Tourist visa extension refused...options?

[alex419]

Synopsis: had a fair few TR and exemptions, so reckon a flight out and back for an exemption before I fly to the UK on the 26th will be best. Any other options? Just thought to ask the Jedi order before I make my next semi informed decision.

 

Tl:Dr: Got knocked back for my visa extension on Koh Samui due to the red stamp of death on my last Tourist Visa in Penang stating I'd had a fair few TR visas already, within the limit but hey. Visa's last day is tomorrow, I was told an extension would be fine at the Penang consulate, but apparently different rules fly at Koh Samui.

 

I'm flying back to the UK for my sister's wedding on the 26th anyway, so a visa waiver will be fine (my 3rd of the year, so flying it is). Probably getting a new passport while I'm back before I head back here.

[ubonjoe]

A bit strange they would not do a 30 day extension of your 60 day entry from your tourist visa. But of course that was at Samui.

You could try going to another office after checking into a hotel to get a local address for the TM7 form. I am certain it would be done.

You could fly out and back or do a border hop (unless you have done 2 this year) for a 30 day visa exempt entry.

[alex419]

Cheers Joe. The reason given was that I had the red stamp saying I had a lot of entries already, then they said  the refusal decision was already "in their computer system". I wasn't aware these were linked...they made it sound as though there is a concurrent record from Penang, though like I say, they gave me the visa with implicit extension.

 

It's a bugger with the short time I have left (the visa gives out tomorrow), as it's now "either" get a flight out, or try at the immigration in Surat Thani, with the kicker that if that is knocked back, then I have to pay through the nose for a flight Surat Thai to Bangkok to...god knows where on that same day. Also it'll be tough to book a hotel on the mainland tonight, as I'd probably need to catch the overnight ferry. Never rains but...

[BritTim]

I would not recommend flying out and back for a visa exempt entry. A border bounce by land for a visa exempt entry would be safer. I appreciate that may not be very convenient from Samui. Perhaps, you could consider leaving by air and returning by land.

 

One thing puzzles me. A denial of an extension is always at the discretion of immigration. However, it was my understanding they were were obliged to give you seven days to leave the country if your application for an extension was denied.

[Tilli]

I have red stamp before, Surat Thani immigration give you 30 day extension. It is new place, here is map: http://www.suratimmigration.go.th/download/map2.jpg  And this is web site: http://www.suratimmigration.go.th/en/index.php?intro=1

 

[elviajero]

11 minutes ago, BritTim said:

However, it was my understanding they were were obliged to give you seven days to leave the country if your application for an extension was denied.

There’s no such obligation, And if someone still has time left of their current stay there would be no need to give 7 days.

[Tilli]

The Port Hostel: 086 595 4444 or My Place @Surat Hotel: 077 272 288 They have room. Surat Thani.

[BritTim]

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There’s no such obligation, And if someone still has time left of their current stay there would be no need to give 7 days.

How do you interpret this from Police Order 327/2557 :

Quote

4. In case where an applying alien does not meet the full qualification stipulated by the criteria herein, the alien must be notified of the non-­permission order and must depart from the Kingdom within seven days from the date on which the permitted period has lapsed

 

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

51 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There’s no such obligation, And if someone still has time left of their current stay there would be no need to give 7 days.

How do you interpret this from Police Order 327/2557 :

Quote

4. In case where an applying alien does not meet the full qualification stipulated by the criteria herein, the alien must be notified of the non-­permission order and must depart from the Kingdom within seven days from the date on which the permitted period has lapsed

I’d interpret it exactly as written. If you apply for an extension that’s declined you’ve got a maximum of 7 days (“within seven days”) to leave the country after the current permit ends.

 

It doesn’t say they must give 7 days to leave, which is the point I was making, 

 

 

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

I’d interpret it exactly as written. If you apply for an extension that’s declined you’ve got a maximum of 7 days (“within seven days”) to leave the country after the current permit ends.

