Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[elviajero]

26 minutes ago, stud858 said:

Your a Thaivisa champion.Great advice. I'll do that from now on. Bring my rates invoice as proof that I'm not a tramp.

Waste of time. It proves nothing, and would be of no interest to immigration.

[scorecard]

26 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Waste of time. It proves nothing, and would be of no interest to immigration.

Any very likely 99% of Imm. officers wouldn't understand local government etc., documents, in English, from other countries. Why would /should they understand?

[stud858]

45 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Waste of time. It proves nothing, and would be of no interest to immigration.

Better than nothing.  All the little things you do, like dress professionaly,wear reading glasses, offer up friendly conversation and remain calm all add up imo.

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, stud858 said:

dress professionaly

You think looking like you are ready to head to work at an office when arriving on a tourist visa is a good idea? ????

[stud858]

7 minutes ago, jackdd said:

You think looking like you are ready to head to work at an office when arriving on a tourist visa is a good idea? ????

I deliberated over that thought, but come to reason that the immigration officer will think he's dealing with a higher member of society and not bother with harassment.

So I risked doing this experiment and so far wouldn't worry That just because you dress with a shirt and tie, doesn't mean you're off to work. Some may think it's a bad idea.

I've never been questioned so I'll stick with the tie. 

 

 

[edwardandtubs]

13 minutes ago, stud858 said:

I deliberated over that thought, but come to reason that the immigration officer will think he's dealing with a higher member of society and not bother with harassment.

So I risked doing this experiment and so far wouldn't worry That just because you dress with a shirt and tie, doesn't mean you're off to work. Some may think it's a bad idea.

I've never been questioned so I'll stick with the tie. 

 

 

It's a really bad idea. The IOs know that the tourists who are 'higher members of society' will be wearing Hawaii shirts and heading straight for the beach. You're just making yourself look like someone working illegally and heading straight for the office or classroom.

[stud858]

I think people have lost sight of etiquette.  Dressing respectfully in an airport will not be equated to you working illegally. The etiquette code is being rewritten it seems though.

Saggy bottom pants and singlets will be the normal airport attire soon. But if you do fear that argument of overdressed at least a collared shirt with decent pants.

I would be keen to hear if anybody is harassed because of wearing a tie.

 

 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, stud858 said:

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Waste of time. It proves nothing, and would be of no interest to immigration.

Better than nothing.

It really isn't. Nothing would be just as effective.

 

1 hour ago, stud858 said:

All the little things you do, like dress professionaly,wear reading glasses, offer up friendly conversation and remain calm all add up imo.

All they would be interested in is that you are 'respectfully dressed'. Wearing a tie is a western practice that doesn't really form any part of Thai culture, or gain you any brownie points. How wearing reading glasses would help is beyond me.

[stud858]

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

How wearing reading glasses would help is beyond me.

Google. How are people who wear glasses perceived. Matter of opinion but the surveys suggest some value in it.

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, sgoodes said:

I also carry a copy of my house rates notices and power bills to show that I actually have a home in Australia and I don't live in Thailand as yet.

Based on reports recently, if they want to reject-entry, the IOs will count up how many days you have spent here over 1 or 2 years, make up a number less than that, tell you "it's the law" you cannot stay beyond X days, reject any attempt for you to prove anything about yourself, stamp your passport that you are too poor to afford your stay, and force to to return from whence you came.

 

They won't care about anything you have to show except money - and more is better.  I would suggest that frequent visitors who must enter by air carry 150K Baht or more in Travelers Checks, which the IOs must document on their rejection-form, making a rejection decision look idiotic, and undermining any unfounded claim they might attempt to pass-off, that you "cannot afford your stay."

[AgentSmith]

On 12/7/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

I don't know about Singapore, but the primary advantage of a new passport at Thai immigration, is a shorter time of reviewing every stamp on every used-page.  Perhaps their screen has less detail on your entries, unless they "drill down" into the data.  But Thai immigration can run a printout and tell you how many days you have been in Thailand over years, across multiple passports. 

 

I would not count on a new passport being of much use at a lawless entry-point - though it is possible an IO might be emotionally-driven to pick victims who have more "visible" stamp-activity, which they might feel during a passport-examination.

My point is to take away their capability to check entries into other countries in the region. Since they are profiling people it should change my profile and thus make it less likely to experience any hiccups when entering Thailand (or any other Asian country for that matter). My impression so far is that it makes a huge difference to have a near empty passport instead of one that's full of stamps and visas.

