CM Immigration Q&A (2018)

[Sparkles]

Far too early to draw any conclusions. Spokesman typically gone of half cocked without thinking it through.

 

If they realise how much foreigners inject into all local economies they might get a grip on reality

 

[cusanus]

2 hours ago, Konini said:

The more I think about it, the more I think that this will only apply to people who got their original visa from abroad. For the Non-O A obtained abroad, there is no requirement to have money in the bank in Thailand.  Those Non-O (retired) on the 800k method of extensions now have to keep 400k in the bank, which just happens to be the amount of insurance required. I was wrong, I think.  Having the 400k in the bank is equal to what Non-O A will have to have in insurance cover.  The big thing I imagine is going to be those who came in originally on a Non-O A and got extensions to it.  I think for those people it probably would be worth ditching the Non-O A and just starting from scratch and getting a Non-O (retired).  Of course we really don't know what will happen, it's going to be a case of sitting back and waiting for it to all pan out.  Thankfully, we have until January before we need to act and the new rules will have settled down by then.

Yeah, too many unknowns at this point. My friend who got the O-A in the states did have to show money in the states and for the 1st extension she did have to show 800k in a Thai bank (or bank/income equivalent). Perhaps they mean those getting their 1st extensions, not earlier ones. So, go to Immigration and apply for a new visa from within the country just to bypass the insurance requirement? Sounds goofy, but bureaucracies, who knows? I was caught off guard by the O-A vs O distinction. Just what is the practical difference mean besides country of issue? 

[hml367]

I believe the O-A gets 1 year permission to stay upon entering Thailand.  The O would be entered for a certain number of days (60 days or 90 days) then you can apply for 1 year permission to stay.

 

I think one difference doing it with the O visa then getting the 1 year permission to stay is that a police report is not needed in this case.

 

Through the years translation, lengths of time, numbers of entry, and actual verbage has changed.

Edited May 18, 2019 by hml367

[cusanus]

12 minutes ago, hml367 said:

I believe the O-A gets 1 year permission to stay upon entering Thailand.  I think one difference doing it with the O visa then getting the 1 year permission to stay is that a police report is not needed in this case. 

In other words, once you're here, there's no real difference, so why require insurance for O-A and not O? We have a consensus it seems, we'll have to wait for word from Immigration before believing anything in the news. So, I'll try to keep my mouth shut until then. 

[XLance]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:45 PM, Sparkles said:

Far too early to draw any conclusions. Spokesman typically gone of half cocked without thinking it through.

Yeah, good luck to second-guess immigration procedures. It's true in other countries I lived in, and Thailand is no exception.

[EricTh]

Does anyone have the latest requirement for retirement visa?

 

It used to be 800k for 3 months before application date for 2nd extension and beyond.

 

Is it still 3 months or has it been reduced to 2 months for 2nd, 3rd extensions etc .....

Edited May 21, 2019 by EricTh

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, EricTh said:

Does anyone have the latest requirement for retirement visa?

 

It used to be 800k for 3 months before application date for 2nd extension and beyond.

 

Is it still 3 months or has it been reduced to 2 months for 2nd, 3rd extensions etc .....

I have it in my notes as 2 months (from UbonJoe I believe, and he seems pretty reliable in these matters)).  I assume you also are aware of the new financial requirements about keeping money in account AFTER extension approval (800k for 3 months after, and then 400k for the rest of the year)?  Here's my exchange with him on 800K before application:

 

  On 4/14/2019 at 1:20 PM, WaveHunter said:

So two months on a "second" year application for extension?

 

It 2 months for every extension application now. It was changed to 2 months on the 1st of March when the new rules went into effect.

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, EricTh said:

Does anyone have the latest requirement for retirement visa?

 

It used to be 800k for 3 months before application date for 2nd extension and beyond.

 

Is it still 3 months or has it been reduced to 2 months for 2nd, 3rd extensions etc .....

