Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[Briggsy]

11 minutes ago, moe666 said:

also the my staff is in Thailand.

Put your glasses on!

 

"My stuff", not "my staff".

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, onera1961 said:

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Reduction in accessibility to self-financed Western visitors, and higher-requirements on expats long-stay extensions,

Why only Western visitors? How about Singaporean, Korean, Japanese? 

Fair enough - anyone from a nation where wages are higher than what one could earn in Thailand working illegally. 

We don't hear about many rejected-entries from Korean or Japanese visitors here (or in other places I read),  but that could be because they report such issues in their native language, elsewhere. 

[onera1961]

50 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

We don't hear about many rejected-entries from Korean or Japanese visitors here (or in other places I read),  but that could be because they report such issues in their native language, elsewhere. 

May be they are not perpetual tourists like Westerners. 

[elviajero]

 

What you say just doesn't make sense.

How do you get a visa or extension for being retired or married? By showing money.

You say a tourist has to prove on entry how he is financing his stay, just showing cash is not enough in your opinion. Why should this only apply to somebody on a tourist visa? The IO at the border (or when doing an extension) could very well wonder how somebody using for example a marriage visa or retirement visa can finance his stay, because all he had to do to get his visa was to show money, but not how he can support a long term stay, like where the money that he uses for his expenses while living in Thailand is comming from.

 

So if the denial for 12(2) were a legit reason we would see people with other kinds of visas, especially people on marriage visa who stay in the country long time and don't have a work permit, be denied for the same reason, because the IO could also wonder how they finance their stay. But i think we never had a report about this. This makes it quite clear that 12(2) is an arbitary reason to deny somebody on a touris visa because an IO wants to deny entry for whatever other reason.

You taking my comment out of context.

 

When I said its not about how much money you have I was pointing out that showing a bank statement, regardless of the balance, will not be accepted at the border because that is not the way The Thai authorities accept proof of income. Same as a retiree going in to an immigration office with millions in the bank would be regected if the money hadn't been seasoned or wasn't in a Thai bank.

 

I didn't say a tourist has to prove his income on entry. I said the opposite, that they can't prove it in a way that is acceptable under the visa system.

 

Section 12.2 is used by IO's to deny entry to tourists that have not proven their financial status by -- an acceptable method -- to fund  their long continuing stay, and it is perfectly legit for them to deny entry to a tourist in this basis even if they have got millions in the bank.

 

It's not just about the money, but how the proof of financial standing is presented to and accepted by immigration.

 

To stay long term in Thailand you need the appropriate visa/permit and a tourist visa is not it. If you start from that basic FACT, you might start to understand the law/rules, and why waving a bank statement at a border is not satisfy section 12.2.

 

[jackdd]

 

Section 12.2 is used by IO's to deny entry to tourists that have not proven their financial status by -- an acceptable method -- to fund  their long continuing stay, and it is perfectly legit for them to deny entry to a tourist in this basis even if they have got millions in the bank. 

Actually 12.2 makes it quite clear that this is about the finances following the entry to Thailand. So for this paragraph it doesn't matter what you did the last few years, and i'm quite sure that your personal interpretation of it is wrong.

You assume that the 20k THB requirement is for section 12.9. How do you know this? It is very well possible that these 20k are also the required amount to satifsy 12.2

 

Did anybody ever see the original notice regarding the 20k THB requirement? I would be interested in the original wording.

Sadly i was unable to find it on Google, i found a section on the russion embassy website which says that this was a notification of the ministry of interior from 8th may 2000, but i was unable to find the original.

 

 

To stay long term in Thailand you need the appropriate visa/permit and a tourist visa is not it. If you start from that basic FACT

How about you start from the FACT that a tourist can't stay more than 90 days, so a tourist can't stay long term? (With some exceptions)

Why should a tourist visa not be the appropriate visa for somebody who makes several 90 day trips per year in Thailand?

