Rejected at the airport, what is next?

[JackThompson]

53 minutes ago, elviajero said:

 

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

 

That form is what is given to the person being rejected to sign.  The form I am referring to is one the IO fills out for their records.  It was fairly short - 1/2 page I think - and had a field to fill with how much money the alien had. 

 

I think we agree that anyone w/o the 20K worth of cash has no chance, as this is a published rule (even if a pointless one).

 

53 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.

Someone tried that, who had the required cash and a valid visa - so good grounds for his case.  But they would not let him do it, and forced him onto an airplane.  The first hand report begins with:

 

Quote

I'm in the Deportation room and wondering how and where to appeal against my deportation. My entry was denied at Suvarnabhumi Airport because of to many Tourist Visas in the past. I had all the necessary paper with me. Onward flight back to Europe, Tourist Visa, booking confirmations and 25000 baht cash. 

 

... and ends with:

Quote

..

The law says that you can make an appeal against the decision but in reality you are not allowed to make use of it!

Your friends can also not help you because they are not allowed to fill out the appeal form and bring it somewhere. It says clearly on the form the applicant have to fill out the form in person. 

Maybe if you carry the TM11 form already with you and you still get interviewed by the IO you have the chance to hand it over. 

I was in the detention room and from there you are only allowed to talk to the Airline Staff via phone with which you arrived. 
I asked to make an appointment with an IO to hand over my appeal. The Airline staff told me that I'm not allowed to make an appeal, i got BLACKLISTED and I have to leave the country asap and she hangs up the phone.

2 minutes later I called again and another employee picked up the phone and told me to get ready for the flight (against my will and agreement).

...

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/992077-entry-denied-bangkok-airport/?do=findComment&comment=12091161

 

The power at that airport-checkpoint didn't care that he had the "legal right" to appeal - so more of the same lawless actions that seem to play out frequently at 3 particular checkpoints, against those who are following the law.

[AgentSmith]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

Well I certainly hope you're not referring to me in this particular case. I certainly don't intend to claim anything. I'm merely gathering information here.

 

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If someone has stayed in the country for months/years -- as a tourist -- they are in the wrong.

I am not saying I would disagree because I get your point. But by wrong do you mean wrong according to Thai law or according to unwritten morale in the eyes of an IO?

 

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

But is the underlying reason you mention a formal reason that they can put on a form?

 

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

That was my intuition also and I wasn't planning to do it differently next time.

 

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

 

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.

My point is this: can we make sure there are no lawful reasons left for denying tourists who stay here long term IF long term stay on itself isn't mentioned in any regulation?

[elviajero]

23 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

That form is what is given to the person being rejected to sign.  The form I am referring to is one the IO fills out for their records.  It was fairly short - 1/2 page I think - and had a field to fill with how much money the alien had. 

 

I think we agree that anyone w/o the 20K worth of cash has no chance, as this is a published rule (even if a pointless one).

 

Someone tried that, who had the required cash and a valid visa - so good grounds for his case.  But they would not let him do it, and forced him onto an airplane.  The first hand report begins with:

 

 

... and ends with:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/992077-entry-denied-bangkok-airport/?do=findComment&comment=12091161

 

The power at that airport-checkpoint didn't care that he had the "legal right" to appeal - so more of the same lawless actions that seem to play out frequently at 3 particular checkpoints, against those who are following the law.

I skimmed through the thread and couldn't see confirmation that he entered with a visa. But even if he did, although he should have been given the right to appeal, it would have been a complete waste of time given his long history of tourism.

 

I also can't see what reason was given for the denial, but if it was 12.2 -- as I've told you many times -- it wouldn't matter how much money he had on him.

[elviajero]

24 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

37 minutes ago, elviajero said:

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.

Well I certainly hope you're not referring to me in this particular case. I certainly don't intend to claim anything. I'm merely gathering information here.

I wasn't.

 

24 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Quote

If someone has stayed in the country for months/years -- as a tourist -- they are in the wrong.

I am not saying I would disagree because I get your point. But by wrong do you mean wrong according to Thai law or according to unwritten morale in the eyes of an IO?

Wrong based on a visa system that offers visas for short term tourism, and other visas permits for other reasons and long stays.

 

26 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Quote

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.

But is the underlying reason you mention a formal reason that they can put on a form?

No. Because the immigration act was written nearly 40 years ago when long term tourism was not an issue, and is not a specific reason listed in section 12. They could make a formal announcement under section 16, but to date they have resisted setting limits.

 

28 minutes ago, AgentSmith said:

Quote

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.

My point is this: can we make sure there are no lawful reasons left for denying tourists who stay here long term IF long term stay on itself isn't mentioned in any regulation?

No. Sections;

12.1 IO's have the power to deny anyone entering under visa exempt.

12.2 is a catch all. It is impossible for a tourist to meet the "appropriate means of living in the country".

12.3 doesn't require the IO to provide proof that you're working. Although in these circumstances IMO it might be worth an appeal.

 

I should also mention that IO's have the power to decide how long they give us under section 35. A visitor entering for 'tourism' is allowed a maximum stay of 90 days. In your case the IO could have lawfully given you 30 days or less.

[JackThompson]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

I skimmed through the thread and couldn't see confirmation that he entered with a visa. But even if he did, although he should have been given the right to appeal, it would have been a complete waste of time given his long history of tourism.

 

I also can't see what reason was given for the denial, but if it was 12.2 -- as I've told you many times -- it wouldn't matter how much money he had on him.

