Important News from Vientiane Royal Thai Embassy.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

• The rules under which immigration officials can deny entry are specified quite explicitly in the Immigration Act, and are subject to few exceptions.

Expect 12.10, which refers to section 16, which gives powers for anyone or group to be denied for any reason the Minister sees fit.

 

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

• 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.

Discretional power given without a law change, regulation or specific reason for denial used under section 16. Entries are denied using 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9.

 

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

• 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.

• They ARE ONLY denying entry under section 12.
• The Immigration Act gives power to the Minister to give power to IO's to deny entry.

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

• 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.

No I haven't expressed that view. I have said that the same discretion given to IO's to deny visa exempt entry could have been given to IO's to deny tourist visa holders. Denying visa exemption didn't require any change in the law or regulation, or the curtesy of a public announcement. Neither does denying a visa holder for the same reason.

 

The reason no law or regulation was/is required is because they are using other qualifying reasons to deny entry.

 

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

• 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.

The reasons used to deny entry are not bogus. A visitor could qualify for one or more reason under section 12, whether or not they are long term tourists.

 

You seem to continue to miss the point that those being denied under visa exemption are not being denied entry "for the purpose of extending their stay, which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary and not in line with the purpose permitted while entering country.", which is the underlying reason for denial; but for other reasons under section 12. The same other reasons are being used to deny entry to an insignificant number of tourist visa holders that are considered by the IO to have spent too long in the country as a tourist.

 

You/others seem to accept that denying visa exempt entry is lawful even though "bogus" reasons are used, but believe it's unlawful for visa holders, doing the same thing, to be denied for the same reasons, knowing a visa does not give any right of entry.

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You/others seem to accept that denying visa exempt entry is lawful even though "bogus" reasons are used, but believe it's unlawful for visa holders, doing the same thing, to be denied for the same reasons, knowing a visa does not give any right of entry.

I believe there is a difference, yes.

Visas are issued by consulates, with the discretion on whether to grant them residing there. Immigration has the discretion with visa exemption, and to determine whether people qualify according to the published regulations.

That being said, it would be better if discretionary denials of visa exempt entries were not using Section (2) as the justification. It would seem that Section 12 (1) or Section 12 (10) could validly be used if my analysis is correct.

[elviajero]

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You/others seem to accept that denying visa exempt entry is lawful even though "bogus" reasons are used, but believe it's unlawful for visa holders, doing the same thing, to be denied for the same reasons, knowing a visa does not give any right of entry.

I believe there is a difference, yes.

Visas are issued by consulates, with the discretion on whether to grant them residing there. Immigration has the discretion with visa exemption, and to determine whether people qualify according to the published regulations.

Holding a visa is irrelevant and makes no difference. IO’s have the same power to deny entry to visa holders being denied under section 12.

 

Currently the only published regulations regarding visa exemption are the qualifying nationals, and the 2 entry per year land border limit.

 

MFA;

10.  Royal Thai Embassies and Royal Thai Consulates-General have the authority to issue visas to foreigners for travel to Thailand.  The authority to permit entry and stay in Thailand, however, is with the immigration officers.  In some cases, the immigration officer may not permit foreigner holding a valid visa entry into Thailand should the immigration officer find reason to believe that he or she falls into the category of aliens prohibited from entering Thailand under the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

[at15]

appointment system delayed until 30 jan 2019. 

[BritTim]

27 minutes ago, at15 said:

appointment system delayed until 30 jan 2019. 

They should be putting back implementation for at least two weeks. It is clear they are not ready. The delay will cause someone to lose face, but nothing to what is likely to happen if they try to proceed without a properly tested system.

[JackThompson]

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

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.

Only if the judge was in on the scam.  Otherwise, the prosecution (immigration) would have to point to where in the Immigration Act there is any reference to "spent too much time (legally) in the country before."  But since the appeal would be on the stamped-reason (probably money), they would need to explain how they determined the visitor didn't have enough, and how they arrived at that decision. 

 

We know the "180 day rule" is made-up, because IOs have gone back over a year (calendar and rolling) to "count up" to that number, when trying to justify (illegally) a denied-entry.  If it were a "real rule," the method of calculation would be defined (and it would be en-force everywhere).

 

16 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.

They are not lawful, because they are not true, or even remotely indicated to be true, in many of the cases where we have seen them used.

 

16 hours ago, elviajero said:

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. 

Or, the minister could classify a "group" as being "deny-able" (not automatic) if they have a certain history.  Per ...

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

Expect 12.10, which refers to section 16, which gives powers for anyone or group to be denied for any reason the Minister sees fit.

He could then revise this group-classification as desired.  He could leave "discretion" intact, so VIPs (or the usual corruption) could be given leeway.  This would be 100% legal.  They could publish it in the Gazette, and everyone coming could know whether they would enter OK, or are over a line, and could be denied (with a rejection-stamp stating 12.10).

