Proof on onward travel with SETV

[samsensam]

3 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

 

right. anyone genuinely using a tourist visa to visit thailand as a tourist should have absolutely no issues or problems with immigration.

[007 RED]

46 minutes ago, elviajero said:

.......No one is privy to all the orders and instructions that border IO's work to......

I totally agree with this part of your post. 

 

All too often people quote the Immigration Act (B.E. 2522) as being the gospel.  Unfortunately, more often than not they are either not aware, or they tend to forget, that there are a plethora of Ministerial Regulation and Orders that have been attached to the Act since it came into force each of which can impact on the decisions made by the IO.

 

The problem for us plebs is that although notification of the Ministerial Regulations are published in the Royal Gazetteer, it is very rare that the actual contents are made public.

 

However, if you go to the Immigration website https://www.immigration.go.th/order you will see listed some 76 Immigration Regulations that are available to IOs and no doubt there are quite a few more hidden away.  Just one slight problem, they are all (with one exception) in Thai. Maybe someone with a little time on their hands could provide a complete translation to enlighten us all.

[JackThompson]

 

On 5/7/2018 at 3:22 PM, elviajero said:

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

We agree on the result / reality.  Bottom line, an IO can ruin someone's plans, even if there is nothing in the laws/orders stating they can do it, and even though the law prohibits them from rejecting entry for a reason not explicitly defined in the law. 

 

The good news is, everyone who is at risk of this arbitrary and capricious behavior seems to be able to avoid this, at present, by not using some Airports and the Aranaya/Poipet border crossing.

 

On 5/7/2018 at 3:22 PM, elviajero said:

No one is privy to all the orders and instructions that border IO's work to, including you.

The idea that there are secret, unpublished rules doesn't make sense, outside of a national-security (i.e. "catch terrorists / criminals") scenario.  Why create secret rules to trick law-abiding folks into being rejected upon arrival, instead of publishing said rules to prevent the problem from occurring? 

 

On 5/7/2018 at 3:22 PM, elviajero said:

You take these denials as unlawful because it isn't conveniently spelt out for you.

I believe they are unlawful because they do not put such a reason in the passport-stamp. 

 

On 5/7/2018 at 3:22 PM, elviajero said:

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.

Not "having a job" is not evidence of this.  If this is a real and valid concern, rather than merely an excuse, then a list of document(s) needed to prove otherwise should be published as a ministerial-order.  Example:
"If you have stayed in Thailand longer than (x) days in the last (y), please be prepared to show (z), or you may be denied entry."  

 

As I worded it, they could still ignore it when it suited them (VIP, etc).  I suspect the reason this is not done, is that many of those they might like to reject would be able to provide evidence of "appropriate means of living in the country."

[elviajero]

On 08/05/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

On 07/05/2018 at 9:22 AM, elviajero said:

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

We agree on the result / reality.  Bottom line, an IO can ruin someone's plans, even if there is nothing in the laws/orders stating they can do it, and even though the law prohibits them from rejecting entry for a reason not explicitly defined in the law. 

 

The good news is, everyone who is at risk of this arbitrary and capricious behavior seems to be able to avoid this, at present, by not using some Airports and the Aranaya/Poipet border crossing.

The law is 39 years old and out of date, and when it was written I doubt they envisaged the numbers of people able to live in the country long term without working to fund their stay.

 

39 years ago "typical tourists" went on holiday for a few weeks and then went home. Few had the ability to work remotely giving them the ability to live in Thailand so there wasn't the need to state a limit. Things have changed, but the law hasn't. However, the law demands for the Ministry and Immigration Bureau control immigration and gives them discretional power to do so.

 

There is no law or published limit on the time a tourist can stay in the country, but that doesn't mean the authorities can't impose a limit. To date they have taken various action to make it harder for long term tourism, but have resisted applying a formal limit. Applying a limit is not in their interests or practical capability.

 

Instead of imposing a formal limit the authorities have "lawfully" given discretional power to the border IO's. That is not affecting the typical tourists that TR's and VEE are designed for, and only the long term tourists pushing their luck are being targeted. I am sure the authorities aren't bothered about a few thousand long term tourists with the right profile.

 

I was a "tourist" for over 10 years, but I accepted that at any point they could say enough is enough. The attitude of the long term tourists these days seems to have changed to having the right to do whatever they want.

 

The idea that you have a greater chance of being denied at the airport is frankly ridiculous. Very few get denied, most are just getting warnings. The IO's seem to be very lenient in excising their lawful power.

