should have an onward ticket, but immigration will not, generally, insist on one

You seem to be contradicting yourself,

 

"The bottom line is that all tourists should have an onward ticket, but immigration will not, generally, insist on one"

 

"You can't be denied entry for not having an onward ticket,"

 

Well if you can't be denied then that would suggest that a onward ticket is not required, if it was then they could deny anybody they wanted who was trying to enter on a TV  using the you have no onward ticket rule, however according to yourself you can't be denied entry for not having one

 

So if you can't be denied entry on a Tourist Visa if you don't have a onward ticket then that means there is no rule to have one

 

I actually don't know if one is required however with your logic who knows? Contradictory in the extreme

 

 

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself,

 

"The bottom line is that all tourists should have an onward ticket, but immigration will not, generally, insist on one"

 

"You can't be denied entry for not having an onward ticket,"

There is no contradiction. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

[darrendsd]

59 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There is no contradiction. The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

If you yourself can't understand what you are writing then there is not much chance for the rest of us

[JackThompson]

 

 

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

You can't be denied entry for not having an onward ticket, which is why Thailand doesn't insist on the airlines insisting on one.

...

Tourists are short term visitors and expected to be leaving within 60 days,

...

In those cases they are looking for a ticket as a way of validating the person as a tourist.

 

There are specific reasons for denying entry which Immigration may use.  None of those reasons covers a person "not having an outgoing airline ticket" OR "expected to be leaving in 60-days" OR "is a tourist" OR "been here more than 180 days in the last 12 months", OR "Oh, dang, he's under the limit for 12 months, let's count days to 14 months," etc. 

 

One could be leaving by land, planning to extend the entry, or not have decided on their next stop at the time of entry - all of which are permitted under the existing rules.  This is why, when IOs deny entry to people who appear to meet all the Section 12 requirements, they use one of the actual rules in the rejection-stamp, so they don't provide written evidence they broke their laws, and rejected based on an imaginary rule they wished existed.

As debated here many times, there is no Thai definition of "tourist" as it relates to the use of Tourist Visas - so there can be no "expectations" relating to the term beyond the written rules.   In other countries, the term is clearly defined, and use of these types of visas restricted accordingly.  But in Thailand visitors may enter on tourist-type entries, legally, to look for work, meet a prospective wife -  reasons that are cause for denial of entry (USA) elsewhere.  Certainly, using a Tourist Visa as part of an extended vacation is permitted. 

They cannot "validate a person as a tourist" without a definition, which takes us back to IOs using actual Section 12 written-rules for their denial stamps - not something like, "Is determined not really a tourist because..."

[onera1961]

On 5/5/2018 at 8:37 PM, pr9spk said:

I love visiting Thailand and have a decent chunk of savings to do so.

Why don't you get an METV and after 6/7 months go back to your home country and get a new METV and continue to live in Thailand ever after :)

[onera1961]

34 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Section 12 written-rules

What are these rules or a link where these rules are posted.

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

What are these rules or a link where these rules are posted.

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

Quote

Section 12
Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom:

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.

 

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.

 

The examination and diagnosis of disease of a physical or mental nature, including protective operations as against disease, shall be conducted by the Immigration Doctor.

Edited May 7, 2018 by jackdd

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

What are these rules or a link where these rules are posted.

It is number 17 here along a lot of other links and downloads.

 

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, jackdd said:

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/

Siam legal has been proven time and time again to have incorrect information on their website. It really would be better to not quote that site.

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Siam legal has been proven time and time again to have incorrect information on their website. It really would be better to not quote that site.

Indeed some things there are not 100% correct, but i've never come across a case where something was completely wrong, so for most cases it's sufficient. And it's way easier than understanding the original Thai text.

Edited May 7, 2018 by jackdd

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, onera1961 said:

Why don't you get an METV and after 6/7 months go back to your home country and get a new METV and continue to live in Thailand ever after :)

The METV is not meant for someone to "live in Thailand ever after". It's meant for someone that want's to visit frequently. For now, it seems to be tolerated by authorities, but it's not good advice to give the impression that it's something it's not.

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, JackThompson said:

 

 

 

There are specific reasons for denying entry which Immigration may use.  None of those reasons covers a person "not having an outgoing airline ticket" OR "expected to be leaving in 60-days" OR "is a tourist" OR "been here more than 180 days in the last 12 months", OR "Oh, dang, he's under the limit for 12 months, let's count days to 14 months," etc. 

 

One could be leaving by land, planning to extend the entry, or not have decided on their next stop at the time of entry - all of which are permitted under the existing rules.  This is why, when IOs deny entry to people who appear to meet all the Section 12 requirements, they use one of the actual rules in the rejection-stamp, so they don't provide written evidence they broke their laws, and rejected based on an imaginary rule they wished existed.

As debated here many times, there is no Thai definition of "tourist" as it relates to the use of Tourist Visas - so there can be no "expectations" relating to the term beyond the written rules.   In other countries, the term is clearly defined, and use of these types of visas restricted accordingly.  But in Thailand visitors may enter on tourist-type entries, legally, to look for work, meet a prospective wife -  reasons that are cause for denial of entry (USA) elsewhere.  Certainly, using a Tourist Visa as part of an extended vacation is permitted. 

They cannot "validate a person as a tourist" without a definition, which takes us back to IOs using actual Section 12 written-rules for their denial stamps - not something like, "Is determined not really a tourist because..."

Again, you are posting your wish list rather than reality.

 

No one is privy to all the orders and instructions that border IO's work to, including you. If an IO believes the person entering the country for tourism isn't entering for tourism, or has stayed longer than necessary for tourism, they can deny entry. That is proven by reports on this forum. You take these denials as unlawful because it isn't conveniently spelt out for you. The very job of an IO is to decide whether or not they grant entry. If they don't believe someone is in the country for "tourism" they probably suspect they are working and use that as the reason for rejection. A long term tourist is usually rejected under 12.2 because they haven't an appropriate means of living in the country. e.g. they don't have a job.