Important News from Vientiane Royal Thai Embassy.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

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.

As a start explain how someone denied entry under 12.9 for not have 20K baht on them is unlawful.

[freedomnow]

Below is not a "this is how it should be" comment that usually inflates threads but...

 

Arriving longer-term tourists have cropped up on TV saying they got rejected based on insufficient funds even though they showed the 20k. So the reason for rejection was stated as "insufficient funds" by the IO, yet they had the required funds.  **Therefore its a blatant lie by the IO based on the options at-hand for rejection.**

 

So they want the long-termers in Thailand off long-term tourist visa strategies, and on to a long-term tour$$$$t visa (Elite) in a nutshell...or to leave if they won't pony up for one of the highest cost 5-year 'tourist' visas out there in the world. (What else can you class it as if you cannot work on it according to its terms of issue ?)

 

Anyway, looks like this queue system is just what it is, and not a cobbled together version of the UK one coming in on April 1st which I believe pre-vets your progress to applying at all for tourist visas based on your history.

 

I've always had a marriage visa option at my back, and my length of stay kind of snowballed based on my relationship with the other half, but things just seem shaky in the long-term in Thailand as it moves from a developing nation to developed, and will married people 10 or 15 years down the line hit some kind of horror show financial or other wall that ends up splitting their family apart ?

 

It's my main worry over the long-term here.

Edited January 29, 2019 by freedomnow

[Lovethailandelite]

12 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

 

 

Anyway, looks like this queue system is just what it is, and not a cobbled together version of the UK one coming in on April 1st which I believe pre-vets your progress to applying at all for tourist visas based on your history.

 

 

I am not sure how you work out the up and coming UK one is a cobbled together thing? It's a world standard system that has had literally millions of baht and man hours spent on it. Hence China switches to it 15th February as everybody else will have too. This system going on at Vientiane and KL is only temporary in an attempt too alleviate the queues.

[freedomnow]

42 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I am not sure how you work out the up and coming UK one is a cobbled together thing? It's a world standard system that has had literally millions of baht and man hours spent on it. Hence China switches to it 15th February as everybody else will have too. This system going on at Vientiane and KL is only temporary in an attempt too alleviate the queues.

I did not mean the UK one was cobbled together,  I meant this last-minute Vientiane system announced on Facebook looks cobbled together barely getting up-and-running in time for their very near launch.....sorry if that was not clear.????

I guessed the UK one has pre-vetted approval to apply in person, but this Vient. Lao one does not seem to pre-vet applicants at the web application stage... aka "Do not pass go, go back to your home country"

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by freedomnow

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

Any of the three usual reasons used by IO’s when denying long term tourists are lawful in their own right.

Lawful only if they are true - as in, backed up by evidence the claim being made against the visitor is true.  For example, "Cannot afford their stay" could be due to an unpaid hospital bill from a previous visit - or "Working illegally" backed up with evidence/pics of them teaching or working as a diving-instructor with no history of a work-permit.  Otherwise, it is precisely like the parallel posted above - police-actions taken based on a false charge.

 

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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. 

I'll won't hold my breath waiting to see the prosecution of the IOs who refused to allow an appeal in this "Denied with SETV to spite the required cash" case:

 

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

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

If true, they would have happily supported the effort to appeal, above, in order to prove they were right.  But they cannot help but know what they are doing is illegal. 

 

This will not change unless major foreign newspapers run a story, as happened with the "on the street drug test" routine:

 

 

Otherwise, this criminal activity will continue - provided those paying for the agenda continue paying.  After all, in the above case, the worst result for the criminal-officer running the drug-testing extortion-ring was:

 

"Pol Col Chutrakul has been transferred out of his position at Thong Lor, shifting to a new post in Ang Thong province last Wednesday. He denied the transfer had anything to do with the media criticism of his officers."

 

Can we assume he got to keep the extortion-money he made in the meantime?

[farangx]

15 hours ago, wobalt said:

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

There is nothing to fear about an online system.  Saves you the trip of showing up at an office only to find you cannot get it.  I know a few people here who applied for visas online at the embassy in Singapore, once approved they make the trip to get it, very convenient.

 

[farangx]

25 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

If true, they would have happily supported the effort to appeal, above, in order to prove they were right.  But they cannot help but know what they are doing is illegal. 

 

This will not change unless major foreign newspapers run a story, as happened with the "on the street drug test" routine:

Haven't you had enough of fake news already? I personally know of no such cases, other than conspiracies running around in this forum regularly.