[DrJack54]

 

Actually 12.2 makes it quite clear that this is about the finances following the entry to Thailand. So for this paragraph it doesn't matter what you did the last few years, and i'm quite sure that your personal interpretation of it is wrong.

You assume that the 20k THB requirement is for section 12.9. How do you know this? It is very well possible that these 20k are also the required amount to satifsy 12.2

 

Did anybody ever see the original notice regarding the 20k THB requirement? I would be interested in the original wording.

Sadly i was unable to find it on Google, i found a section on the russion embassy website which says that this was a notification of the ministry of interior from 8th may 2000, but i was unable to find the original.

 

How about you start from the FACT that a tourist can't stay more than 90 days, so a tourist can't stay long term? (With some exceptions)

Why should a tourist visa not be the appropriate visa for somebody who makes several 90 day trips per year in Thailand?

Several 3 month "visits" in a year?Or perhaps you mean 4 three month visits per year.

Umm why not call it one, 1 year visit. 

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

You taking my comment out of context.

 

When I said its not about how much money you have I was pointing out that showing a bank statement, regardless of the balance, will not be accepted at the border because that is not the way The Thai authorities accept proof of income. Same as a retiree going in to an immigration office with millions in the bank would be regected if the money hadn't been seasoned or wasn't in a Thai bank.

 

I didn't say a tourist has to prove his income on entry. I said the opposite, that they can't prove it in a way that is acceptable under the visa system.

Therefore, Non-OA Visas would be equally meaningless - same as SETVs and METVs, EDs - ALL Visas - given those using them within the laws/rules that govern their use have not undergone a Secondary financial clearance by immigration.

 

Quote

Section 12.2 is used by IO's to deny entry to tourists that have not proven their financial status by -- an acceptable method -- to fund  their long continuing stay, and it is perfectly legit for them to deny entry to a tourist in this basis even if they have got millions in the bank.

Then the same applies for all other visa-types.  None are valid, because immigration doesn't think the MFA's vetting is "good enough" on the financials, and no evidence to the contrary may be presented at the checkpoint.

 

Quote

It's not just about the money, but how the proof of financial standing is presented to and accepted by immigration.

Financial standing, where required, was proven to the MFA's consulate instead of immigration. Immigration has no right to demand a "do-over" - or worse (a more despicable Kafka-esque con), "You cannot prove money at all here.  We don't care about the MFA's vetting. We are now rejecting your entry based on our lie - claiming you cannot afford to survive the next 60-days in Thailand."

 

Quote

To stay long term in Thailand you need the appropriate visa/permit and a tourist visa is not it. If you start from that basic FACT, you might start to understand the law/rules, and why waving a bank statement at a border is not satisfy section 12.2.

A Tourist Visa entry is only for 60-days - not "long term"  What was done in the past is "money spent."  Given the lack of handouts/welfare, if the person had no money, then they would have starved.  That's water under the bridge.  The only issue, financially, is the next 60-days.

 

Summing up, to a logical conclusion:

 

Applying for Tourist Visas - especially an METV - requires showing funds requisite to obtaining that Visa.  How this is handled is a decision of the MFA and Consulates.  This is the same for a Non-OA Visa.

 

If passing the MFA's financial tests for a SETV or METV is deemed to "not count" at immigration - and there is "no way" to pass a 2nd round of financial-tests at the checkpoint - then a Non-OA visa-holder could be denied for spending "too much time" in Thailand, by  following the published-rules governing his visa.  Bearing in mind, that "too much time" is what the IO and his supervisor made-up a few minutes before, and has nothing to do with the permitted-stay allocated by the visa-type.  And never mind that "overstay" is the only valid "too long" that actually exists in the law.

 

If the OP's financial-proof for his METV, presented to the MFA's consulate, isn't good enough for immigration, then similar provided for a Non-OA would be likewise worthless.  And neither applicant would be allowed to provide additional evidence acceptable at an entry-point - assuming immigration had a right to ask for more financial-proof than the 20K Baht (they don't - nor for an outgoing air-ticket, if you have a valid Visa).

