Important News from Vientiane Royal Thai Embassy.

[farangx]

32 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

And soon you will feel very much at home as China sends more.

The strong adapts.

 

[yuiop]

16 hours ago, BritTim said:

<removed>

If it ends up being linked to some larger system, that could be true. However, for the moment, it just looks like a rational and positive reaction to the horrendous queues in the humid heat that applicants have had to endure in Vientiane for a long time. Those queues were not the fault of the consulate staff. Indeed, they have consistently done a good job. It is just because of the huge number of applicants they need to handle. In principle, the online booking system should allow people to turn up at the consulate and have their applications handled faster.

 

I have never seen any indication that the Vientiane consulate wishes to makes things difficult for visa applicants, quite the contrary. The MFA has made clear that they cannot hand out tourist visas indefinitely without demanding any requirements other than the visa fee. They have reacted accordingly. Within the limits of what they are allowed to do, and the pressure of numbers, it is difficult to imagine how they could have been more friendly. For now, I see the latest developments as a continuation of that trend.

I was reading on another visa forum that a guy got red stamped in Vientiane, all he had in his passport were two previous visas from KL.

So maybe something is changing in Vientiane.

[JackThompson]

2 minutes ago, yuiop said:

I was reading on another visa forum that a guy got red stamped in Vientiane, all he had in his passport were two previous visas from KL.

So maybe something is changing in Vientiane.

It is possible they are beginning to count all Thai Visas in the passport, vs only their own.  It may also have just been a mistake.  We see "wrong visa" and such reports from there now and then - probably due to the huge volume.

[farangx]

52 minutes ago, yuiop said:

I was reading on another visa forum that a guy got red stamped in Vientiane, all he had in his passport were two previous visas from KL.

So maybe something is changing in Vientiane.

It makes sense to link up all the consulates and embassies, which TI should have done a long time ago.  This will cut out the work for them because the system will flag passport holders that had abuse the system.  The online system will save these passport holders of showing up only to find they are rejected.  A win-win for everyone.

 

[ubonjoe]

The site http://www.thaivisavientiane.org/ is live now but not much on it. No info at all yet about the appointment application.

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, farangx said:

It makes sense to link up all the consulates and embassies, which TI should have done a long time ago.  This will cut out the work for them because the system will flag passport holders that had abuse the system.  The online system will save these passport holders of showing up only to find they are rejected.  A win-win for everyone.

 

No one applying for and entering with Tourist Visas is "abusing" anything.  If they were, visa-extensions to such persons would surely be denied at all immigration offices in the country.   All IOs all have access to the same database, currently - and just a few entry-points and offices seem to have a problem with those staying here frequently using Tourist Visas.

 

Given only a minority of IOs are making problems for foreigners who are following the published laws/rules regarding Tourist Visas, it would appear this clique are the ones handing out "abuse" - not the other way around. 

 

What I see coming is that those applying anywhere will need to provide the exact documents proscribed in the published regulations - bank-statement (20K Baht +), hotel-booking, and air-fare - same as applying in HCMC or Savannakhet.  That would be a big step-up for Vientiane, but not the end of the world for most under-50, non-married, non-working expats.

Edited January 26, 2019 by JackThompson

[Lovethailandelite]

4 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

No one applying for and entering with Tourist Visas is "abusing" anything.  If they were, visa-extensions to such persons would surely be denied at all immigration offices in the country.   All IOs all have access to the same database, currently - and just a few entry-points and offices seem to have a problem with those staying here frequently using Tourist Visas.

 

Given only a minority of IOs are making problems for foreigners who are following the published laws/rules regarding Tourist Visas, it would appear this clique are the ones handing out "abuse" - not the other way around. 

 

What I see coming is that those applying anywhere will need to provide the exact documents proscribed in the published regulations - bank-statement (20K Baht +), hotel-booking, and air-fare - same as applying in HCMC or Savannakhet.  That would be a big step-up for Vientiane, but not the end of the world for most under-50, non-married, non-working expats.