 

But, to take that legal-step would require a higher-level consensus than currently exists - so would not be as harsh as what the hard-liners are doing now in their independent-fiefdoms (entry-points and offices).  Certainly, if the top-level personnel agreed on this, the Minister would have already done it.  

 

At that point, the elite-visa beneficiaries would have broken out the champagne, as tens of thousands more Thais were put out of work, so they could rake in a few million more baht for themselves from the tiny fraction of buyers, vs the 99% who would just go elsewhere.  And a similar celebration with the agents, who could "arrange" retirement-extensions for snowbirds who don't want to keep a chunk of money or send 65K/mo of income here every month - even months when they aren't here. 

 

It would not be "bad" for people flying to Thailand to know in advance if they were admissible or not.  The only case that can be made for the status-quo, is that every land-border except Poipet will let in folks with a Tourist Visa regardless of "legal time in country before" - so there is no limit (per the law), as long as you avoid the criminal-run entry points.  This is better for some longer/frequent visitors - though many would prefer a 1-week-out rule combined with being able to fly into Bangkok (again).

 

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

Denying visa exemption didn't require any change in the law or regulation, or the curtesy of a public announcement. Neither does denying a visa holder for the same reason.

Because there is no pre-approval involved.  The visitor shows up, and can be denied the exempt, so denied the entry.  They can stamp any reason, because there is no legal path to appeal, so it cannot be challenged.  By law, a Tourist Visa denial could be appealed, though immigration appear to be worried about precedent (and possibly being exposed as criminals) in a judicial proceeding, so have not yet allowed that process to occur. 

 

With the lack of appeal proceedings, we see more evidence that the "higher ups" don't all agree with the hard-liners.  Otherwise, they would have happily accepted an appeal, and used the win in court as a precedent in their favor.  The courts here are not known as biased towards the defense - yet even in that environment, immigration didn't want to test the waters.

[wobalt]

So what is the sense of the system then? Besides a appointment system


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[wobalt]

appointment system delayed until 30 jan 2019. 

Source?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tgeezer]

Because there is no pre-approval involved.  The visitor shows up, and can be denied the exempt, so denied the entry.  They can stamp any reason, because there is no legal path to appeal, so it cannot be challenged.  By law, a Tourist Visa denial could be appealed, though immigration appear to be worried about precedent (and possibly being exposed as criminals) in a judicial proceeding, so have not yet allowed that process to occur. 

 

With the lack of appeal proceedings, we see more evidence that the "higher ups" don't all agree with the hard-liners.  Otherwise, they would have happily accepted an appeal, and used the win in court as a precedent in their favor.  The courts here are not known as biased towards the defense - yet even in that environment, immigration didn't want to test the waters.

I don’t think Thailand goes in for that sort of thing. As I understand it an appeal is made to a panel made up of people who hold similar position to those who created the Immigration Act. A decision once made is final, there is no court of law and you will not be present or represented except on paper.

No one holding a valid visa should ever be denied entry unless new information has come to light or the conditions changed since the visa was issued, if they are then the system is broken. A visa shows that the holder has been fully scrutinised and found to satisfy the conditions laid down in the Immigration Act and police orders. A visa relieves the IO of doing anything more than recording your arrival. If visas are not accepted by individual IOs then it must be because they don’t trust their consular officers to do a good job, that is a very poor show.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, wobalt said:

3 hours ago, at15 said:

appointment system delayed until 30 jan 2019. 

Source?

The nearest to that I have seen is a comment on the Facebook page that the FAQ about the appointment system will be up on January 30th.

[wobalt]

So what is the sense of the system then? Besides a appointment system


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

If you apply for a non-o based on Mariage besides you passport and booking details you would have to upload your marriage certificate (possibly it is in German) and her id -card. So on what base it would be pre-approved or denied?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, wobalt said:

If you apply for a non-o based on Mariage besides you passport and booking details you would have to upload your marriage certificate (possibly it is in German) and her id -card. So on what base it would be pre-approved or denied?

At Vientiane you only request an appointment online and hand over the application and supporting documents at the consular section.

[wobalt]

The nearest to that I have seen is a comment on the Facebook page that the FAQ about the appointment system will be up on January 30th.

See it too late, January,30th?..?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[wobalt]

At Vientiane you only request an appointment online and hand over the application and supporting documents at the consular section.

Yes, but in the UK and possibly other places in future?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, wobalt said:

Yes, but in the UK and possibly other places in future?

But his topic is about Vientiane although many people have derailed it by writing about what will happen in the future at other locations.

Singapore has required uploading the supporting document for about 2 years now.

[jackdd]

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

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. 