I guess I should clarify on my last comment about financial requirements after extension approval concerning "400k for remainder of year", that would also require raising it back up to 800k to season balance at least 2 months before next extension application.

Edited May 21, 2019 by WaveHunter

[EricTh]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I have it in my notes as 2 months (from UbonJoe I believe, and he seems pretty reliable in these matters)).  I assume you also are aware of the new financial requirements about keeping money in account AFTER extension approval (800k for 3 months after, and then 400k for the rest of the year)?  Here's my exchange with him on 800K before application:

 

  On 4/14/2019 at 1:20 PM, WaveHunter said:

So two months on a "second" year application for extension?

 

It 2 months for every extension application now. It was changed to 2 months on the 1st of March when the new rules went into effect.

 

 

The problem is that rule was set when Big Jok was the head, now that there is a new immigration head, have the rules been changed back to the old rule of 3 months? 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

 

The problem is that rule was set when Big Jok was the head, now that there is a new immigration head, have the rules been changed back to the old rule of 3 months? 

Ahh, I see.  That, I wouldn't know, but what gives you the impression that may be so? 

 

This is a perfect example of why I don't want to go through the process again; just too much confusing and conflicting information that is constantly in flux, a website that is never updated and basically useless, way too many headaches in procedures, annoying trips to IMM in the middle of the night to stand in line to get Q #'s, etc... . 

 

Even when you go to the trouble of querying IMM officers for answers in person, they often end up giving you conflicting information from one officer to the next.  All in all, it's a ridiculous way for a government organization to be run IMO.  It's unfair to treat expats so poorly when they, in a very real sense, are providing fuel for the Thai economy.

 

Just my personal opinion, but that's the way I feel.  I have better things to do than waste my time on such needless nonsense that is the definition of Thai IMM in Chiang Mai.

Edited May 21, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Dante99]

9 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

annoying trips to IMM in the middle of the night to stand in line to get Q #'s, etc... .

Do you still ride a horse for transport?

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, Dante99 said:

Do you still ride a horse for transport?

Second time you've chimed in with a meaningless and inflammatory comment directed at me.  You must be the resident court jester.  Every forum seems to have 'em.  Contributing nothing but nasty, mean-spirited quips to gain attention.  Nothing better to do with your time?  Judging from your high post count, I guess not.  Sad.

Edited May 22, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Bill97]

I have better things to do than waste my time on such needless nonsense that is the definition of Thai IMM in Chiang Mai.

Great.
So please no not post again on this thread or about immigration.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[WaveHunter]

35 minutes ago, Bill97 said:

Great.
So please no not post again on this thread or about immigration.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Another "friendly" guy with high posting count/low feedback ratio looking for validation from fellow trolls.  You know what you can do with your suggestion; I'll post anytime I feel like it pal!

Edited May 22, 2019 by WaveHunter

[cusanus]

This may help clarify the "health insurance" requirement that we were debating earlier. This states it will be a requirement NOT for retirement extensions, but for new applications for O-A visas (which are done outside Thailand). If you already have the O-A then I guess it won't affect you. https://news.thaivisa.com/article/35298/mandatory-health-insurance-for-foreigners-aged-over-50-in-thailand-why-it-may-not-affect-you

[WaveHunter]

13 minutes ago, cusanus said:

This may help clarify the "health insurance" requirement that we were debating earlier. This states it will be a requirement NOT for retirement extensions, but for new applications for O-A visas (which are done outside Thailand). If you already have the O-A then I guess it won't affect you. https://news.thaivisa.com/article/35298/mandatory-health-insurance-for-foreigners-aged-over-50-in-thailand-why-it-may-not-affect-you

Nice post; seems like you just cleared up a lot of confusion on this topic.

[NancyL]

19 hours ago, EricTh said:

 

The problem is that rule was set when Big Jok was the head, now that there is a new immigration head, have the rules been changed back to the old rule of 3 months? 

