Can a Tourist Visa be refused at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport

[edd999]

I have been coming to Thailand for the past year on 60 day Single Entry Tourist Visas (three) two of which were extended by 30 days at the local immigration office.

I now have a further Tourist Visa issued by the Thai Embassy in London, my question is can immigration at Suvarnabhumi Airport refuse entry because of the three previous tourist visas this year showing on their computer.

I am taking 20,000 Bhat with me in just in case it is needed.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Briggsy]

In answer to your question, the answer is definitely yes. Several reports and it almost happened to me. Far less likely to be denied entry than a Visa Exempt attempted entry though.

[elviajero]

Yes, but unlikely.

[lkv]

5 hours ago, Briggsy said:

In answer to your question, the answer is definitely yes. Several reports and it almost happened to me. Far less likely to be denied entry than a Visa Exempt attempted entry though.

What did they / you say, if you don't mind me asking?

Edited October 25, 2018 by lkv

[jackdd]

You can also prepare a TM11 form to appeal against a denial https://www.immigration.go.th/download/1486548054958.pdf

No guarantee that it helps, but it might ????

[elviajero]

29 minutes ago, jackdd said:

You can also prepare a TM11 form to appeal against a denial https://www.immigration.go.th/download/1486548054958.pdf

No guarantee that it helps, but it might ????

I wonder what defence you’d use against being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist.

[mockingbird]

Have you been flying back to the UK between visas, and how long have the gaps been between leaving and returning?

They're really after perpetual tourists who they suspect are actually working.

[Chou Anou]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

I wonder what defence you’d use against being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist.

You're being facetious, I assume. He stated himself that he's been in Thailand for 270 days (9 months) in the same year using tourist visas...he is most clearly NOT a tourist, he's living in Thailand, maybe technically not breaking the law, but certainly abusing the system.

[mockingbird]

3 minutes ago, Chou Anou said:

You're being facetious, I assume. He stated himself that he's been in Thailand for 270 days (9 months) in the same year using tourist visas...he is most clearly NOT a tourist, he's living in Thailand, maybe technically not breaking the law, but certainly abusing the system.

Actually, he said he only extended 2 of those visas, and he said the past year, not the same year.

So if he's spent 8 out of the last 12 months in Thailand, then it's highly unlikely he'll have any problem re-entering again.

 

If it's been a back to back 8 months, then the chances of being questioned will increase. (although still unlikely)

[jackdd]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

I wonder what defence you’d use against being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist.

You are very well aware that "being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist" is no official reason to be denied, so you won't have to appeal against it ????

If somebody gets denied for the famous 12.2 (no means to stay in the kingdom) i would state that i have cash in my pocket, savings on my bank account and income from abroad which i can prove, which allow me to finance my stay.

I think in most cases the IO being afraid to "lose face" if his decision gets officially labeled as wrong and overturned, would be enough to be allowed entry just after you submit the appeal (it never gets submitted to the minister, they just void the denial stamp)

Edited October 25, 2018 by jackdd

[DavidJow]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

You are very well aware that "being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist" is no official reason to be denied, so you won't have to appeal against it ????

If somebody gets denied for the famous 12.2 (no means to stay in the kingdom) i would state that i have cash in my pocket, savings on my bank account and income from abroad which i can prove, which allow me to finance my stay.

I think in most cases the IO being afraid to "lose face" if his decision gets officially labeled as wrong and overturned, would be enough to be allowed entry just after you submit the appeal (it never gets submitted to the minister, they just void the denial stamp)

Putting a thai birth certificate copy as father of Thai child, can be helpful ?

How much for the application fee ?

 

Do need it to give at which IO ? when already in the cell ? 

[freedomnow]

Simply avoid touching land @ BKK airports ? ????

 

[sometimewoodworker]

5 hours ago, DavidJow said:

Putting a thai birth certificate copy as father of Thai child, can be helpful ?

Probably not. Unless you are legally registered as the father.

 

The birth certificate by itself is irrelevant as any one can be named as the father.

[wgdanson]

7 hours ago, jackdd said:

You are very well aware that "being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist" is no official reason to be denied, so you won't have to appeal against it ????

If somebody gets denied for the famous 12.2 (no means to stay in the kingdom) i would state that i have cash in my pocket, savings on my bank account and income from abroad which i can prove, which allow me to finance my stay.