All good apart from the fact that gaining back to back, tourist visa after tourist visa is highly unlikely to occur. And 100% fact is it will not be Vientiane or any other Embassy that decides to issue a visa or not. (Eventually) The only part the Embassy will play is cross referencing the documents when you appear to get the visa put in your passport or requiring your appearance in some cases for more documentation/Interview etc.
Hence London cannot any longer entertain manual submissions after April. It is a secure, password, personal account Gateway between you and the database.The system is for all visas, not just Tourist visas.

[edwardandtubs]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

 

No one applying for and entering with Tourist Visas is "abusing" anything.  If they were, visa-extensions to such persons would surely be denied at all immigration offices in the country.   All IOs all have access to the same database, currently - and just a few entry-points and offices seem to have a problem with those staying here frequently using Tourist Visas.

 

 

 

Interestingly, for the first time ever I was asked by an IO at Chaengwattana why I spend so long in Thailand recently when I went to extend my visa exempt. The screw definitely seems to be tightening.

[wobalt]

All good apart from the fact that gaining back to back, tourist visa after tourist visa is highly unlikely to occur. And 100% fact is it will not be Vientiane or any other Embassy that decides to issue a visa or not. (Eventually) The only part the Embassy will play is cross referencing the documents when you appear to get the visa put in your passport or requiring your appearance in some cases for more documentation/Interview etc.
Hence London cannot any longer entertain manual submissions after April. It is a secure, password, personal account Gateway between you and the database.The system is for all visas, not just Tourist visas.

We will see if a computer can do the job...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[farangx]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

No one applying for and entering with Tourist Visas is "abusing" anything.  If they were, visa-extensions to such persons would surely be denied at all immigration offices in the country.   All IOs all have access to the same database, currently - and just a few entry-points and offices seem to have a problem with those staying here frequently using Tourist Visas.

Take it easy Jack, if they did not abuse the visas then there is nothing to be concern about.  Your worries are absolutely unwarranted. They are going to do just fine, I hope. ????

 

Edited January 26, 2019 by farangx

[farangx]

37 minutes ago, wobalt said:

We will see if a computer can do the job...

Should be an easy job for the computer.  Either the applicant gets a visa or no.

[wobalt]

The Computer can read your docs i.e how many money you earn?


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[farangx]

8 minutes ago, wobalt said:

The Computer can read your docs i.e how many money you earn?
 

I have no idea.  I don't know what information needs to be completed online in addition to attaching documents.  Am not speculating on how the system process, though I have a fairly good idea.

 

[wobalt]

It’s obviously only a TM6 alike as additional information.In general I would have no problems with an e-Visa system.But this is not such a system as you still have to visit an embassy or consulate


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[fforest1]

3 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

 

Interestingly, for the first time ever I was asked by an IO at Chaengwattana why I spend so long in Thailand recently when I went to extend my visa exempt. The screw definitely seems to be tightening.

The screw definitely seems to be tightening.

Seems to be???

 

I will say again (Yawn) The tightening has been going on sense 2009 ....It started with the 30 day boarder runners then slowly progressed till this last year when the tightening has kicked into high gear....

If things dont slow down .....Well.....You can figure the rest out....

Visas are only moving in one direction and that direction is the opposite of loosing..

Edited January 26, 2019 by fforest1

[balo]

I don't see this as a problem at all , as long as you can book an appointment online the day before you arrive. Then you just inform the visa run company about the booking so you can time it. They will help you with the documents anyway.

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

The screw definitely seems to be tightening.
Seems to be???
 
I will say again (Yawn) The tightening has been going on sense 2009 ....It started with the 30 day boarder runners then slowly progressed till this last year when the tightening has kicked into high gear....
If things dont slow down .....Well.....You can figure the rest out....
Visas are only moving in one direction and that direction is the opposite of loosing..

I don't there is any evidence for this.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

Interestingly, for the first time ever I was asked by an IO at Chaengwattana why I spend so long in Thailand recently when I went to extend my visa exempt. The screw definitely seems to be tightening.