There has been at least one report of someone who was denied an extension recently in Chiang Mai because his 800,000 baht had aged just two months instead of three.  He was told that the "two month" rule is just for the first extension, not for subsequent extensions and this person was doing his 7th or 8th extension.

 

So, three months aging before application would be the most prudent course.

[WaveHunter]

31 minutes ago, NancyL said:

There has been at least one report of someone who was denied an extension recently in Chiang Mai because his 800,000 baht had aged just two months instead of three.  He was told that the "two month" rule is just for the first extension, not for subsequent extensions and this person was doing his 7th or 8th extension.

 

So, three months aging before application would be the most prudent course.

You are always very wise with your advice and your advice here indeed sounds most prudent, but Ubon Joe, who I share the same respect for as I do for you, claimed pretty emphatically that it is now two months, since the changes that took effect in March of this year. 

 

The fact that this person was denied could just be because the particular IMM officer was confused about the changes made in March; mistakes like that seem to happen sometimes at Chiang Mai IMM, with the constantly changing rules & regulations being the reason.

 

It sure would be nice if IMM would make issues such as this clear by keeping their website up-to-date, instead of subjecting everyone to all of this needless conjecture. 

 

Nonetheless, your advice is certainly the more prudent IMHO...better to be safe than sorry.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by WaveHunter

[NancyL]

38 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You are always very wise with your advice and your advice here indeed sounds most prudent, but Ubon Joe, who I share the same respect for as I do for you, claimed pretty emphatically that it is now two months, since the changes that took effect in March of this year. 

 

The fact that this person was denied could just be because the particular IMM officer was confused about the changes made in March; mistakes like that seem to happen sometimes at Chiang Mai IMM, with the constantly changing rules & regulations being the reason.

 

It sure would be nice if IMM would make issues such as this clear by keeping their website up-to-date, instead of subjecting everyone to all of this needless conjecture. 

 

Nonetheless, your advice is certainly the more prudent IMHO...better to be safe than sorry.

 

 

[CMBob]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

....but Ubon Joe, who I share the same respect for as I do for you, claimed pretty emphatically that it is now two months, since the changes that took effect in March of this year. 

UbonJoe is most definitely a solid source of information but even he cannot keep up with every immigration office let alone ever immigration officer.  Wisdom, as you and Nancy note, seems to require that the 800k (when relying on that method for one's extension) should be in there for renewals for 3 months prior to the application date.  Doing that appears to prevent any issue when confronted with an officer asserting the old "3-month-before-application" rule still applies.

Another questionable issue is what is applicable timing for keeping the 800k in the bank after the new extension is granted - is it 3 months after the application date or is it 3 months after the date the new extension takes effect?  The language in the so-called amendment clearly states that it's 3 months after the application date (which, presuming you renew 45 days early, would mean only another 45 days or so after the date the new extension takes effect); however, wisdom might very well require one to keep the funds in there 3 months after the date the new extension takes effect and that should avoid another problem by a given officer misinterpreting the new rules. 

Of course, just permanently parking the 800k avoids any of that rigmarole (being the comprehension skills of a given officer). 

(* I'm not mentioning the timing for the 400k to be parked just because adding that info seems to add to the confusion for some. So long as people know that one can never let the funds dip below 400k, that's probably enough on that).

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, CMBob said:

UbonJoe is most definitely a solid source of information but even he cannot keep up with every immigration office let alone ever immigration officer.  Wisdom, as you and Nancy note, seems to require that the 800k (when relying on that method for one's extension) should be in there for renewals for 3 months prior to the application date.  Doing that appears to prevent any issue when confronted with an officer asserting the old "3-month-before-application" rule still applies.

Another questionable issue is what is applicable timing for keeping the 800k in the bank after the new extension is granted - is it 3 months after the application date or is it 3 months after the date the new extension takes effect?  The language in the so-called amendment clearly states that it's 3 months after the application date (which, presuming you renew 45 days early, would mean only another 45 days or so after the date the new extension takes effect); however, wisdom might very well require one to keep the funds in there 3 months after the date the new extension takes effect and that should avoid another problem by a given officer misinterpreting the new rules. 