I think in most cases the IO being afraid to "lose face" if his decision gets officially labeled as wrong and overturned, would be enough to be allowed entry just after you submit the appeal (it never gets submitted to the minister, they just void the denial stamp)

Isn't it only Bht 20,000 CASH at the airport, bank accounts do not count.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, wgdanson said:

Isn't it only Bht 20,000 CASH at the airport, bank accounts do not count.

You'd need to have that cash, since it is a documented requirement.  But, in a few cases, the foreigner had the cash, and was not doing a quick out/in (so clearly not working), and immigration used a clause indicating they knew (telepathy?) that the person did not have the funds for their entire-stay.  That is the one that could be very easily refuted in court. 

But if you don't have that document ready on arrival, you may not get the chance to appeal, if an earlier report is accurate:

 

[edd999]

Many thanks for the replies, especially mockingbird particularly helpful.

I wasn't in Thailand last November or December so the three visas are all in this calendar year.

Entered in January, April and August with a total of 205 days, each time flying back to uk and getting the new visa at Thai Embassy in London.

I'm 65 and met a new girlfriend in January so have been slowly building the relationship.

If refused at BKK I was considering a visa exempt to exit the airport and getting a flight up to Savannakhat and trying there or even getting Non 0-A visa there.

[elviajero]

11 hours ago, jackdd said:

You are very well aware that "being denied entry for staying too long as a tourist" is no official reason to be denied, so you won't have to appeal against it ????

If somebody gets denied for the famous 12.2 (no means to stay in the kingdom) i would state that i have cash in my pocket, savings on my bank account and income from abroad which i can prove, which allow me to finance my stay.

I think in most cases the IO being afraid to "lose face" if his decision gets officially labeled as wrong and overturned, would be enough to be allowed entry just after you submit the appeal (it never gets submitted to the minister, they just void the denial stamp)

As I have explained many times having cash in your pocket or waving a foreign bank statement at the IO does not satisfy "12.2". And if you showed a funded Thai bank book, it doesn't really help your case in proving you are a 'tourist'. IMO that would prove you are living in the country as a tourist.

 

Before the IO can formally deny entry they have to get it signed off by the supervisor, so no one loses face! Any appeal would have to go higher and could take days to resolve. Thats days would spend in custody at the airport.

 

The reason for denial is based on the time spent in the country as a tourist. You couldn't really deny that having spent 240 days in the country.

 

 

[elviajero]

50 minutes ago, edd999 said:

Many thanks for the replies, especially mockingbird particularly helpful.

I wasn't in Thailand last November or December so the three visas are all in this calendar year.

Entered in January, April and August with a total of 205 days, each time flying back to uk and getting the new visa at Thai Embassy in London.

I'm 65 and met a new girlfriend in January so have been slowly building the relationship.

If refused at BKK I was considering a visa exempt to exit the airport and getting a flight up to Savannakhat and trying there or even getting Non 0-A visa there.

Given your profile I cant see you being denied entry.

 

If you are in receipt of state pension you can easily get a non-immigrant 'O' visa from the embassy in London (by post). That would give you 90 days on entry. If you travel regularly you could ask for a 1 year multiple entry visa -- not sure if the are issuing them at this time -- and that would give you unlimited entries for 1 year, with each entry limited to 90 days.

[Suradit69]

15 hours ago, jackdd said:

I think in most cases the IO being afraid to "lose face" if his decision gets officially labeled as wrong and overturned, would be enough to be allowed entry

Ah yes. According to some farang, everything hinges on Thais potentially losing face.

 

In most cases when a denial of entry is possible, at least in most cases described on TV, an I/O would call over a superior officer and there would be an interview to determine what the traveler was doing in Thailand.  Probably a warning would be given, but if the supervising officer felt there were sufficient grounds to deny entry, as they sometimes might, they wouldn't be afraid of suffering loss of face.

 

Most likely if some farang is denied, it's the farang who goes into paroxysms of humiliation over the loss of face and rushes to post a rant on TV ...  usually including comments on the alleged nastiness of I/O and even, in one recent post, a comment on the bad teeth of one officer, while insisting that he, the farang, was the poster boy for polite behavior with rumors of pending sainthood in the wind.