Of course, they have the right to ask this.  The extension is granted at Immigration's prerogative.

 

But Chaengwattana is also now adding extra seasoning-time to family-based extensions, beyond the 2 months stipulated in the rules, by forcing applicants to keep the money untouched for a month or more after applying.  This office used to be the example of where things were always done exactly per the law and by the book.  That may be changing under "new management."  Stay tuned.

 

12 hours ago, farangx said:

Take it easy Jack, if they did not abuse the visas then there is nothing to be concern about. 

I assume by "abuse" you mean violating the terms - like working-illegally or overstaying.  If the new system denies Tourist Visas based on past overstays, or past convictions of working-illegally (or other crimes), this would not be a concern. 

[JackThompson]

12 hours ago, wobalt said:

The Computer can read your docs i.e how many money you earn?

The way this system may work

1. You submit with attachments (copies of whatever), and you get a submission-ticket, allowing you to log back in and check progress on your application. 
2. A human reviews the docs and decides if they appear to be valid and meet the criteria. 
3. If the docs appear OK, you get an appointment-ticket. 
4. You go the consulate with the hard-copies of what you submitted, and personnel verify they match the online (pre-approved) submitted docs. 
5. If the docs match, you get the Visa.

The big question, is who reviews your docs - the Consulate or Immigration.  If immigration is doing the "pass/fail" test in Step #2, will the honest IOs who follow the law will be the ones in charge?  Or, will "gone-bad" IOs with an anti-farang agenda use illegal-reasons to justify denying a Tourist Visa - just as they often illegally deny-entry at the airports in Bangkok to Tourist Visa holders?  Or, they might deny a Non-O Visa based on marriage, just as they deny valid extension-of-stay requests (to force agent-use) in some offices?

 

One of the advantages of obtaining visas from the MFA was avoiding the corrupt, lying haters.  The concern is, this change could make avoiding their criminal-schemes impossible, in the future.

[farangx]

9 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The big question, is who reviews your docs - the Consulate or Immigration.  If immigration is doing the "pass/fail" test in Step #2, will the honest IOs who follow the law will be the ones in charge?  Or, will "gone-bad" IOs with an anti-farang agenda use illegal-reasons to justify denying a Tourist Visa - just as they often illegally deny-entry at the airports in Bangkok to Tourist Visa holders?  Or, they might deny a Non-O Visa based on marriage, just as they deny valid extension-of-stay requests (to force agent-use) in some offices?

Gee Jack, you making it sounds like they all gone bad. ????

 

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, farangx said:

Gee Jack, you making it sounds like they all gone bad. ????

No - not all - just some.  Most entry-points are still run by supervisors who instruct their staff to follow the law.  And we have good reports of extensions from many offices, also - even marriage-based extensions without "unpublished requirement" hassles. 

 

The open question is what clique will make the call under the new system - the Consul where you apply, the good law-abiding IOs, or the bad/corrupt IOs. 

[Caldera]

Taking into account that actual accomplishments usually don't measure up to what's pompously announced and that this will be the very first version/iteration of the new system, my personal guess (and we're all guessing here!) is that the only check of real substance that will be done at the pre-approval stage is that the applicant hasn't been blacklisted. Consulates haven't been able to check that thus far and that really needs to be fixed.

 

Once issued, the details of the visa will then be available within that shared database, so immigration will have access and can verify that a visa presented on entry is genuine. That alone should make it impossible to just fake the visa stamp / sticker - obviously a huge improvement.

 

Anything beyond that might or might not come - later. I have to chuckle when I read what some people have dreamed up on here. That would be ambitious even for countries whose officials are much more switched, diligent and honest.

[elviajero]

On 1/25/2019 at 3:56 AM, JackThompson said:

On 1/24/2019 at 10:38 PM, elviajero said:

What do the MFA have to do with decisions about restricting visa issuance? If you're going to constantly criticise a system you really should know/learn how it works. 