 

On 08/05/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

On 07/05/2018 at 9:22 AM, elviajero said:

No one is privy to all the orders and instructions that border IO's work to, including you.

The idea that there are secret, unpublished rules doesn't make sense, outside of a national-security (i.e. "catch terrorists / criminals") scenario.  Why create secret rules to trick law-abiding folks into being rejected upon arrival, instead of publishing said rules to prevent the problem from occurring? 

You can't seriously believe that the immigration authorities of any country would publish every order or rule their officers work to when controlling the border! Someone trying to stay long term as a tourist is causing their own problems.

 

On 08/05/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

On 07/05/2018 at 9:22 AM, elviajero said:

You take these denials as unlawful because it isn't conveniently spelt out for you.

I believe they are unlawful because they do not put such a reason in the passport-stamp. 

It's not unlawful to deny someone that has stayed in the country too long as a tourist under 12.2.

 

On 08/05/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

On 07/05/2018 at 9:22 AM, elviajero said:

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.

Not "having a job" is not evidence of this.  If this is a real and valid concern, rather than merely an excuse, then a list of document(s) needed to prove otherwise should be published as a ministerial-order.  Example:
"If you have stayed in Thailand longer than (x) days in the last (y), please be prepared to show (z), or you may be denied entry."  

Section 12

(2) ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร

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

 

Clause 2 is effectively saying that the person does not have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay, e.g, work/job/income. Anyone wanting to stay long term must have the appropriate visa (Non-Imm, PE), be working, or prove their financial standing to immigration. PE visa aside having a job or proving your financial standing are considered the appropriate ways of living long term in the country.

"mai mee bpat-jai nai gaan yang cheep dtaam kuan ..."

dtaam kuan (appropriate/as it should be) being the key to understanding the intent of the clause.

 

In simple terms; anyone that wants to stay long term must qualify and prove they have an appropriate way of sustaining their stay. Waiving a few bank statements at the border IO isn't what they are looking for, although it might help. 

 

On 08/05/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

As I worded it, they could still ignore it when it suited them (VIP, etc).  I suspect the reason this is not done, is that many of those they might like to reject would be able to provide evidence of "appropriate means of living in the country."

It's a common misconception is that border IO's want proof at the border that you can fund a long stay; they don't. What they want is evidence that the tourist is "typical" and will be leaving after their "short term" visit/holiday. So they are more interested in entry history, hotel bookings and onward flights.

 

Bottom line. Anyone that wants to stay long term in the country has to pay for the privilege, or prove they have an "appropriate means of living in the country", to immigration in country, for any of the qualifying reasons. Long term tourists haven't done that so they can lawfully be denied entry under 12.2.

Edited May 13, 2018 by elviajero

[BritTim]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

Instead of imposing a formal limit the authorities have "lawfully" given discretional power to the border IO's.

I agree that IOs have been given discretion over those entering visa exempt. It was well publicized in 2014 when the authorities did so. I find no evidence that such discretion has been given when you are entering with a visa. There would be absolutely no reason to keep it a secret that IOs are allowed to arbitrarily deny entry. If IOs were supposed to have this power, it would be been made clear in a Ministerial Order as was the case with visa exempt entries.

 

In some cases, officials at quite senior levels may believe they should have such authority. Thailand being the way it is, they may well be allowed to get away with exceeding their authority. However, I do not believe they are acting lawfully.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

I find no evidence that such discretion has been given when you are entering with a visa.

So when you read reports of people getting warnings and the occasional denied entry you don't see that as "evidence"? 

Can you explain why you think an IO would decide to deny entry when there is absolutely no benefit to them in doing so, and why the supervising officer, who also doesn't benefit, allows it?

 

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

In some cases, officials at quite senior levels may believe they should have such authority. Thailand being the way it is, they may well be allowed to get away with exceeding their authority.

For whose advantage/benefit?

 

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

However, I do not believe they are acting lawfully.

If the IO is presented with someone that has lived in the country as a "tourist" for 2 years and denies entry under 12.2, can you explain what is unlawful?

[jackdd]

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If the IO is presented with someone that has lived in the country as a "tourist" for 2 years and denies entry under 12.2, can you explain what is unlawful?

If the person can show that he has appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom, be it money in cash, in a bank, or income, then obviously it is unlawful if the IO denies entry because of 12.2

[elviajero]

21 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If the person can show that he has appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom, be it money in cash, in a bank, or income, then obviously it is unlawful if the IO denies entry because of 12.2

It's not unlawful if the evidence given doesn't satisfy the IO.