Of course, just permanently parking the 800k avoids any of that rigmarole (being the comprehension skills of a given officer). 

(* I'm not mentioning the timing for the 400k to be parked just because adding that info seems to add to the confusion for some. So long as people know that one can never let the funds dip below 400k, that's probably enough on that).

Good Post; you pretty much hit the nail on the head!  Yes, UbonJoe is amazing,   Personally I think he was correct, but as you suggest,  if he was incorrect about Chiang Mai in particular it would be entirely understandable considering that every single IMM office seems to have their own variation on the rules, or may be slow to adopt changes. 

 

How hard would it be for IMM to have a unified policy applicable to ALL IMM offices in the Kingdom, AND to have a website written in English and maintained by an English speaking person that would provide clear and concise information on rules, regulations, and procedures that was ALWAYS kept UP TO DATE?

 

English is considered the international language in situations where people of many different nationalities congregate.  For example, in the aviation industry every single airport in the world requires that ALL pilots converse with air traffic control in ENGLISH. 

 

Most Customs and Immigration offices I've been to in other countries provide clear and concise English on their websites and in offices that interact with foreigners, and with officers that can communicate fluently in English.  Yet that doesn't seem to be so with Thailand's Immigration Offices here in the Kingdom or in international consulates.

 

This should not be the case; Thailand is one of the most popular Asian destinations for international travelers and tourists.  There's no excuse for the IMM's poor level of communications with foreigners.

 

Thai Immigration, by its' very nature deals exclusively with non Thai people, yet their website in almost exclusively written in Thai, and in situations where they provide English translation, it is so poorly translated that the information is almost completely ambiguous.  Most IMM officer speaks little if any English, which just adds to confusion and angst for everybody; IMM officers and Farangs alike.

 

Such a simple thing as an well written and updated website with proper translation, and at least one IMM officer that speaks fluent English available for questions at all times at IMM offices could make EVERYBODY'S life (Farangs and IMM officers alike) easier and more productive...not to mention, making in-office procedures MUCH quicker, maybe even to the point of eliminating queues to get queue numbers (I mean how ridiculous is that; to have to queue up just to get a queue number...in the middle of the night LOL?)

 

I realize that Immigration departments of all countries around the world can be trying, but in Thailand, and in particular in Chiang Mai, it's by far the worst I've ever experienced and I'm pretty well travelled.  I just think there is no excuse for Chinag Mai IMM to be in such a sorry state of affairs.

 

That's only my opinion, but I think it's a pretty fair one.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Dante99]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Good Post; you pretty much hit the nail on the head!  Yes, UbonJoe is amazing,   Personally I think he was correct, but as you suggest,  if he was incorrect about Chiang Mai in particular it would be entirely understandable considering that every single IMM office seems to have their own variation on the rules, or may be slow to adopt changes. 

 

How hard would it be for IMM to have a unified policy applicable to ALL IMM offices in the Kingdom, AND to have a website written in English and maintained by an English speaking person that would provide clear and concise information on rules, regulations, and procedures that was ALWAYS kept UP TO DATE?

 

English is considered the international language in situations where people of many different nationalities congregate.  For example, in the aviation industry every single airport in the world requires that ALL pilots converse with air traffic control in ENGLISH. 

 

Most Customs and Immigration offices I've been to in other countries provide clear and concise English on their websites and in offices that interact with foreigners, and with officers that can communicate fluently in English.  Yet that doesn't seem to be so with Thailand's Immigration Offices here in the Kingdom or in international consulates.

 

This should not be the case; Thailand is one of the most popular Asian destinations for international travelers and tourists.  There's no excuse for the IMM's poor level of communications with foreigners.