Consulates operate under the MFA.  If you are saying that immigration decides how visas may be issued and dictates this to the MFA - yet still denies entry to those that pass procedures which they defined - that would only further show the inherent dishonesty involved.  But, as the illegal-denials are not uniformly applied everywhere, it would appear some honest people remain - so hard to tell what fingers are in what pies.

The Thai authorities (a mix of persons/agencies) decide the criteria for visa issuance.

 

You are well aware that immigration have the final say regarding entry, and that they have access to history that the embassies/consulates issuing the visa don't always. I am sure in the future that more and more visas will get denied (not issued) once the process gets more automated.

 

Denials rarely happen with visa holders. You may not like the underlying reason for these denials, but they are under orders from high, and the reasons given for denial conform with the immigration act and are entirely lawful.

 

The whole basis of your conspiratorial argument is based on some IO's acting independently out of some anti foreigner agenda, when the reality is that the TIB have given discretional power to IO's that - due to the fact it's discretional - produces inconsistent enforcement.

 

Staying long term as a tourist is something the authorities at the very top have been actively trying to reduce since 2006. 

 

The fact that embassies/consulates are inconsistently/discretionally stamping passports with a stamp effectively spelling out the person has stayed in the country too long as a tourist proves the policy comes from the top.

 

[elviajero]

On 1/25/2019 at 3:56 AM, JackThompson said:

On 1/24/2019 at 10:38 PM, elviajero said:

I wonder how you square your acceptance that consulates can lawfully stamp passports with this remark, with your claims that IO's that stop 'tourists' that have spent too long in the country are lawbreaking anti-foreigners.

I am not claiming it is lawful.  Each consulate has wide leverage to do what they want. 

So you now also believe that the embassies/consulates are acting unlawfully too.

 

On 1/25/2019 at 3:56 AM, JackThompson said:

Vientiane's stamp also said, "... may be required to show income and residence next time" - yet, that consulate would not accept those when presented (my experience and others).  It appears they used that language to try to justify their legally-unjustified policy of denying Tourist Visas to those who were qualified to receive them - but then did not actually permit use of their own defined method of overcoming the artificial-hurdle.  Instead, they tell folks to "get a new passport and come back."  And, at the same time, they don't require the flight, 20K Baht, and accommodation - which is lawfully defined.  As with immigration-offices and entry-points, there is no clear explanation or honest accountability in their processes.

They have the right to legally deny a visa to anyone even if they qualify. They want to sell you a visa and will usually sell a visa to anyone that meets the bureaucratic requirements. They are clearly going against the authorities wishes when telling you to get a new passport so they can cover their <deleted> when issuing the visa. The consulate in Hull, UK has come unstuck on several occasions in the past which is why London took over some applications and applications by post. 

 

I think that you need to learn the difference between law and rules.

 

If someone has stayed in Thailand long term (especially if in excess of 180 days per year) they would have zero chance of having an appeal against a denied entry overturned; because the persons/authority they complain to have set the rules and given the power to the IO's.

 

The fact that a specific reason of staying too long does not exist under section 12 - due to the age of the immigration act - means they use other reasons that lawfully qualify. The alternative would be to publish a regulation or change the law to formally limit entries for all. That would be bad for all, and not help the few that get denied now.

 

[Pattaya46]

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

So you now also believe that the embassies/consulates are acting unlawfully too.

How is that unlawful?

Embassies & Consulate have a large liberty on deciding the rules they want apply.

That doesn't make their decision illegal in any way.

[elviajero]

22 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

46 minutes ago, elviajero said:

So you now also believe that the embassies/consulates are acting unlawfully too.

How is that unlawful?

Embassies & Consulate have a large liberty on deciding the rules they want apply.

That doesn't make their decision illegal in any way.

It's not unlawful, and I didn't say it was.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The Thai authorities (a mix of persons/agencies) decide the criteria for visa issuance.

That makes sense - a coordinated effort.  But there seem to be different opinions in that collection of "deciders" - some more "anti" than others.

 

Quote

You are well aware that immigration have the final say regarding entry, and that they have access to history that the embassies/consulates issuing the visa don't always. I am sure in the future that more and more visas will get denied (not issued) once the process gets more automated.