 

Therefore, following the logic of the Bangkok immigration-checkpoint, all visas are henceforth worthless, because immigration didn't get to run their own independent validation on the financials in a local-office in Thailand, and will refuse to even consider any evidence presented by those whom they want to deny-entry.

 

In a sane world, if immigration is not satisfied with how the MFA handles financial vetting for this or that type of visa, they would take it up with the MFA.  But absolutely under no circumstances, except in a banana-backwater, would an IO cite non-existent rules ("previous time in-country," in this case), then try to sell that as not being able (even refusing to look at evidence presented by the visitor) to do a 2nd round of financial vetting to follow up on the MFA's already-completed vetting.

 

 

Either immigration has evidence that the visitor is violating a specific reason for refusal of entry, or they don't, and must honor the visa's terms.  The MFA already financially-cleared the OP, so the only valid financial rejection would be the 20K Baht rule - not some guess about his ability to pay his way for the next 60 (or fewer) days.

Edited December 3, 2018 by JackThompson

[jackdd]

 

Several 3 month "visits" in a year?Or perhaps you mean 4 three month visits per year.

Umm why not call it one, 1 year visit. 

Because it isn't a one year visit, if it were the tourist would have to do for example 90 day reports.

Edited December 3, 2018 by jackdd

[DrJack54]

 

Because it isn't a one year visit, if it were the tourist would have to do for example 90 day reports.

Oh I get it! So stay for 89 days and have weekend drinking amber in Saigon every 3 months, meaning 357 days in los in a year for a visit. Good plan. Good luck

[JackThompson]

9 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Oh I get it! So stay for 89 days and have weekend drinking amber in Saigon every 3 months, meaning 357 days in los in a year for a visit. Good plan. Good luck

Each separate visa and extension have conditions to meet, consistent with their stay-length, as determined by the MFA (visa) and Immigration (extension).

[jackdd]

 

Oh I get it! So stay for 89 days and have weekend drinking amber in Saigon every 3 months, meaning 357 days in los in a year for a visit. Good plan. Good luck

Not for "a visit", but for four visits.

[DrJack54]

 

Each separate visa and extension have conditions to meet, consistent with their stay-length, as determined by the MFA (visa) and Immigration (extension).

I have come to conclusion you just bang on thread after thread about " there are no written laws". In my extreme post of stating staying in los basically continuously is OK. 

So would someone be admitted with my silly plan in my post. Answer NO. Then you give such convoluted ways of entering los. The op is is flying from distant country and your plan is fly to country x in Asia, get bus to this or that border crossing. I lost you somewhere between kl (which he can't enter and the train trip to thai. Then domestic flight. Ha....is that a joke

[elviajero]

 

Actually 12.2 makes it quite clear that this is about the finances following the entry to Thailand. So for this paragraph it doesn't matter what you did the last few years, and i'm quite sure that your personal interpretation of it is wrong.

Your right that it is about finances following entry to Thailand. I don’t and never dispute that. But the denial happened because the person has spent months/years in the country, wants to spend more time in the country, and hasn’t demonstrated an appropriate means of living for such a long cumulative length of time.

 

Read the expulsion notice. It is clearly stamped with the reason for denial under 12.2. which is badly translated as meaning not having the appropriate means to live.

 

What I am trying to explain to you and others is that waving a bank statement at the border does not satisfy any defined way that someone can demonstrate their appropriate means to live. And that only a job, cash in a Thai bank or a foreign certified income or long term visa

are considered appropriate means of living in Thailand.

 

 

You assume that the 20k THB requirement is for section 12.9. How do you know this? It is very well possible that these 20k are also the required amount to satifsy 12.2

Read the expulsion notice. The OP was denied under 12.2 AND 12.9. And the reason given for 12.9 was not having money less than the minimum required. That refers to 20K.