 

[Okis]

I was there today to do a application and i looked around on walls and billboards but i couldnt find anything about this. 

 

After finishing my application i asked 2 different employees about the change and got a mix of weird facial expressions and shaking heads.

[wobalt]

There is nothing to fear about an online system.  Saves you the trip of showing up at an office only to find you cannot get it.  I know a few people here who applied for visas online at the embassy in Singapore, once approved they make the trip to get it, very convenient.
 

I don’t fear that system because I would have no problems to get the visa . Bit I don’t want that my personal data are unprotected. What a uproar wen they introduced the „questionary“ some years ago, now they get this info through the backdoor. I see no advantage in this system as long it is not a real eVisa what you can print out.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, farangx said:

Haven't you had enough of fake news already? I personally know of no such cases, other than conspiracies running around in this forum regularly.

 

I never had any problem like this - but did not frequent the area in Bangkok where that crew were running their illegitimate operation - nor have I gone to clubs where drug-use is frequent, where legit testing occurs within legal guidelines. 

 

But, what I was referring to was not at all "fake news" - was reported in both Thai and foreign press.  The thaivisa link I posted above referenced reporting found in the Bangkok Post.  A web-search got hits from the USA (including Time magazine) to the UK - and, of course, the major travel blog sites.

 

The context, though, was that No Significant Punishment to the offending officials occurs when these schemes are brought to light.  Hence, I would not expect those making illegal denials-of-entry, and/or ignoring appeal-requests to face (or worry about) violating the law.

 

At Vientiane, currently - we only have an appointment system going online - so no reason for anyone to panic.  But let us hope that whatever takes place with the online system is done in a constructive way - one that does not reduce the longer-stay tourist expat population and the Thais who are supported by their spending. 

[Caliguy]

Another update from their facebook.

 

Important Update !

Please be informed that the official website for the Visa Application Appointment System (will be activated online from 30 January 2019 onwards) is http://thaivisavientiane.com

The Embassy will no longer use http://thaivisavientiane.org

[Kalasin Jo]

On 1/24/2019 at 9:23 PM, at15 said:

65k is insane , must have a lot of demons 

Not necessarily. If you have a spendthrift wife ????????

[Caldera]

19 hours ago, elviajero said:

As a start explain how someone denied entry under 12.9 for not have 20K baht on them is unlawful.

You still don't get it; I'm not claiming that each and every denial is unlawful, but you need to look at each individual case. If someone is asked to show 20,000 baht and cannot do as asked, the denial is lawful. But that's a big IF, as the interaction doesn't always seem to follow that pattern - when someone offers to show the money and they're unwilling to even look at it, clearly listing 12.9 as the sole reason or as one of the reasons for denial is dishonest.

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, Caliguy said:

Another update from their facebook.

 

Important Update !

Please be informed that the official website for the Visa Application Appointment System (will be activated online from 30 January 2019 onwards) is http://thaivisavientiane.com

The Embassy will no longer use http://thaivisavientiane.org

Too dumb to get even the most basic things done without last-minute hiccups. Oh joy.

[elviajero]

25 minutes ago, Caldera said:

You still don't get it; I'm not claiming that each and every denial is unlawful, but you need to look at each individual case. If someone is asked to show 20,000 baht and cannot do as asked, the denial is lawful. But that's a big IF, as the interaction doesn't always seem to follow that pattern - when someone offers to show the money and they're unwilling to even look at it, clearly listing 12.9 as the sole reason or as one of the reasons for denial is dishonest.

And I am not saying every denial is lawful. 

 

People are arguing that if the reason for denial is because of the time spent in the country (which is the underlying reason) and another reason is used, that using another reason is unlawful. I am saying that someone - especially a long term tourist - can be denied for any reason they qualify for, and when IO's are denying entry because of spent too long in the country, but using another qualifying reason, the denial is lawful. Get it?

 

I have also explained that someone with 20K in their pocket can still lawfully be denied under 12.2; but that if the same person is denied under 12.9 - and had the cash - it would be unlawful. 12.2 does not relate to the 10K/20K regulation. Show me a report where someone claiming to have the cash was denied under 12.9.

 

I am also trying to get over to some that the alternative to the current practice would be regulation under section 16 that would screw things up for every long term tourist; and would not help the insignificant number of 'westerners' being denied entry using other legitimate reasons than the actual underlying reason.

[BritTim]

This is unbelievable.