Banned people, overstayers, criminals - that's fine.  As long as they stick to the restrictions in the immigration act, and rules TAT states for issuance of Tourist Visas, it's fine.

 

Quote

Denials rarely happen with visa holders. You may not like the underlying reason for these denials, but they are under orders from high, and the reasons given for denial conform with the immigration act and are entirely lawful. 

I disagree - as stated in previous comments on this topic.  The minister's exception cause for denial has not been reported as cited in rejection-stamps, and there is no other way to deny-entry based on a vague "legally here too much before," claim.  Barring a change to the Immigration Act, they cannot legally deny entry for that reason.

 

Likewise, they cannot say, "You don't have money," and the visitor says, "Yes I do, here look..." and the IO says, "No, I won't look at anything you have.  Absent any evidence, and to spite the fact your passport shows you can fly around the world every year, and though your visa-issuance shows you had money when you applied, I am going to claim I know you cannot afford your stay, and deny entry on that basis."  That is just plain crooked.

 

Quote

The whole basis of your conspiratorial argument is based on some IO's acting independently out of some anti foreigner agenda, when the reality is that the TIB have given discretional power to IO's that - due to the fact it's discretional - produces inconsistent enforcement.

I do not pretend to know which parties are paying for this effort, but am confident it is being paid for.  They would not start denying entry for a non-legal reason, which hurts the country's citizens (and it absolutely does - I have met them), without a financial incentive - without being crooked.

 

Quote

Staying long term as a tourist is something the authorities at the very top have been actively trying to reduce since 2006. 

 

The fact that embassies/consulates are inconsistently/discretionally stamping passports with a stamp effectively spelling out the person has stayed in the country too long as a tourist proves the policy comes from the top.

There are two types of longer staying tourists - those who could barely afford to exist here, doing "border bounces" using unlimited Visa Exempts - and those who can afford trips to foreign countries, flights, and prove money in the bank.  I agree there were clamp-downs to prevent the "barely afford it" border-bouncers. 

 

Vientiane, in particular (and others in the past), was skipping checking the money and flights - so I can see how that lowered the bar.  Those at the top could have demanded they do this - though that would have greatly reduced the total-volume of Visas the consulate could have processed.  Evidently, the higher-ups decided maintaining the volume of Tourist Visas issued was worth it - for those who could at least afford these trips - provided the applicants had to buy new passports frequently - which at least showed they were not wanted-criminals / fugitives.  I believe this is why the consulate personnel recommend getting a new passport.

 

If the new system merely adds the stated requirements which Vientiane was skipping (flight, money), then it's fine.  The only harm (to Thais and expats) arises if they go too far - if the hardliner-faction writes the rules.  Something reasonable, like "stay out a week before applying, so we know you aren't working illegally," would at least limit the damage.

Edited January 27, 2019 by JackThompson

[Caldera]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

Denials rarely happen with visa holders. You may not like the underlying reason for these denials, but they are under orders from high, and the reasons given for denial conform with the immigration act and are entirely lawful.

You don't know that (despite claiming otherwise repeatedly) and as of now have consistently failed to back up your claims with facts, such as a police order to that effect. Yes, we all know your stories, but as far as I'm concerned, you're just another forum braggart who claims inside knowledge.

 

If this came from "high up", it would be applied at all border posts (such as the 2-visa-exempts-at-land-borders /year limit) and it would also be impossible to get an extension once you're over the "magic" 180 days/year time in country.

 

We do know for a fact, on the other hand, that immigration officers at Don Mueang alone have been in the news twice within the last six months (!) for unlawful activities. First a visa on arrival scam,  now issuing "fake stamps". Knowing that and having followed similar stories in the past, where you take your confidence from that their arbitrary denials are lawful is anyone's guess, but the fact that they see the need to cite fantasy rules and then write down other reasons as justification doesn't exactly point in that direction.

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

The fact that a specific reason of staying too long does not exist under section 12 - due to the age of the immigration act - means they use other reasons that lawfully qualify.