 

It couldn’t be any clearer that they are two separate requirements and confirms what I have been saying for years.

 

 

Did anybody ever see the original notice regarding the 20k THB requirement?

I no longer have a copy, but I’m sure it didn’t mention section 12.9. if that’s what you’re after. But you have the proof in this thread in the expulsion notice.

 

 

How about you start from the FACT that a tourist can't stay more than 90 days, so a tourist can't stay long term? (With some exceptions)

If someone has spent months/years living in a foreign country they are not considered a visitor for tourism by any definition. Spending a few hours/days outside the country every few months doesn’t change that FACT.

 

 

Why should a tourist visa not be the appropriate visa for somebody who makes several 90 day trips per year in Thailand?

I don’t see a problem. But at what point would you consider someone is living in a country?

[sanemax]

 

But the denial happened because the person has spent months/years in the country, wants to spend more time in the country, and hasn’t demonstrated an appropriate means of living for such a long cumulative length of time.

And 20 000 Baht in cash  would have been sufficient to prove that ?

[DrJack54]

 

And 20 000 Baht in cash  would have been sufficient to prove that ?

Geezus don't members get it. We all talk about suspicion of working. No. 

The reason under 50 want live here ongoing is life style or fell in love or whatever. Here is a message Thai are not looking for that. Maybe in future the retired xpats in same basket. The "chip on shoulder guy" will be along soon. Banging on about the money xpats contribute. Rubbish. Cost benefit analysis...get short term tourists into Thai. India ramping up in future years and of course continued Chinese. Thai don't really want all the failures from him country (most are) coming to live in los on visas that were not designed for that. 

[sanemax]

 

Geezus don't members get it. We all talk about suspicion of working. No. 

The reason under 50 want live here ongoing is life style or fell in love or whatever. Here is a message Thai are not looking for that. Maybe in future the retired xpats in same basket. The "chip on shoulder guy" will be along soon. Banging on about the money xpats contribute. Rubbish. Cost benefit analysis...get short term tourists into Thai. India ramping up in future years and of course continued Chinese. Thai don't really want all the failures from him country (most are) coming to live in los on visas that were not designed for that. 

I can sense you  having a little dig say myself about being "failure" , I would rather not contest that , As I would come cross as showing off about how young affluent and rich that I am and how I have no need or desire to work for a pittance in Thailand and that the 5-10 million Baht that I've spent in Thailand over the years has all come from abroad .

  20 000 Baht , yeah , I've got that at home in a jar in small change

[elviajero]

 

And 20 000 Baht in cash  would have been sufficient to prove that ?

No. Because 20K is to comply with section 12.9, not 12.2.

 

Under 12.2 you are denied because you do not have — what immigration consider to be — an appropriate means of living in the country.

[lkv]

 

No. Because 20K is to comply with section 12.9, not 12.2.

 

Under 12.2 you are denied because you do not have — what immigration consider to be — an appropriate means of living in the country.

It does not matter 12.x or 12.y

 

Too much debate as if we were in Europe or the US where laws actually do function.

 

You can appeal a rejection on a tourist visa, and the appeal goes to the same person that rejected you in the first place.

 

Flashing some baht on a bank statement will probably be less effective than flashing some baht under the table.

 

[BurgerGung]

The writing is on the wall. Thailand does  n o t  want people living here on Tourist VISAs. A few months, then a flight back to the home country is what they are looking for.

 

Wonna start working? Find another country? Cambodia? Pay a few hundred Dollarss and it'S done. Malaysia? Vietnam?

 

Good luck!

[sanemax]

 

No. Because 20K is to comply with section 12.9, not 12.2.

 

Under 12.2 you are denied because you do not have — what immigration consider to be — an appropriate means of living in the country.

You have made your point about the law over and over again and I understood it the first time .