 

As of just after midnight on January 30th, this is what I see for the appointment website, supposedly taking reservations for visa applications in two days time:

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by BritTim

[BritTim]

I had not noticed the recent message on the Facebook page indicating that they had decided to change from thaivisavientiane.org to thaivisavientiane.com

 

The new site thaivisavientiane.com still just gives a landing page

An awesome website is coming soon to this address!

The web hosting service for this web page is provided by SiteGround.com. Our client is still working on their website, but nice of you to come by. Check back again!

The old url ought to redirect to the new one. Some (like me) will have bookmarked the old site, and have missed the late in the day change to a different site.

  

[elviajero]

On 1/27/2019 at 5:25 PM, BritTim said:

• When those with visas are denied entry, they have right of appeal.

So do those entering under Visa exemption.

• The only time you can't appeal a denied entry is if the reason for denial is 12.1 or 12.10. And it doesn't matter whether visa or visa exemption is being used to enter.

e.g. Someone attempting a third VE entry by land could be denied entry under 12.1 (based on Ministerial Regulation limiting two per year) and that denial could not be appealed for obvious reasons.

 

Whereas someone making a second entry by land being denied under 12.2, or 12.3, or 12.9 (the three common reasons) etc. could appeal.

 

On 1/28/2019 at 5:10 AM, JackThompson said:

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. 

WRONG!!!

• No judge is involved with a denied entry!
• Appeals are made to the Minister and the decision of the Minister is final. 
• Yes, you wouldn't be appealing against being in the country too long, but for the reason given for the denied entry.

 

Quote

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.

WRONG!!

• You CAN appeal a visa exempt entry as long as the denial isn't under 12.1 or 12.10.
• Denials under 12.1 or 12.10 would be based on published regulation, which is why they are not appealable.
• You appear to have formed one of your conspiracy theories on your own misunderstanding of law and a fictitious appeal process.

I am sure that most people don't appeal because they do not know they can appeal. However, as I've said before - given the underlying reason - an appeal is probably a complete waste of time!

Edited January 29, 2019 by elviajero

[ubonjoe]

I am getting this now for the .com site.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

I am getting this now for the .com site.

I still get the landing page. You could try https://thaivisavientiane.com (note  'httpS' rather than 'http'. The behaviour may be different.

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I still get the landing page. You could try https://thaivisavientiane.com (note  'httpS' rather than 'http'. The behaviour may be different.

It may not like VPN's. I get this now using the link you posted,

No VPN using a incognito window I get this.

 

[ubonjoe]

A now this at https://thaivisavientiane.com/

[sapson]

Maybe i have got this wrong? 

 

In two days time you must have an appointment for a visa,but as of now their isnt a functioning website to book your time. 

 

Perhaps someone at thai visa could email the consulate on behalf of its members asking for an update.

 

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, sapson said:

In two days time you must have an appointment for a visa,but as of now their isnt a functioning website to book your time. 

The announcement says from the 1st of February so I think that means Monday the 4th.

I am sure if they don't get the site going it will not be required and I am certain there will be a lot of people showing up without an appointment who are not aware of the requirement.

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The announcement says from the 1st of February so I think that means Monday the 4th.

I am sure if they don't get the site going it will not be required and I am certain there will be a lot of people showing up without an appointment who are not aware of the requirement.

It makes sense to me that they would intend to start on February 1st. Friday is their least busy day, and the best time to try to iron out any issues with their system. It is absurd that they still have not postponed the implementation. If the appointment system goes live at lunchtime tomorrow, and they still officially keep to the February 1st start date, it will be absurd. I cannot believe that the normally level headed and service oriented consular staff will end up insisting on appointments Friday, even if the system has officially started to avoid someone losing face. That said, I would not want to be planning a Vientiane visa application for the next week or so. This could be a total fiasco.

[jackdd]

19 minutes ago, BritTim said:

It makes sense to me that they would intend to start on February 1st. Friday is their least busy day, and the best time to try to iron out any issues with their system. It is absurd that they still have not postponed the implementation. If the appointment system goes live at lunchtime tomorrow, and they still officially keep to the February 1st start date, it will be absurd. I cannot believe that the normally level headed and service oriented consular staff will end up insisting on appointments Friday, even if the system has officially started to avoid someone losing face. That said, I would not want to be planning a Vientiane visa application for the next week or so. This could be a total fiasco.

I would expect that in the beginning there will be both systems in place, the online system and the walk in system as before (probably the online people have priority). After a few weeks when people understood to use the online system they will probably start telling people that they have to book an appointment on their website and turn them away. Of course i'm just guessing.