 

On 9/17/2018 at 9:06 PM, bkk321 said:

He was polite but the other lady with the bad teeth looked so smug and pleased with herself.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Suradit69

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Suradit69 said:

In most cases when a denial of entry is possible, at least in most cases described on TV, an I/O would call over a superior officer and there would be an interview to determine what the traveler was doing in Thailand.  Probably a warning would be given, but if the supervising officer felt there were sufficient grounds to deny entry, as they sometimes might, they wouldn't be afraid of suffering loss of face.

Agreed, unless the farang (with valid Tourist Visa) then pulls out an appeal form with a good Thai lawyer's business-card stapled to it.  If the IOs were rejecting entry based on "too long in Thailand as a Tourist" - no such reason for rejection exists in the Immigration law or ministerial orders for Tourist Visa holders, so that won't work any more.

If the visitor has the 20K Baht cash, plus a bank-statement showing he has more than enough funds for his full stay, and has been gone long enough (a week or so) that holding down an illegal job is implausible (also helps if his wages in his passport-country are 10x higher) - at that point the supervisor has a very different decision to make, than he did a minute before.

 

This approach could cost up to 7-days in detention if immigration fights the appeal - but might only take another few mins and one is on their way.  The IOs can always pluck out another victim to use to meet their "denied-entry" quota. 

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

The reason for denial is based on the time spent in the country as a tourist. You couldn't really deny that having spent 240 days in the country.

Have you ever seen a written notice of the reason for denial of entry or deportation that gave as the reason "spending too much time in Thailand on tourist entries"? I assume this would need to give cite Section 12.10 with the explanation that there is a secret Ministerial Order instructing officials to deny entry to long stay tourists. I have never seen anything to suggest such a scenario is possible.

 

I accept that some immigration officials believe a law limiting the time you can spend as a tourist should exist. However, they need to enforce their private, unofficial regulations using actual documented rules, which could (in general) be appealed, though I concede this would often be difficult.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Have you ever seen a written notice of the reason for denial of entry or deportation that gave as the reason "spending too much time in Thailand on tourist entries"? I assume this would need to give cite Section 12.10 with the explanation that there is a secret Ministerial Order instructing officials to deny entry to long stay tourists. I have never seen anything to suggest such a scenario is possible.

 

I accept that some immigration officials believe a law limiting the time you can spend as a tourist should exist. However, they need to enforce their private, unofficial regulations using actual documented rules, which could (in general) be appealed, though I concede this would often be difficult.

So you think that the Thai authorities are happy for anyone to spend an indefinite time in Thailand using back to back tourist entries? If your answer is yes, then let's not bother debating this subject anymore.

 

They clearly aren't happy given everything they've done since 2006 to reduce the number of people doing it. I'm happy to list them if you can't remember them all, it's a long list.

 

Staying too long is the underlying reason for denying entry. There may not be a specific reason listed under section 12, but as someone has stayed long term without proving they have the 'appropriate means' for that long term stay, such as a job, income, money in the bank; they can be denied entry under 12.2.

 

As you know there was guidance issued to IO's about considering entry to people using back to back visa exemption that found it's way in to the public domain (it wasn't a public notice). In which it is clear that IO's have the authority to deny entry to someone "leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country."

 

 

So clearly they can deny entry under those circumstances even though there is no specific reason listed in S.12. for denying entry for staying longer than necessary for tourism, so why do you think the same does not apply to tourist visa holders that have stayed too long!

 

 

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

As you know there was guidance issued to IO's about considering entry to people using back to back visa exemption that found it's way in to the public domain (it wasn't a public notice). In which it is clear that IO's have the authority to deny entry to someone "leaving Thailand and returning immediately for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country."

 

So clearly they can deny entry under those circumstances even though there is no specific reason listed in S.12. for denying entry for staying longer than necessary for tourism, so why do you think the same does not apply to tourist visa holders that have stayed too long!

That "guidance" was in a public Police Order, and was followed closely by another very public statement by the Prime Minister that the regulation on visa exempt entries "should be applied flexibly". Why do you think that Police Order referred specifically to visa exempt entries, avoiding the inclusion of entries using tourist visas?

 

I do not dispute that there are some in immigration who believe long term tourism should be illegal. That does not make it the law of the land. If there was an Order for entries on tourist visas similar to the 2014 Order on visa exempt entries, I see absolutely no reason why it would have been kept secret.