 

It doesn’t say they must give 7 days to leave, which is the point I was making, 

So, you think the correct interpretation is that you must leave within seven days of the expiry of your permission to stay, but there is no need for immigration to formally stamp this requirement within your passport. On exit, you simply inform airport immigration that you had a refused extension and, therefore, are leaving the country within the legally required time.

[alex419]

I appreciate the input, thanks all.   Despite my having previously checked that the 30 day extension would be ok at Penang, also having shown as collateral my flight departing 80 odd days after I got the 60 day visa, Samui were adamant.  Also, I don't recall, not that my recollection is any great shakes, that before I went to Samui there having been some thai script entered on the visa that disbars me from any kind of subsequent tourist visa or extension - including a visa on arrival.  

 

I will say I was dressed smartly and spoke as politely as my Scottish ancestry would allow, and I'm not aware of any reasoning for refusal bar the 2 years odd of in and outs from the country.  Anyway, as I'm here for the long haul, I'll be getting out tomorrow for some days and with any luck getting my non-B as a first step to a full working visa.  Bit of hassle, but I may as well get on with it.  Hopefully I'm just a salutary outlier. 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, alex419 said:

I will say I was dressed smartly and spoke as politely as my Scottish ancestry would allow, and I'm not aware of any reasoning for refusal bar the 2 years odd of in and outs from the country.  Anyway, as I'm here for the long haul, I'll be getting out tomorrow for some days and with any luck getting my non-B as a first step to a full working visa.  Bit of hassle, but I may as well get on with it.  Hopefully I'm just a salutary outlier. 

You shouldn't have any problems applying for non immigrant visas. If you've been staying long term as a tourist it will be the reason for the refused extension of stay. I expect we will see this happen more often in the not to distant future as they continue the clampdown on long term tourism. IMO it's the logical next stage.

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

I’d interpret it exactly as written. If you apply for an extension that’s declined you’ve got a maximum of 7 days (“within seven days”) to leave the country after the current permit ends.

 

It doesn’t say they must give 7 days to leave, which is the point I was making, 

So, you think the correct interpretation is that you must leave within seven days of the expiry of your permission to stay, but there is no need for immigration to formally stamp this requirement within your passport. On exit, you simply inform airport immigration that you had a refused extension and, therefore, are leaving the country within the legally required time.

No I don't think that, nor have I said that.

 

I am saying that they don't have to give someone 7 days to leave the country unless they have denied an application, and the person has less than 7 days left of their permit to stay. Why would they need to give someone applying two weeks early 7 days to leave the country? The 7 days is meant for people applying last minute that get refused; and especially for when applications under consideration get denied after the current permission has expired.

 

The rule is that 7 days is the max they can give someone that needs extra time to get out of the country because an extension application was denied. It is not an automatic 7 days added to a permit to stay simply because an application was denied.

 

Also FYI, it is not meant as a way to extend a visitors stay for 7 days that does not qualify for an extension. E.g. If a tourist applies for a second extension immigration can simply refuse to accept the application. The fact that they, in most cases, accept an application and issue the denial stamp has got people believing that it's the correct procedure; a procedure promoted by forums and the bar stool. It's not!

 

I imagine that they didn't give the OP 7 days because he had long enough remaining of his permit to stay, and/or they simply didn't accept the application so there was no extension application to deny.

Edited September 6, 2018 by elviajero

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

No I don't think that, nor have I said that.

 

I am saying that they don't have to give someone 7 days to leave the country unless they have denied an application, and the person has less than 7 days left of their permit to stay. Why would they need to give someone applying two weeks early 7 days to leave the country? The 7 days is meant for people applying last minute that get refused; and especially for when applications under consideration get denied after the current permission has expired.

 

The rule is that 7 days is the max they can give someone that needs extra time to get out of the country because an extension application was denied. It is not an automatic 7 days added to a permit to stay simply because an application was denied.