 

Actually, and I haven't mentioned this before, another IO in Bangkok gave it to me as a solution to my particular problem. When I was pulled aside and sat at that table for a while there was another IO in the room doing paperwork. This IO quietly gave me the advice to go to my home country, apply for a new passport and come back a few weeks later. I had already figured that getting a new passport would make a difference but that quiet remark gave me the extra motivation needed to go through the process even though my passport was still valid for 8 years.

 

On 12/7/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

Different policy makers - banks vs immigration.  And the 20K rule is a "gotcha" rule - not really about "do you have money."  Everyone knows money comes from machines and plastic nowadays.  I carry travelers checks - for no other reason than to show Thai immigration upon entry if asked.  The fees upon purchase are a waste, but they never expire, and they will be replaced quickly if stolen.  Bangkok Bank sells them (where I topped up my supply of ancient ones for immigration-purposes), last time I checked.

You keep focusing on bank policy but that really isn't the point. I'm merely referring to banks to indicate that Thai law allows tourists to have a Thai bank account. I understand that certain IOs care more about their own power over visitors entering than about their official function which is applying Thai immigration law. But even those immigration regulations are derived from the law so I'm merely wondering why this 20k cash rule is what it is. Why cash and not a bank statement? Perhaps it's something policy makers never thought of. Or maybe they don't change this rule because the policy makers themselves want to retain the possibility to 'bend' the rules as much as the IOs do. For the same reason that those IOs are where they are in the first place. I'm not convinced that this is a phenomenon tied solely to the Bangkok airports.

[Chou Anou]

2 hours ago, stud858 said:

I think people have lost sight of etiquette.  Dressing respectfully in an airport will not be equated to you working illegally. The etiquette code is being rewritten it seems though.

Saggy bottom pants and singlets will be the normal airport attire soon. But if you do fear that argument of overdressed at least a collared shirt with decent pants.

I would be keen to hear if anybody is harassed because of wearing a tie.

 

 

It's true. At the very least, one should not wear shorts, as this piece of clothing is not something adult males with an ounce of self-respect would not be caught dead wearing ANYWHERE besides a gym or a beach.

[Chou Anou]

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

Any very likely 99% of Imm. officers wouldn't understand local government etc., documents, in English, from other countries. Why would /should they understand?

Immigration officers in ALL countries tend to be culled from the dumbest of the dumb...people likely to have never traveled outside the country of their birth (I know, the irony, right?), probably monolingual, religious, a supporter of "team sports," likely right wing politically, religious...you get the picture. Stupid and crude.

[onera1961]

4 hours ago, stud858 said:

Bring my rates invoice as proof that I'm not a tramp.

What is rates invoice? Is it same as property tax invoice?

[bbi1]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

You think looking like you are ready to head to work at an office when arriving on a tourist visa is a good idea? ????

It seems that way to him lol....

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, AgentSmith said:

On 12/7/2018 at 11:25 AM, JackThompson said:

I would not count on a new passport being of much use at a lawless entry-point - though it is possible an IO might be emotionally-driven to pick victims who have more "visible" stamp-activity, which they might feel during a passport-examination. 

My point is to take away their capability to check entries into other countries in the region. Since they are profiling people it should change my profile and thus make it less likely to experience any hiccups when entering Thailand (or any other Asian country for that matter). My impression so far is that it makes a huge difference to have a near empty passport instead of one that's full of stamps and visas. 

This is a good point.  I had not considered it from the standpoint of profiling visitors on where else they have traveled.  But if one's history shows "gone for a week and back" repeatedly, the only advantage would be the IO not seeing all the stamps in the passport - only in his computer (and maybe only a limited number on the first screen). 

 

1 hour ago, AgentSmith said:

... Why cash and not a bank statement? Perhaps it's something policy makers never thought of. Or maybe they don't change this rule because the policy makers themselves want to retain the possibility to 'bend' the rules as much as the IOs do. For the same reason that those IOs are where they are in the first place. I'm not convinced that this is a phenomenon tied solely to the Bangkok airports. 

Many who just applied for a Tourist Visa needed a bank-statement to show, and might have it to show - not helpful if the goal is denial-of-entry.  The 20K Baht in cash is something few would carry in this day and age (unless they read about this issue online), so is an easy card to play as justification for a denial.