  I do understand the law , but that law isnt fit for purpose because 20 000 Baht isnt sufficient for the duration of the visa and most people do not carry cash around on their person these days .

  (Yes, I do know that its the law , no need to tell me again)

[JackThompson]

 

I have come to conclusion you just bang on thread after thread about " there are no written laws". In my extreme post of stating staying in los basically continuously is OK. 

So would someone be admitted with my silly plan in my post. Answer NO. Then you give such convoluted ways of entering los. The op is is flying from distant country and your plan is fly to country x in Asia, get bus to this or that border crossing. I lost you somewhere between kl (which he can't enter and the train trip to thai. Then domestic flight. Ha....is that a joke

It is true that I am a "rule of law" kind of guy - I don't break them.  Few would have gone to the trouble I did to stay here with my Thai wife legally (not paying an agent - a cheaper option overall - when I encountered corrupt IOs). 

 

Fortunately there are only a few "problem" points of entry that don't follow the laws.  All the other points of entry are fine.  Chang Mai airport may be OK, given no bad reports from there - but probably not a good idea to fly-in on a fresh rejected-entry, due to not being able to just walk back to the other country if there is a problem.  Per reports here, visitors with the OP's situation have entered by land without issue many times, so best to do what is tried and tested.

 

I have entered from Penang a few times: Penang -> Train -> Enter Thailand -> Yat Yai flight to Bangkok.  It is much less stressful than flying into Mogadishu Bangkok airports, with who knows what arbitrary and lawless surprises waiting, based on the literal-whims of the folks running things there. 

 

But you are correct about the OP not being welcome in Malaysia, due to having an Israeli passport, so will need to enter from Vientiane or another option.  At least he has embassy personnel who care about his well-being - unlike most of us, who would get a list of lawyers and maybe a courtesy phone-call, at best. 

[lkv]

 

 

It is much less stressful than flying into Mogadishu Bangkok airports

In all fairness, Somalia's corruption index is 180, whereas in Thailand it's 96.

 

Same as Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Panama, Peru and Zambia. ????

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-rank

[DrJack54]

 

It is true that I am a "rule of law" kind of guy - I don't break them.  Few would have gone to the trouble I did to stay here with my Thai wife legally (not paying an agent - a cheaper option overall - when I encountered corrupt IOs). 

 

Fortunately there are only a few "problem" points of entry that don't follow the laws.  All the other points of entry are fine.  Chang Mai airport may be OK, given no bad reports from there - but probably not a good idea to fly-in on a fresh rejected-entry, due to not being able to just walk back to the other country if there is a problem.  Per reports here, visitors with the OP's situation have entered by land without issue many times, so best to do what is tried and tested.

 

I have entered from Penang a few times: Penang -> Train -> Enter Thailand -> Yat Yai flight to Bangkok.  It is much less stressful than flying into Mogadishu Bangkok airports, with who knows what arbitrary and lawless surprises waiting, based on the literal-whims of the folks running things there. 

 

But you are correct about the OP not being welcome in Malaysia, due to having an Israeli passport, so will need to enter from Vientiane or another option.  At least he has embassy personnel who care about his well-being - unlike most of us, who would get a list of lawyers and maybe a courtesy phone-call, at best. 

You serious or delusional. You LIVE in Thai in some way out village. Do your in outs that you have learnt over the years. Your advice ( in most cases including the op) means ZIP. 

Address cases such as the op rather than numerous posts about "oh TI and io are so unfair. Geezus reminds me of Australian cricket teams complaining about Indian pitches. As we say in au. Go hard or go home. Stop complain about Thai " non rules" for under 50. It very boring. In every topic you post is same chip on shoulder.

[jackdd]

 

Read the expulsion notice. It is clearly stamped with the reason for denial under 12.2. which is badly translated as meaning not having the appropriate means to live. 

You interpret "means to live" as "way to live", and just come to a wrong conclusion, as you do with many of your arguments.