So let's say later police comes to your house and arrests you for selling drugs (you don't sell drugs), then this is lawful in your opinion because selling drugs is illegal by law.

That's about the argumentation that you use.

[wobalt]

Agree, but in Singapore you can drop in as option


Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, wobalt said:

Agree, but in Singapore you can drop in as option

Have you tried it. Their website does not state you can do it. http://www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matters-consular

[wobalt]

Not a resident of Singapore, but you can find as follows:
The applicants are also required to visit the website of the Royal Thai Embassy: www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matters-consular
For walk-in applicants, it will take 2-3 business days from the date of submission of visa at the Embassy.
Important technical information for filling online visa application can be referred at the “HELP” section on the online application website.
The applicants are also required to visit the website of the Royal Thai Embassy: www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matters-consular for detailed information about Thai Visa.
https://www.thaiembassy.sg/announcements/electronic-visa-application
Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

[Tsm12345]

I can not find application forms on neither of the two websites. Anyone has a link? Seems like they didn't update anything today.

[ubonjoe]

12 minutes ago, Tsm12345 said:

I can not find application forms on neither of the two websites. Anyone has a link? Seems like they didn't update anything today.

They posted a notice on their FaceBook that the website with info about it will not be updated until the 30th.

Still no info on this site. http://www.thaivisavientiane.org/

 

[Lovethailandelite]

2 hours ago, wobalt said:

Not a resident of Singapore, but you can find as follows:
The applicants are also required to visit the website of the Royal Thai Embassy: www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matters-consular
For walk-in applicants, it will take 2-3 business days from the date of submission of visa at the Embassy.
Important technical information for filling online visa application can be referred at the “HELP” section on the online application website.
The applicants are also required to visit the website of the Royal Thai Embassy: www.thaiembassy.sg/visa-matters-consular for detailed information about Thai Visa.
https://www.thaiembassy.sg/announcements/electronic-visa-application
Gesendet von iPad mit Thaivisa Connect

Apart from Singapore residents, only certain citizens apply in Singapore by 'Walk in'. You really don't want to be in that class as it takes 4-6 weeks to obtain a visa for a walk in non Singapore resident. Everybody else has to use online application which they ask you to do allowing a month before you travel. The 2-3 day to allowance is referring to Singapore residents.
If you are in any doubt, give it a try an walk in.

[wobalt]

Why I should apply the in Singapore? I do That in Germany


Gesendet von iPhone mit Thaivisa Connect

[Lovethailandelite]

Just now, wobalt said:

Why I should apply the in Singapore? I do That in Germany


Gesendet von iPhone mit Thaivisa Connect

Because like every post made, you seem to want to argue about what you can and cannot do.

[Lovethailandelite]

51 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

They posted a notice on their FaceBook that the website with info about it will not be updated until the 30th.

Still no info on this site. http://www.thaivisavientiane.org/

 

 

[owl sees all]

On 1/24/2019 at 12:12 PM, ubonjoe said:

Not in Vientiane since they don't allow agents to do the application.

An agent did my visa (marriage) a while back. Sorted the money out at 11am. Everything done at 15-30pm same day. That was a Thursday. It was International woman's day on the Friday. Embassy closed. Would have meant a w/e stay otherwise.

 

Cost me in total 6k baht. Back in Thailand that afternoon.

[wobalt]

Because like every post made, you seem to want to argue about what you can and cannot do.

Same you always argue in favor of the online system.knowing everything. I told that I am not a resident ofSingapore. How can I apply there? Germany has not introduced the online system if and to what extent depend on many factors



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Caldera]

21 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

My point is that when you are dealing with an agency where corruption and ineptitude are rampant, making a blanket claim such as "their denials are lawful!" is nothing more than a bad joke.

[yuiop]

An Embassy giving such important updates on FB.

Says it all.

[elviajero]

9 hours ago, jackdd said:

So let's say later police comes to your house and arrests you for selling drugs (you don't sell drugs), then this is lawful in your opinion because selling drugs is illegal by law.

That's about the argumentation that you use.

What!!! Is that supposed to be an analogous?

 

Any of the three usual reasons used by IO’s when denying long term tourists are lawful in their own right. E.g. If a long or short term tourist doesn’t have the requisite 10K/20K in cash, and is denied entry (12.9), the denial is lawful. 

 

Any of the three reasons used for denial can be appealed if you beleive they are unlawful. Immigration not allowing an appeal would be unlawful.

 

IMO a long term tourist denied under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9 has got no chance of a successful appeal.

 

If regulation was passed under section 16 to deny entry based on time spent in the country 12.1 or 12.10 (s.16) could be used. That would then give an Immigration Officer four lawful reasons to deny most long term tourists, and a lot more long term tourists would be denied.