 

I've explained why waving a bank statement doesn't satisfy that clause. If you want to stay long term in Thailand, under the immigration visa/permit system, you need the right visa and; or a job in Thailand, or prove your financial status to immigration with cash in a Thai bank, or an embassy certified income. Tourists (non-PE visa holders) haven't done that so they can lawfully be denied under 12.2.

Edited May 13, 2018 by elviajero

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

If IOs were supposed to have this power, it would be been made clear in a Ministerial Order as was the case with visa exempt entries.

There was, as far as I know, no "ministerial order". It was announced by the MFA that the Immigration Bureau where clamping down on visa runners.

 

As the softer approach on TR visa holders is not such a clampdown they obviously don't feel the need to publish the fact.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

It's not unlawful if the evidence given doesn't satisfy the IO.

 

I've explained why waiving a bank statement doesn't satisfy that clause. If you want to stay long term in Thailand, under the immigration visa/permit system, you need the right visa and; or a job in Thailand, or prove your financial status to immigration with cash in a Thai bank, or an embassy certified income. Tourists (non-PE visa holders) haven't done that so they can lawfully be denied under 12.2.

If the person has 100k THB in cash with him do you think he can be denied for 12.2 and it would be lawful?

[elviajero]

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If the person has 100k THB in cash with him do you think he can be denied for 12.2 and it would be lawful?

Yes, 100% lawful. That would satisfy 12.9, but not 12.2.

 

I think you are missing the point. It's about having the appropriate way of living long term in Thailand, which you prove when making a long term stay application. It is not about how much cash you have in your pocket.

[jackdd]

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Yes, 100% lawful. That would satisfy 12.9, but not 12.2.

 

I think you are missing the point. It's about having the appropriate way of living long term in Thailand, which you prove when making a long term stay application. It is not about how much cash you have in your pocket.

Long term? Tourist Visa? When arriving with a Tourist Visa i'm requesting to be allowed to stay for 60 days. So to satisfy 12.2. I need to show enough money for my 60 days stay, and i think most people would agree that 100k are enough for 2 months.

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Long term? Tourist Visa? When arriving with a Tourist Visa i'm requesting to be allowed to stay for 60 days. So to satisfy 12.2. I need to show enough money for my 60 days stay, and i think most people would agree that 100k are enough for 2 months.

Wrong. You have to show an amount specified by ministerial order which is currently 20K for a visa holder to satisfy 12.9, not 12.2.

 

You’re still not getting it. We are talking about “tourists” with a long history in the country. They have not at anytime provided acceptable evidence that they have an appropriate way of living long term in the country, therefore, immigration can deny entry under 12.2.

[jackdd]

8 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You’re still not getting it. We are talking about “tourists” with a long history in the country. They have not at anytime provided acceptable evidence that they have an appropriate way of living long term in the country, therefore, immigration can deny entry under 12.2.

You are not reading the law properly. It says "appropriate means of living" it does not say "an appropriate way of living".

"appropriate means of living" means nothing more than "enough money", and actually it should be possible to satisfy 12.2. just by having a written statement from a guarantor in Thailand who is willing to pay for the "appropriate means of living".

And when talking about "long term": Most people on a non-o visa (extension) also never proved that they have an "appropriate way of living", so why should somebody on a tourist visa have to do it? The law is the same

 

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

You’re still not getting it. We are talking about “tourists” with a long history in the country. They have not at anytime provided acceptable evidence that they have an appropriate way of living long term in the country, therefore, immigration can deny entry under 12.2.

I think your conclusion that only a consular official can make the decision about whether someone has the appropriate finances for a 60-day visit to Thailand, and the traveler must be refused entry by the immigration official who is not qualified to make such a determination, is quite bizarre. However, I concede that it could provide a fig leaf to an official determined to deny someone entry.

[elviajero]

17 minutes ago, jackdd said:

You are not reading the law properly. It says "appropriate means of living" it does not say "an appropriate way of living".

"appropriate means of living" means nothing more than "enough money", and actually it should be possible to satisfy 12.2. just by having a written statement from a guarantor in Thailand who is willing to pay for the "appropriate means of living".

And when talking about "long term": Most people on a non-o visa (extension) also never proved that they have an "appropriate way of living", so why should somebody on a tourist visa have to do it? The law is the same

 

I am explaining the law to you based on what immigration have explained to me.