We have had this discussion before, but let me just reiterate what I believe are facts, under Thai law:

• Consulates have full discretion to deny visas, and do not have to disclose their reasons. Public relations suggests that they should allow the rules they operate under to be known, but applicants have no recourse if a consulate says 'no'.
• The rules under which immigration officials can deny entry are specified quite explicitly in the Immigration Act, and are subject to few exceptions.
• Immigration officials have publicly been given discretion to deny entry to those requesting a visa exempt entry if (in the sole judgement of the official) the traveller is using visa exempt entries to live in Thailand. There is no right of appeal against the official's decision.
• I do not believe immigration officials have been given discretion to deny people entry when they are entering with visas. They are supposed to grant or deny entry solely according to the reasons for denying entry in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. I am well aware that other countries do give immigration officials discretionary powers. Thailand's Immigration Act clearly states that only the Minister has the power to arbitrarily admit or exclude individual travellers or groups of travellers.
• You have expressed the view that the Minister has delegated his powers to immigration officials, but this has been kept a secret. While I will admit that keeping this secret would make some sense (as it is clearly contrary to the intent of the Immigration Act) I believe such an intentional major change in officials' powers would have been addressed by amending the Immigration Act, not by secret orders.
• When those with visas are denied entry, they have right of appeal.
• Currently (albeit rarely) people with visas are being denied entry with the immigration official knowing full well that the reason stamped in the passport as the reason for the denial is bogus. Further, it seems people are denied their legal right to appeal.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Denials rarely happen with visa holders. You may not like the underlying reason for these denials, but they are under orders from high, and the reasons given for denial conform with the immigration act and are entirely lawful.

You don't know that (despite claiming otherwise repeatedly) and as of now have consistently failed to back up your claims with facts, such as a police order to that effect. Yes, we all know your stories, but as far as I'm concerned, you're just another forum braggart who claims inside knowledge.

I mostly point out the bleeding obvious. I've never claimed inside knowledge. I do, however, pass on information I get from people I know that work for immigration.

 

Back to the point. It doesn't matter what the underlying reason is. The claim was that people are unlawfully denied entry, which is simply and evidently not true. They are being denied using reasons given in section 12 of the immigration act. That makes it lawful.

 

Someone that has spent a long time in the country as a tourist may be; suspected of working, not have enough money on them, and have never provided immigration with evidence of an appropriate means to live. The three reasons legitimately used to deny entry to long term tourists.

 

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

If this came from "high up", it would be applied at all border posts (such as the 2-visa-exempts-at-land-borders /year limit) and it would also be impossible to get an extension once you're over the "magic" 180 days/year time in country.

So if you believe immigration officers are occasionally denying entry for their own personal reasons, please explain how they benefit from the denial. What's in it for them?

 

The authorities clearly do not want to set a formal limit. WHICH IS A GOOD THING!!!! It's in our benefit that they don't.

 

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

We do know for a fact, on the other hand, that immigration officers at Don Mueang alone have been in the news twice within the last six months (!) for unlawful activities. First a visa on arrival scam,  now issuing "fake stamps". Knowing that and having followed similar stories in the past, where you take your confidence from that their arbitrary denials are lawful is anyone's guess, but the fact that they see the need to cite fantasy rules and then write down other reasons as justification doesn't exactly point in that direction.

Wow! Corruption within immigration. If we only knew! Your kind seem unable to separate genuine corruption with immigration doing their job!

 

Those known "facts" have absolutely nothing to do with immigrations right to deny entry to someone for any reasons listed in section 12.

 

You want proof but you don't see it even when it's there. Immigration gave discretional power to IO's to deny entry to 'visa runners' (visa exempt). No law was changed and no regulation was announced. This is the relevant bit ... anyone that has been denied under that policy has been denied for one of the three reasons listed above and not for being a 'visa runner'. Denying a visa holder for being a visa runner is absolutely no different to denying a visa runner using visa exemption. The underlying reason is the same and the reason given for denial is lawful. Get over it.