 

Also FYI, it is not meant as a way to extend a visitors stay for 7 days that does not qualify for an extension. E.g. If a tourist applies for a second extension immigration can simply refuse to accept the application. The fact that they, in most cases, accept an application and issue the denial stamp has got people believing that it's the correct procedure; a procedure promoted by forums and the bar stool. It's not!

 

I imagine that they didn't give the OP 7 days because he had long enough remaining of his permit to stay, and/or they simply didn't accept the application so there was no extension application to deny.

That is not the way the rule is worded (assuming the translation is correct). To review it states

Quote

must depart from the Kingdom within seven days from the date on which the permitted period has lapsed

It says nothing about the date the application was denied. The clear meaning is surely when your permission to stay expires. You may think the rule is not logical, but that is a different matter. It might also be that some (at least) immigration officials would ignore the rule, but (again) that does not change what the rule says

[Autonuaq]

Just get a normal visa.

All problems solved.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Autonuaq

[freedomnow]

Will be interesting to see if this refusal of tourist visa extensions based on previous history pops up in any other region...

Edited September 7, 2018 by freedomnow

[4evermaat]

18 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

Will be interesting to see if this refusal of tourist visa extensions based on previous history pops up in any other region...

 

I was just going to ask @UbonJoe et al if this will be more common.  Are local immigrations keeping track of extensions also and limiting those for Tourists/Visa Exempt entries?

 

I was told by an associate of mine who was already on two visa exempt entries + extensions on each after finishing her METV (with an extension on the last entry) that she might not be able to extend another visa exempt entry.

 

At first, she was supposed to do a border run in which a few hundred baht was supposed to be added to passport in exchange for a new visa exempt land entry.  But then the border run agency told her it was no longer possible (don't have all the details, but she panicked that her plans were nearly ruined).   So she flew out and then back in on a different G20 passport (dual national).  But those with only a single passport would not have had as much luck.

 

We'll probably see an increase in marriages over the next few years 555.

 

Edit: But for the OP, I think just trying a different immigration office can work as an extension for Tourist/Visa Exempt has very little qualifying requirements.  

Edited September 7, 2018 by 4evermaat

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, 4evermaat said:

 

I was just going to ask @UbonJoe et al if this will be more common.  Are local immigrations keeping track of extensions also and limiting those for Tourists/Visa Exempt entries?

No it will not be common. 

If you read the OP he was denied by the Samui immigration office because of the stamp Penang put on his visa. It was a one off by a office that is not exactly known for being friendly.

That is why I suggested he try at a different office.

[JackThompson]

On 9/6/2018 at 1:15 PM, alex419 said:

The reason given was that I had the red stamp saying I had a lot of entries already, then they said  the refusal decision was already "in their computer system". I wasn't aware these were linked...they made it sound as though there is a concurrent record from Penang, though like I say, they gave me the visa with implicit extension.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) gave you the visa.  Immigration issues extensions.  Neither can vouch for the other, though immigration can refuse to honor MFA's visas. 

Refusals of extensions like this are rare, but as UJ said, "... Samui."  The only thing in immigration's computer system was a history that read, to them, "This looks like a longer-staying farang - let's get rid of him."  Probably buddies with the guys who work the Bangkok airports and Poipet/Aranya border-crossing.

 

On 9/6/2018 at 10:49 PM, alex419 said:

I don't recall, not that my recollection is any great shakes, that before I went to Samui there having been some thai script entered on the visa that disbars me from any kind of subsequent tourist visa or extension - including a visa on arrival.  

It doesn't.  There is no connection.  By "visa on arrival" you mean "Visa-Exempt entry" - and those are given by immigration, so I would not try this except at friendly land-borders. 

At the Samui office, they found something the MFA wrote on a visa which they could use as an excuse.  According to reports for the past several years, you can get the extension at almost any other immigration-office in the country.

Edited September 8, 2018 by JackThompson