 

You are trying to fit the law to match your opinion.

 

12.2 is not just about money. If it were it would say so. It’s about having an appropriate (suitable, proper) way of living long term in the country which a long term tourist hasn’t done.

 

Everyone on a “non ‘O’ visa (extension)” has proven an appropriate way of living!!! Cash in a Thai bank, or an embassy certified foreign income, or income from Thai employment.

 

A tourist doesn’t have to prove an appropriate way of living in the country because they aren’t supposed to be living in the country. But someone that has lived in the country long term as a tourist can be stopped from continuing that stay as a tourist because they haven’t met the conditions of 12.2.

[jackdd]

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You are trying to fit the law to match your opinion.

 

12.2 is not just about money. If it were it would say so. It’s about having an appropriate (suitable, proper) way of living long term in the country which a long term tourist hasn’t done.

As i said already, the law does not say "appropriate (suitable, proper) way of living", where do you get this from? You are the one who is trying to fit the law to match your opinion.

In the original Thai law it's "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ" which can be translated as "appropriate means of living" or "means of subsistence". Maybe a sack of rice and a tent would also satisfy this? But probably the IO would prefer to see money

 

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Everyone on a “non ‘O’ visa (extension)” has proven an appropriate way of living!!! Cash in a Thai bank, or an embassy certified foreign income, or income from Thai employment.

No, they didn't prove an appropriate way of living (unless they proved to receive a pension), they just showed cash in the bank, maybe the cash comes from selling drugs, would you call this an appropriate way of living? But to show an appropriate way of living is not required by any law anyway

And why do you consider money in a bank in this case ok, but for a tourist you say having cash in his hand (my example with 100k THB from before. We could of course also say 800/6 = 133k THB) is not sufficient? Doesn't make sense.

Edited May 13, 2018 by jackdd

[BigT73]

Rotating with work back home 4mnths at a time and getting continous METV visas,  I have noticed the bar is slightly raised every year over the last 5yrs.  Started with proof of funds 8k aud with bank letter,  then proof of onward ticket, now proof of accom and you sign a part that as a tourist you will not work here.  I think the goverment has acknowledged the loopholes tourist visa expats were using with the Laos border runs.  But if you satisfy the requirements you shouldnt be denied a visa in your home country.  Bkk immigration havent asked or need to,  for any proof of docs/funds/tickets as I wouldnt have recieved my METV without the supporting documents in the first place.

 

[elviajero]

21 hours ago, BritTim said:

I think your conclusion that only a consular official can make the decision about whether someone has the appropriate finances for a 60-day visit to Thailand, and the traveler must be refused entry by the immigration official who is not qualified to make such a determination, is quite bizarre.

I know that you know that a visa doesn't guarantee entry and that the IO has the decision whether or not to grant entry. This is not about visa issuance.

 

You still seem to be missing the point. This is not about typical, genuine tourists getting a visa for a short term holiday. It is about someone that has lived way beyond the normal time a typical, genuine tourist needs for tourism, and is effectively living in the country. The IO in these cases has complete discretion over when enough is enough. If in the rare occasion they decide to deny entry they can, regardless of your opinion, lawfully deny entry under 12.2 because the person has not demonstrated to immigration how they are able to stay so long.

[BritTim]

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I know that you know that a visa doesn't guarantee entry and that the IO has the decision whether or not to grant entry. This is not about visa issuance.

 

You still seem to be missing the point. This is not about typical, genuine tourists getting a visa for a short term holiday. It is about someone that has lived way beyond the normal time a typical, genuine tourist needs for tourism, and is effectively living in the country. The IO in these cases has complete discretion over when enough is enough. If in the rare occasion they decide to deny entry they can, regardless of your opinion, lawfully deny entry under 12.2 because the person has not demonstrated to immigration how they are able to stay so long.

Under your logic, they could also deny you under Section 12 (4). After all, whether someone is mentally unstable is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder. The fact is that officials are supposed to have a well founded belief that the reason given is true. Just saying I am denying you under Section 12 (2), not because I really believe you lack money to live on in Thailand, but because I want an excuse to deny you, and this is the easiest lie. I am not saying it does not (rarely) happen, but it is definitely not according to the spirit of the Immigration Act.

[elviajero]

21 hours ago, jackdd said:

As i said already, the law does not say "appropriate (suitable, proper) way of living", where do you get this from?

I didn't quote the law, I paraphrased it to make it clearer what the law is saying. Means of living or way of living can mean the same thing.