 

Thai Immigration, by its' very nature deals exclusively with non Thai people, yet their website in almost exclusively written in Thai, and in situations where they provide English translation, it is so poorly translated that the information is almost completely ambiguous.  Most IMM officer speaks little if any English, which just adds to confusion and angst for everybody; IMM officers and Farangs alike.

 

Such a simple thing as an well written and updated website with proper translation, and at least one IMM officer that speaks fluent English available for questions at all times at IMM offices could make EVERYBODY'S life (Farangs and IMM officers alike) easier and more productive...not to mention, making in-office procedures MUCH quicker, maybe even to the point of eliminating queues to get queue numbers (I mean how ridiculous is that; to have to queue up just to get a queue number...in the middle of the night LOL?)

 

I realize that Immigration departments of all countries around the world can be trying, but in Thailand, and in particular in Chiang Mai, it's by far the worst I've ever experienced and I'm pretty well travelled.  I just think there is no excuse for Chinag Mai IMM to be in such a sorry state of affairs.

 

That's only my opinion, but I think it's a pretty fair one.

 

 

On 5/21/2019 at 8:21 PM, WaveHunter said:

I have better things to do than waste my time on such needless nonsense that is the definition of Thai IMM in Chiang Mai.

And you are asking for them to communicate clearly?

[Thailand]

Quite simple.

 

If you are using the 800K method season for 3 months, ignore the directives as many IO's appear to be doing.

 

If you you are using the 65K monthly minimum method assume that "leniency" ( another BJ directive) is out of the window unless proven otherwise. Funds remitted every month from overseas minimum of 65K per month to a Thai bank that will provide a letter that the funds do in fact originate from overseas. Be prepared to show the source of those funds, pension,dividends etc.

[EricTh]

16 hours ago, NancyL said:

There has been at least one report of someone who was denied an extension recently in Chiang Mai because his 800,000 baht had aged just two months instead of three.  He was told that the "two month" rule is just for the first extension, not for subsequent extensions and this person was doing his 7th or 8th extension.

 

So, three months aging before application would be the most prudent course.

Thanks for the reply.

 

I think like Wavehunter said, some immigration officers might have reverted to the old rule and not following the new rule so it can be quite arbitrary. I really hope they revert back to the old rule.

 

How many retirement visa officers are there? I thought there's only one or do they have different officers for different days?

[jeffandgop]

Yesterday went to apply for my annual extension of stay based on retirement. It’s my seventh year doing this. 

As in all years prior I use the 800K method. I always set up a fixed account 3 months prior to my anticipated date to apply. 

I arrived at 0611 and there were 8 seats occupied inside the IMM office being a que line. Later I realized 2 of the seats were agents; one was handling some 8-10 individuals dealing with an Ed visa requirement and the other was waiting for a client extending on the basis of marriage. 

At 0700 the officer assisted by a student invited the que, in proper order, to obtain their service ticket. I was the 2nd retiree. 

At 0715 officers started to call out the 90 day que tickets and at 0730 the first retiree extender was called to report to counter 8. Only one officer worked the retiree extenders while I was at IMM. 

That first retiree was missing something and was told to go obtain whatever the officer needed and I was called. 

I presented my documents which included the letter from the bank and my updated passbook I had obtained the previous day. Within 10 minutes I was finished and the waiting for the head guy’s signature and return of my passport began. An hour and a half later I was given back my passport and left. 

While I was being processed I took the opportunity to ask the officer what the current rules were related to bank letters and updated passbooks. In sum, bank letters are acceptable if obtained no later than 7 days prior to applying and SAVINGS passbooks had to be updated the same day as applying with the deposit balance on both the letter and the savings passbook matching. As for FIXED accounts, bank letter up to 7 days before but he didn’t need a passbook update so long as the balances matched. He said that he examined the maturity date of the deposit and so long as it was later than the day applying for the extension of stay that was satisfactory. 