The fellow in the "no appeal allowed" thread claimed a Tourist Visa in his opening post - in addition to 25K Baht, plus proof of flights which he had already shown the MFA to get his visa.  He mentioned that his form cited the right to appeal, which he attempted to exercise.  He was rejected under 12.3 - back when they were claiming Europeans (like the OP of that thread) were here on Tourist Visas to work under-the-table jobs. 

 

Since that time, they seem to have quit with the "illegal worker" angle, preferring the "We are going to claim you don't have enough money" (12.2).  Following that logic, all MFA-issued Visas of any type can now be denied based on "not enough money to fund their stay," since the MFA's financial-tests to obtain Visas (including Tourist) are no longer considered valid, the 20K+ Baht in cash to show is considered insufficient, and nothing the person is carrying will be allowed to be presented as evidence.  That's pure absurdity.

 

Some faction cannot get the laws changes to how they want them, so they have decided to just lie and abuse them - and given no push-back from above, they will continue with more of the same.  "First they came for the border-runners, then they came for those with valid Tourist Visas, then they came for those using income for their extensions ...," makes one wonder who is next, no? 

[elviajero]

20 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The fellow in the "no appeal allowed" thread claimed a Tourist Visa in his opening post

Ok, I see that now.

 

21 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Since that time, they seem to have quit with the "illegal worker" angle, preferring the "We are going to claim you don't have enough money" (12.2).  Following that logic, all MFA-issued Visas of any type can now be denied based on "not enough money to fund their stay," since the MFA's financial-tests to obtain Visas (including Tourist) are no longer considered valid, the 20K+ Baht in cash to show is considered insufficient, and nothing the person is carrying will be allowed to be presented as evidence.  That's pure absurdity.

Again, your understanding of 12.2 is wrong. To 'live' in the country -- which is what a long term tourist is doing and wants to continue to do -- requires an 'appropriate means of living'. The ability to prove that a tourist can meet that requirement doesn't exist -- because they aren't supposed to be living in the country. Permission to live in the country goes beyond affordability, it is also about conditions and criteria.

 

28 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Some faction cannot get the laws changes to how they want them, so they have decided to just lie and abuse them - and given no push-back from above, they will continue with more of the same.  "First they came for the border-runners, then they came for those with valid Tourist Visas, then they came for those using income for their extensions ...," makes one wonder who is next, no?

The alternative to what we have now is that they impose strict limits. That would almost certainly be 6 months per year and affect many that are currently 'getting away with it'. Why do you want many to suffer, when those few would be denied anyway?

 

My glass is half-full. I think we are lucky to have such a lax system that tolerates some long term tourism.

[lkv]

45 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

makes one wonder who is next, no? 

Possibly centralised e-visa with approval from Bangkok before the Embassy issues their stickers (or no more stickers at all).

 

Possibly discontinue the visa exempt system or limit it further, so that Western tourists can also "enjoy the advantage of applying online for a nominal fee", to secure entry into the Kingdom. 

 

As a matter of fact, they are working on this centralised e-visa. Then they can put an algorithm in the software that counts days, you just get rejected, you don't really know why, and there is no need for legislation limiting the stay at say 6 months.

 

For example.

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by lkv

[racket]

On 12/1/2018 at 6:46 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Couldn't you just go to an ATM and get 20,000B?

Or was the no 20k not the only reason they refused entry?

There are no ATM that takes out thai baht before immigration. Last time I checked there was only one that took out USD, EURO and British Pounds only. This was in BKK. 

[BritTim]

40 minutes ago, racket said:

There are no ATM that takes out thai baht before immigration. Last time I checked there was only one that took out USD, EURO and British Pounds only. This was in BKK. 

According to the rules under Section 12 (9) of the Immigration Act, the equivalent of 20,000 baht in dollars, euros or pounds would be fine. The trouble is that the ATM machine you cite is in the departure area, and arriving passengers are not able to use it.

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Again, your understanding of 12.2 is wrong. To 'live' in the country -- which is what a long term tourist is doing and wants to continue to do -- requires an 'appropriate means of living'.

I disagree.  A person arriving with a Tourist Visa only needs to show, at maximum, 60-days stay worth of financial-ability.  Any time beyond that requires obtaining separate permission. 

 

And since the financial-screening for Visas by the MFA is not respected by immigration in this case, then all visas are subject to being ignored by immigration on these grounds, per this precedent. 

 

It is unfortunate there won't be a court case, since rouge IOs at lawless immigration entry-points and offices are not accountable to any laws - other than the "law of the jungle," of course.

Edited December 10, 2018 by JackThompson

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, lkv said:

Possibly discontinue the visa exempt system or limit it further, so that Western tourists can also "enjoy the advantage of applying online for a nominal fee", to secure entry into the Kingdom. 

If paying a fee ended the uncertainty of arbitrary denial-of-entry, that would be a vast improvement.  They could even increase the fee if "more than X applications in a calendar-year." 

 

But, given those would be legally-billed fees with receipts - not brown-envelopes - this solution would not be looked upon kindly by those fervently pushing the system in the opposite direction.

 

13 hours ago, lkv said:

As a matter of fact, they are working on this centralised e-visa. Then they can put an algorithm in the software that counts days, you just get rejected, you don't really know why, and there is no need for legislation limiting the stay at say 6 months.

Might as well also include a reference to an "agent" to help "address the problem."