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

So you think that the Thai authorities are happy for anyone to spend an indefinite time in Thailand using back to back tourist entries?

Depends on who you ask.

People who make the laws are ok with it, but some immigration officers may not be ok with it. Both of them are "Thai authorities".

But the laws are above immigration officers, so you could say that the Thai authorities are ok with it. If they were not they would have implemented a law like maximum 180 days per year on tourist visas long ago.

[NanLaew]

15 hours ago, edd999 said:

If refused at BKK I was considering a visa exempt to exit the airport and getting a flight up to Savannakhat and trying there or even getting Non 0-A visa there.

If visa-enabled entry is refused, there's no 'do-over' option at that juncture.

 

However, if you have B20k or the equivalent thereof, I think that's the only possible challenge they will make and you'll be good to go.

 

Good luck with the new girlfriend too!

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, BritTim said:

That "guidance" was in a public Police Order, and was followed closely by another very public statement by the Prime Minister that the regulation on visa exempt entries "should be applied flexibly". Why do you think that Police Order referred specifically to visa exempt entries, avoiding the inclusion of entries using tourist visas?

You've claimed in the past that it was a ministerial regulation (or similar) and now you claim it is a police order. It was neither. It was an addendum to something issued to immigration officers. The public announcement was in the form of a letter sent by the MFA to foreign embassies etc. The comment made by the PM was/is irrelevant and purely political.

 

It was specific to visa exempt entry because visa exempt entries were the target to stop visa running, and push people to get tourist visas which they then controlled the issuance/availability of.

 

Stop deflecting. You are implying that IO's are acting without the authority of TIB, which based on fact and reality is complete nonsense. Since 2006 there has been a campaign, lead by senior immigration bosses, to stop visa running, which having been successful, is now focusing on tourist visa use. IO's have been given discretion to deny entry to anyone that is 'staying to long as a tourist'. All legal under the immigration act.

 

Immigration are being aided by the embassies/consulates local to Thailand that are restricting the numbers of visas they will issue. I'm sure you are familiar with their stamp which says: "The holder has travelled to Thailand with Tourist Visa x times. The embassy may not accept the application next time."

 

8 hours ago, BritTim said:

I do not dispute that there are some in immigration who believe long term tourism should be illegal. That does not make it the law of the land. If there was an Order for entries on tourist visas similar to the 2014 Order on visa exempt entries, I see absolutely no reason why it would have been kept secret.

There is no secret. There is no set limit or restriction of tourist visa use. It has been left to the discretion of immigration officers on a case by case basis. Power that IO's rarely seem to use. Rather than setting rigid rules they are taking a softer approach, because IMO the other action they have taken is reducing long term tourist visa use. It's really not hard to understand.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, jackdd said:

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

So you think that the Thai authorities are happy for anyone to spend an indefinite time in Thailand using back to back tourist entries?

Depends on who you ask.

People who make the laws are ok with it, but some immigration officers may not be ok with it. Both of them are "Thai authorities".

But the laws are above immigration officers, so you could say that the Thai authorities are ok with it. If they were not they would have implemented a law like maximum 180 days per year on tourist visas long ago.

"People who make the laws are ok with it". LOL. 

 

The people that make the laws (the authorities) have; stopped visa running, taken away DETV's, introduced a METV not available locally to non-residents, limited the number of SETV's available from one location, enforced stricter criteria when applying for a SETV, etc. These actions by the authorities have been to make it harder for long term tourism. IMO they are avoiding set limits because they don't, yet, need to. The hassle long term tourists have in trawling SEA for SETV's, and being given a hard time at the border is reducing long term tourism. 

 

They want to stop people living in the country as tourists, not stop frequent short term entries.

 

 

[Pepper9187]

On 10/25/2018 at 5:12 PM, edd999 said:

ear on 60 day Single Entry Tourist Visas (three) two of which were extended by 30 days at the local immigration office.

I now have a further Tourist Visa issued by the Thai Embassy in London, my question is can immigration at Suvarnabhum

Answering OP : YES definitely, they can do whatever they want.

 

It's probably not gonna happen but there's always a risk, however if you fly from UK with a valid return ticket and cash with you i would think it reduces the risks VS flying from a neighboring Asian country with no cash and or no return ticket, for example !.