 

The 20K rule is also reported enforced when entering by-land from Malaysia - but no where else that I recall in recent reports.  In the case of Malaysia, it was "show the 20K or put 100 Baht in your passport," (some report 200 Baht).  Then, they got busted for the money-in-passport scam, but continued asking to see the 20K Baht.  

 

But, in that instance, a person caught by surprise can walk back to Malaysia, cancel their exit stamp, visit an ATM, return to the Thai checkpoint, and enter OK - very different than being stuck in detention at an airport, and flown back somewhere on an overpriced last-minute ticket.

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, stud858 said:

I think people have lost sight of etiquette.  Dressing respectfully in an airport will not be equated to you working illegally. The etiquette code is being rewritten it seems though.

When I was a child, traveling by air meant putting on a sportcoat and tie at the least.  Women dressed like they were headed to church.  Everyone noticed how others were dressed, and it "would not do" to appear shabby in such situations, if one had any self-respect. 

 

Most definitely, this has changed - but less-so in Thai culture, than in the West, where "movie stars" show up to events - men wearing jeans with holes in them and 2 days of beard-growth on their faces - women barely dressed at all.  It's sad how far our culture has fallen from grace.

 

Current dress-customs in Thailand do not include wearing shorts in most settings.  Some immigration offices have even put up signs about acceptable-dress.  A pinstripe-suit would be overkill, but I always wear (and would recommend) slacks, a collared shirt, and closed-toe shoes when going through immigration anywhere, or visiting an immigration office. 

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Based on reports recently, if they want to reject-entry, the IOs will count up how many days you have spent here over 1 or 2 years, make up a number less than that, tell you "it's the law" you cannot stay beyond X days, reject any attempt for you to prove anything about yourself, stamp your passport that you are too poor to afford your stay, and force to to return from whence you came.

 

They won't care about anything you have to show except money - and more is better.  I would suggest that frequent visitors who must enter by air carry 150K Baht or more in Travelers Checks, which the IOs must document on their rejection-form, making a rejection decision look idiotic, and undermining any unfounded claim they might attempt to pass-off, that you "cannot afford your stay."

They do not have to document how much cash you have on their rejection form.

 

Having 150K would satisfy 12.9. It almost certainly would stop them lawfully denying entry under 12.3.

[jackdd]

4 hours ago, stud858 said:

I think people have lost sight of etiquette.  Dressing respectfully in an airport will not be equated to you working illegally. The etiquette code is being rewritten it seems though.

Saggy bottom pants and singlets will be the normal airport attire soon. But if you do fear that argument of overdressed at least a collared shirt with decent pants. 

I would be keen to hear if anybody is harassed because of wearing a tie.

Before you said "dress professionally" which most people will interpret as something like "wearing a suit as if going to work in an office"

In most people's circles it's just not common to make holiday wearing a suit, so if you show up in one this just looks strange. People who live in social circles where it's common to wear a suit while making holiday are mostly not the kind of people who flew economy class and show up at the regular immigration counters ????

Dressing respectfully if of course ok, but i would not dress up more than "smart casual"

 

[stevemac]

I think it becomes a habit. When people have access to cash anywhere in the world, they don't think about keeping cash with them. It is just a ploy by the immigration not to install at least one ATM machine before entry. They have currency conversion booth before immigration but no ATM machine. And I bet banks will compete to install ATM machines (because of their ridiculous ATM fee) to have their machines before immigration.

Will a currency conversion booth allow you to draw currency against a card? I would have thought so. They do in UK. Maybe Thailand is different, I have never tried as I always bring far in excess of 20000 baht or equivalent. This reduces my charges for exchange when withdrawing on card as well as ensuring I easily comply with the regulations and show I have the means to super myself.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[AgentSmith]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

This is a good point.  I had not considered it from the standpoint of profiling visitors on where else they have traveled.  But if one's history shows "gone for a week and back" repeatedly, the only advantage would be the IO not seeing all the stamps in the passport - only in his computer (and maybe only a limited number on the first screen).

I do wonder about one more thing though. How does immigration link a new passport to any or all previous passports a traveler used in the past? It can't be just someone's name or even a combination of things on the ID page alone, or can it? The only thing in my passport that's unique by definition is my personal number from my government. That's on the flip side of the ID page nowadays in an effort to combat identity fraud and I'm not sure whether that number is on the passport chip.

 

Quote

Many who just applied for a Tourist Visa needed a bank-statement to show, and might have it to show - not helpful if the goal is denial-of-entry.  The 20K Baht in cash is something few would carry in this day and age (unless they read about this issue online), so is an easy card to play as justification for a denial.