 

21 hours ago, jackdd said:

In the original Thai law it's "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ" which can be translated as "appropriate means of living" or "means of subsistence". Maybe a sack of rice and a tent would also satisfy this? But probably the IO would prefer to see money

The relevant part of the Thai text is in red and broken down below.

"ไม่มีปัจจัยในการยังชีพตามควรแก่กรณีที่เข้ามาในราชอาณาจักร"

 

ไม่มี                  mâi mee              don't have ; there isn't

ปัจจัย                bpàt-jai               factor ; cause ; means; requisite

ใน                     nai                       in ; of

การ                   gaan                    (prefix which converts a verb or adjective into an verbal noun)  task ; work ; job

ยังชีพ                yang chêep        support life ; sustain ; maintain

ตามควร           dtaam kuan        appropriately ; as fits ; as it should be

 

It is effectively saying, that the person doesn't have a way of maintaining a living because they don't have the appropriate means to do so. They like anyone else that lives anywhere needs money and to get money you need a job or money in the bank or a passive income. The long term tourist has not provided appropriate evidence of any of that so they can be denied entry.

[elviajero]

21 hours ago, jackdd said:

21 hours ago, elviajero said:

Everyone on a “non ‘O’ visa (extension)” has proven an appropriate way of living!!! Cash in a Thai bank, or an embassy certified foreign income, or income from Thai employment.

No, they didn't prove an appropriate way of living (unless they proved to receive a pension), they just showed cash in the bank, maybe the cash comes from selling drugs, would you call this an appropriate way of living? But to show an appropriate way of living is not required by any law anyway

Of course they did. The showed proof appropriate to immigration of income or cash in the bank sufficient to cover the period of the stay. They have an appropriate way of living.

 

21 hours ago, jackdd said:

And why do you consider money in a bank in this case ok, but for a tourist you say having cash in his hand (my example with 100k THB from before. We could of course also say 800/6 = 133k THB) is not sufficient? Doesn't make sense.

You asked if you could be denied entry even if showing 100K in cash. You could be, whether you would be is down to the IO.

[onera1961]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Maybe a sack of rice and a tent would also satisfy this?

It just cracked me up. How about panhandling?

Edited May 14, 2018 by onera1961

[onera1961]

I think IO's assumption is anybody living in Thailand on Tourist visa for long time is either working illegally, engaged in criminal activities, or panhandling. Could they be wrong? OK, you may be stock trading and a great stock trader in the World. Why don't you work a few months in Wall street, save up enough money and get an Elite Visa?

[SteveK]

Or you might just have some savings and enjoy visiting Thailand.

[gk10002000]

On 5/6/2018 at 4:58 AM, matador007 said:

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.

agreed.  The best choice is to book an open return ticket from Bangkok if possible.  In the meantime, after arrival you can buy tickets to wherever you want.  If you did not plan to return from Bangkok but say from some other country, well, that is a bit different.  I have booked open returns on EVA several times an the price compared to a fixed date return was about the same.  And even changing a return flight on EVA did not cost anything extra as EVA typically only charged if you changed a departing from home country flight

[Ron19]

A flame / troll has been removed.

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
 

[AAArdvark]

One problem is that some airlines will not let you travel without an onward travel ticket regardless of what immigration says.  They know that if immigration decides to deny entry they, the airline, can be on the hook for not checking.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Glenn Roe said:

One problem is that some airlines will not let you travel without an onward travel ticket regardless of what immigration says.  They know that if immigration decides to deny entry they, the airline, can be on the hook for not checking.

It is difficult to say what many budget airlines might do. The major airlines will almost always follow the IATA recommendations (which are based on what immigration has told IATA). These are that an onward ticket is required if you are travelling without a visa (intending to enter visa exempt or apply for a visa on arrival) but not required when you already have a visa.

 

If airline check in are demanding an onward flight, even though you have a visa, it is reasonable to point out politely the IATA guidelines to the airline supervisor.

[JoePera]

So I'm flying out in a few days on Asiana for my first Thailand trip (USA to BKK). I booked the airfare on a whim, and drunk me didn't bother to research the SETV's 60 day limit.

 

Given that my roundtrip airfare is for 75 days, would this likely cause the consulate/airline/immigration to deny my visa/boarding/entry? That is, assuming that I didn't come prepared with proof of onward travel.

 

I plan to get the 30 day extension once over there, but I'm unsure if all the necessary parties would approve of my itinerary beforehand.