 

I just did some research regarding the true meaning of "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ", because that's what 12.2. is about (If you don't have this you are not allowed to enter)

This does translate to "basic needs", or "necessities of life". And this actually means the absolute basics like food, clothes and shelter. Of course you can just buy all of these if you have money.

So 12.2. is to deny entry for impoverished people and has absolutely nothing to do with how you get money or finance a long term stay.

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by jackdd

[sanemax]

 

You interpret "means to live" as "way to live", and just come to a wrong conclusion, as you do with many of your arguments.

 

I just did some research regarding the true meaning of "ปัจจัยในการยังชีพ", because that's what 12.2. is about (If you don't have this you are not allowed to enter)

This does translate to "basic needs", or "necessities of life". And this actually means the absolute basics like food, clothes and shelter. Of course you can just buy all of these if you have money.

So 12.2. is to deny entry for impoverished people and has absolutely nothing to do with how you get money or finance a long term stay.

 

I do think that they made that rule to stop workers coming in from neighboring Countries to look for work , stop Cambodians coming in to work on building sites etc

[DrJack54]

Hells bells its not about "funds or means of support," that's just a reason to reject as per OP.

Member this thread is about op.

He could of had a zillion baht on person. Irrelevant. The io right or wrong concluded he was not a "genuine tourist" 

Yes don't jump in and ask for a meaning or definition. He didn't get in. Full stop. Very lucky to get back home country. Stop complain. Accept or FO

[JackThompson]

 

You serious or delusional. You LIVE in Thai in some way out village. Do your in outs that you have learnt over the years. Your advice ( in most cases including the op) means ZIP. 

Address cases such as the op rather than numerous posts about "oh TI and io are so unfair. Geezus reminds me of Australian cricket teams complaining about Indian pitches. As we say in au. Go hard or go home. Stop complain about Thai " non rules" for under 50. It very boring. In every topic you post is same chip on shoulder.

My advise is sound and works.  I didn't live in some village until a year ago - before that, Jomtien Beach for most of several years, using the same plan.  That is, avoiding the corrupt and lawless situations (Bangkok airport immigration, "agent" deals for extensions, etc), and always obeying the laws/rules.

 

Why do you read/post in these topics?  To help the posters find a way to stay, or to tell them to leave Thailand, which will result in Thais losing jobs?  I want to help as many foreign-funded visitors as possible find a way to stay in Thailand to create more jobs for Thais.  The first step in that process, is helping them understand that there are good IOs in immigration - just not at certain crooked locations. 

[JackThompson]

 

In all fairness, Somalia's corruption index is 180, whereas in Thailand it's 96.

Yes, but that is overall - and business here is functionally-possible.  If they were to rate nations by their capital-city airport checkpoints, or by their overall immigration-systems I'd bet the rankings would be much closer. 

[elviajero]

 

You have made your point about the law over and over again and I understood it the first time .

  I do understand the law , but that law isnt fit for purpose because 20 000 Baht isnt sufficient for the duration of the visa and most people do not carry cash around on their person these days .

  (Yes, I do know that its the law , no need to tell me again)

The 20K is meant as ‘pocket money’ not the amount expected to fund a 60 day stay (333 baht/day).

 

Here is an extract from guidance issued to IO’s regarding visa exemp, but the principle applies to TR’s too ...

 

”Reason to believe that entry into Kingdom is not for the purpose of tourism
2.1 Alien will be interviewed and requested to show evidence of the purpose of tourism such as tickets, pocket money, booking slip, traveling plan

[lkv]

It's not a life when I start avoiding airports. Like....w the f....

 

I have been contemplating about moving anyways in the future, should I encounter issues (I think I won't as I am not stretching these visas to the max), I'll pay them off to secure entry and I'll go do some packing.

 

I bet it still works, despite the recent anti corruption domestic propaganda.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by lkv