Well I'm certainly considering bringing 20k in cash with me from now on, even though I was never refused before and certainly not asked to show 20k. IOs certainly are becoming a bit less friendly these days so better safe than sorry.

 

Quote

The 20K rule is also reported enforced when entering by-land from Malaysia - but no where else that I recall in recent reports.  In the case of Malaysia, it was "show the 20K or put 100 Baht in your passport," (some report 200 Baht).  Then, they got busted for the money-in-passport scam, but continued asking to see the 20K Baht.

 

But, in that instance, a person caught by surprise can walk back to Malaysia, cancel their exit stamp, visit an ATM, return to the Thai checkpoint, and enter OK - very different than being stuck in detention at an airport, and flown back somewhere on an overpriced last-minute ticket.

I didn't even know one could cancel an exit stamp!

 

I've always found stamps in passports quite strange. Take EU countries. They don't stamp. There's no stamps in my passport indicating I've visited the EU last August. Suppose Singapore would start doing the same and instead only register people's visits in their computer system. How could I then prove to immigration here that I've actually left the country and entered another one when I've only stayed in Singapore for an hour or so? Even more, what would keep someone from flying to Singapore and straight back to Thailand without even going through Singapore immigration then? Quite hypothetical, I know, but not entirely unrealistic.

Edited December 8, 2018 by AgentSmith

[BritTim]

48 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I do wonder about one more thing though. How does immigration link a new passport to any or all previous passports a traveler used in the past? It can't be just someone's name or even a combination of things on the ID page alone, or can it? The only thing in my passport that's unique by definition is my personal number from my government. That's on the flip side of the ID page nowadays in an effort to combat identity fraud and I'm not sure whether that number is on the passport chip.

I believe the initial match is based on nationality, name and date of birth. The immigration official then has access to the photos (from previous passport scans) of potential matches. The final confirmation is made by the immigration official.

[richard_smith237]

48 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I do wonder about one more thing though. How does immigration link a new passport to any or all previous passports a traveler used in the past? It can't be just someone's name or even a combination of things on the ID page alone, or can it? The only thing in my passport that's unique by definition is my personal number from my government. That's on the flip side of the ID page nowadays in an effort to combat identity fraud and I'm not sure whether that number is on the passport chip.

 

A combination of key information:  Your name, Country, DOB as the primary identifiers... 

 

Its highly unlikely (although not impossible) that there is someone with the Same Name, Same DOB from the Same country and has entered Thailand previously... And if there is more than one person who has, they can they look at the photo to see whether its you or not...  All the information is on the Immigration Database (at the airports anyway).

 

 

[elviajero]

50 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

I do wonder about one more thing though. How does immigration link a new passport to any or all previous passports a traveler used in the past? It can't be just someone's name or even a combination of things on the ID page alone, or can it? The only thing in my passport that's unique by definition is my personal number from my government. That's on the flip side of the ID page nowadays in an effort to combat identity fraud and I'm not sure whether that number is on the passport chip

When a passport is presented they use your name, date of birth and nationality to check against against other passports used by the same name etc. If a match is found it’s up to the IO to link the passports.

[onera1961]

10 hours ago, jackdd said:

"wearing a suit as if going to work in an office"

Lat time I wore a suit in an office was 1993. The MNC changed it policy and only people with direct contacts with customers were "expected" to wear suits. 

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

They do not have to document how much cash you have on their rejection form.

I recall seeing the form at one point - I cannot find the image of it now.  I suppose they could leave the value blank, and since there is no oversight, it would not matter, anyway. 

 

Further, it is silly to think one can do anything "legal-wise" to counter those whose behavior is not bound by law.  To use an analogy, it is better to avoid walking in neighborhoods where there are known concentrations of thieves, rather than to attempt civil-discussions about violating-laws with the thieves.

 

11 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Well I'm certainly considering bringing 20k in cash with me from now on, even though I was never refused before and certainly not asked to show 20k. IOs certainly are becoming a bit less friendly these days so better safe than sorry.

Good idea to have the money.  But it really comes down to whoever is running the entry-point.  Based on reports in recent years, and my own experience, most IOs are not part of an agenda to drive us out.

 

11 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

I didn't even know one could cancel an exit stamp!

My first experience was seeing the images posted on this forum of them.