 

Of course prudence dictates to obtain a passbook update anyway while your obtaining the letter. And you need to have copies of the passbook pages which show the balance as well as a copy of the page with your account information (name, account no, etc). 

[Thailand]

10 minutes ago, jeffandgop said:

Yesterday went to apply for my annual extension of stay based on retirement. It’s my seventh year doing this. 

As in all years prior I use the 800K method. I always set up a fixed account 3 months prior to my anticipated date to apply. 

I arrived at 0611 and there were 8 seats occupied inside the IMM office being a que line. Later I realized 2 of the seats were agents; one was handling some 8-10 individuals dealing with an Ed visa requirement and the other was waiting for a client extending on the basis of marriage. 

At 0700 the officer assisted by a student invited the que, in proper order, to obtain their service ticket. I was the 2nd retiree. 

At 0715 officers started to call out the 90 day que tickets and at 0730 the first retiree extender was called to report to counter 8. Only one officer worked the retiree extenders while I was at IMM. 

That first retiree was missing something and was told to go obtain whatever the officer needed and I was called. 

I presented my documents which included the letter from the bank and my updated passbook I had obtained the previous day. Within 10 minutes I was finished and the waiting for the head guy’s signature and return of my passport began. An hour and a half later I was given back my passport and left. 

While I was being processed I took the opportunity to ask the officer what the current rules were related to bank letters and updated passbooks. In sum, bank letters are acceptable if obtained no later than 7 days prior to applying and SAVINGS passbooks had to be updated the same day as applying with the deposit balance on both the letter and the savings passbook matching. As for FIXED accounts, bank letter up to 7 days before but he didn’t need a passbook update so long as the balances matched. He said that he examined the maturity date of the deposit and so long as it was later than the day applying for the extension of stay that was satisfactory. 

 

Of course prudence dictates to obtain a passbook update anyway while your obtaining the letter. And you need to have copies of the passbook pages which show the balance as well as a copy of the page with your account information (name, account no, etc). 

And what was mentioned in respect of  new retention of funds rules in the 800K account?

[elektrified]

Could anyone who used the Income Affidavit from the U.S. Consulate as proof of the 65K per month comment if they are asking to see receipts of the income? Or, will that practice begin in earnest later in the year? Just curious as Mod ubonjoe in another thread stated that if you have the U.S. Consulate letter you will not be asked for proof. 

[jeffandgop]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

And what was mentioned in respect of  new retention of funds rules in the 800K account?

I did not ask as I’m going, per the regulation, to keep that 800K in the account for 3 months past my 2019 date (3 June) deadline to have to have applied for the extension of stay

Should I decide come September to withdraw any portion of my fixed account, the balance will be kept above 400K; until it’s time to bring it back up to 800K for next year’s application. Per the regulation.

[cusanus]

6 hours ago, elektrified said:

Could anyone who used the Income Affidavit from the U.S. Consulate as proof of the 65K per month comment if they are asking to see receipts of the income? Or, will that practice begin in earnest later in the year? Just curious as Mod ubonjoe in another thread stated that if you have the U.S. Consulate letter you will not be asked for proof. 

My understanding is that the US Consulate ceased providing income letters at the end of 2018, though these would be good for some months (six?). My understanding was that you had to show statements proving the income and that it was transferred to a Thai bank monthly. Seems much simpler and probably cheaper to keep the 800k on hand, but everybody has different circumstances. But actually, I don't know exactly.

 

[elektrified]

9 minutes ago, cusanus said:

My understanding is that the US Consulate ceased providing income letters at the end of 2018, though these would be good for some months (six?). My understanding was that you had to show statements proving the income and that it was transferred to a Thai bank monthly. Seems much simpler and probably cheaper to keep the 800k on hand, but everybody has different circumstances. But actually, I don't know exactly.

 

The letters are good until the end of next month. It has been reported that in some immigration offices, that the Consulate letter is all that is needed (this one last time). Not sure about Chiang Mai though. Don't see any comments about C.M. in the visa forum.