 

Taken from:
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1049470-poipet-nightmare-what-the-hell/

 

11 hours ago, AgentSmith said:

Suppose Singapore would start doing the same and instead only register people's visits in their computer system. How could I then prove to immigration here that I've actually left the country and entered another one when I've only stayed in Singapore for an hour or so? Even more, what would keep someone from flying to Singapore and straight back to Thailand without even going through Singapore immigration then? Quite hypothetical, I know, but not entirely unrealistic.

Hong Kong does works stamp-less now - you get a slip of paper which you give back upon departure.  I am not sure if people avoid entering Hong-Kong immigration and return to Thailand, or if this is even possible there, or what the advantage would be, other than a bit of time-saved in line.

[AgentSmith]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Hong Kong does works stamp-less now - you get a slip of paper which you give back upon departure.  I am not sure if people avoid entering Hong-Kong immigration and return to Thailand, or if this is even possible there, or what the advantage would be, other than a bit of time-saved in line.

I've waited over an hour once in Singapore to get through immigration. Waiting times can vary quite a bit so not having that uncertainty by simply not leaving the international zone and taking a return flight immediately would make it possible to book flights on a much tighter schedule for someone just doing a border run. I want to emphasize though that I've never attempted this myself and I certainly wouldn't advise someone to try it.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

They do not have to document how much cash you have on their rejection form.

I recall seeing the form at one point - I cannot find the image of it now.  I suppose they could leave the value blank, and since there is no oversight, it would not matter, anyway. 

 

The OP was formally denied entry and issued with an expulsion notice. There is no section for detailing how much money they had.

 

 

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Further, it is silly to think one can do anything "legal-wise" to counter those whose behavior is not bound by law.  

How is this "legal notice" not bound by law, or following the law? The expulsion notice clearly states that the person being deported can appeal under law.

[AgentSmith]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

How is this "legal notice" not bound by law, or following the law? The expulsion notice clearly states that the person being deported can appeal under law.

Yes you would think that a traveler following all rules and regulations (which includes carrying 20k baht or equivalent in cash) cannot be refused by any IO, rogue or not. So even if an IO would want to refuse a person staying in Thailand for long periods of time on consecutive tourist visas he or she would have a hard time finding a legal excuse. Then he or she probably just gives up and allows the person to enter.

 

But what's the wise course of action when an IO starts making unlawful demands? Such as in my case when I was asked to book a ticket 30 days in advance even though I had a TV and an onward ticket with me which he simply refused to look at. I quietly complied and booked the cheapest ticket I could find. I simply wanted a quick solution and I accepted the one that was handed to me. Should I refuse next time and demand to talk to a supervisor? Or should I only do that in case the IO actively refuses to let me in?

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Yes you would think that a traveler following all rules and regulations (which includes carrying 20k baht or equivalent in cash) cannot be refused by any IO, rogue or not. So even if an IO would want to refuse a person staying in Thailand for long periods of time on consecutive tourist visas he or she would have a hard time finding a legal excuse. Then he or she probably just gives up and allows the person to enter.

 

But what's the wise course of action when an IO starts making unlawful demands? Such as in my case when I was asked to book a ticket 30 days in advance even though I had a TV and an onward ticket with me which he simply refused to look at. I quietly complied and booked the cheapest ticket I could find. I simply wanted a quick solution and I accepted the one that was handed to me. Should I refuse next time and demand to talk to a supervisor? Or should I only do that in case the IO actively refuses to let me in?

I am not here to defend immigration and don't agree with the way they go about things a lot of the time, BUT it annoys the hell out of me when people make claims of illegality, lawless (BKK) borders etc. If someone has stayed in the country for months/years -- as a tourist -- they are in the wrong.

 

If you are denied formally a supervisor normally has to sign it off, so I doubt demanding to talk to a supervisor would help. You would have to go over their head.

 

If denied entry under the Tourist Visa Exempt Scheme you have no legal right to appeal. IMO appealing against being denied entry for tourism -- when the underlying reason is that you've spent too much time in the country as a tourist -- is a waste of time; and you would be detained while the appeal is heard, which could take days.

 

The Thai authorities expect a typical tourist to have hotel bookings and onward flights, so that is what an IO is 'ordered' to look for. In your case the IO was IMO unreasonable to make you book a flight out within 30 days, BUT if that's the way to placate the IO then you have little choice, as the alternative is a denied entry for whatever lawful reason they can find.

 

As I wrote early, the main frustration is that the underlying reason for denial isn't cited on the paperwork. But IMO as long as another lawful reason is given then we cannot really complain.