[Lovethailandelite]

According to the information they have supplied there are NO WALK IN applications from the 1st February.

[JackThompson]

18 hours ago, elviajero said:

So do those entering under Visa exemption.

• The only time you can't appeal a denied entry is if the reason for denial is 12.1 or 12.10. And it doesn't matter whether visa or visa exemption is being used to enter.

e.g. Someone attempting a third VE entry by land could be denied entry under 12.1 (based on Ministerial Regulation limiting two per year) and that denial could not be appealed for obvious reasons.

 

Whereas someone making a second entry by land being denied under 12.2, or 12.3, or 12.9 (the three common reasons) etc. could appeal.

Interesting info - I did not know a Visa Exempt rejection could be appealed at all, ever.

 

18 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

WRONG!!!

• No judge is involved with a denied entry! 
• Appeals are made to the Minister and the decision of the Minister is final. 
• Yes, you wouldn't be appealing against being in the country too long, but for the reason given for the denied entry.

Ok - substitute "higher authority" for judge.  Bottom line, someone above the local head-honcho would get involved, and a record of the proceeding would be made.  Their decision would be based on the IO's (or his supervisor's) evidence regarding the person being denied not having enough money.   As they could not use, "here too much before" as a reason, and unless there was evidence of inadequate funds on prior visits (or some other evidence to this effect), I do not see how any authority (judge, minister, panel, etc) would be willing to sign their name(s) to a denial of the appeal.

 

18 hours ago, elviajero said:

WRONG!!

• You CAN appeal a visa exempt entry as long as the denial isn't under 12.1 or 12.10.
• Denials under 12.1 or 12.10 would be based on published regulation, which is why they are not appealable.
• You appear to have formed one of your conspiracy theories on your own misunderstanding of law and a fictitious appeal process.

I am sure that most people don't appeal because they do not know they can appeal. However, as I've said before - given the underlying reason - an appeal is probably a complete waste of time! 

It is happening to people now, and is a coordinated effort by a group of people to commit legal-fraud - claiming a visitor is "too poor" w/o evidence this is the case.  This, by definition of law, is a "conspiracy."  But unless you believe all the cases are fake, it is not a "theory."  The case of the person who tried to appeal, and was not permitted to do so, included a picture sent from inside detention.

 

They are getting away with this behavior by not admitting in writing (passport rejection-stamp) that they are denying-entry based on "too much time," though they admit to those being denied-entry that this is in fact the real reason.  As the real-reason is not legal, and the stamped-reason is fraudulent, I think an appeal could be a problem for them.

[JackThompson]

 

On 1/29/2019 at 9:10 PM, elviajero said:

I am also trying to get over to some that the alternative to the current practice would be regulation under section 16 that would screw things up for every long term tourist; and would not help the insignificant number of 'westerners' being denied entry using other legitimate reasons than the actual underlying reason.

We don't know how significant the denial-numbers are, but reports indicate they were not alone when detained, and one reported that the airlines were making a killing on batches of overpriced return-tickets. 

The logical change would be forcing all entry-points to stop denying entry on a lie.  If they did write new rules, given it would not be a local-entry-point supervisor writing them, they might be something sane, such as 1 week-out rule.  In either of those scenarios, everyone could begin using the airports again without worry.  Of course, always-enforced bad-rules would be even worse than roulette-wheel-enforced bad-rules.  No one is hoping for that.

 

On 1/29/2019 at 9:10 PM, elviajero said:

Show me a report where someone claiming to have the cash was denied under 12.9.

I recall a few of those - usually the visitor were not asked to show the money which they had, so had no idea of the reason until they were told later - then told it was "too late" to show the money.

 

After people started showing the money preemptively (in part, likely thanks to this site), the denial-stamp being used switched to "working illegally" for awhile.  They seem to have realized this was a crazy accusation for most Westerners, so they more recently switched to using "cannot afford their stay" - making all Visa entries of every type subject to rejection w/o any evidence. 

 

On 1/29/2019 at 9:10 PM, elviajero said:

12.2 does not relate to the 10K/20K regulation

It should be taken care of by the process for applying for a Visa.  If they think the 20K baht shown at consulates to get a Tourist Visa is inadequate, they can take it up with those who write the rules - and stop harming innocent travelers in the meantime.  No one on any Visa (even the elite - only proves "spent money years ago") could meet that requirement, absent showing a bank-book to the IO (which they refuse to look at).

[BritTim]

The Vientiane consular section website went live within the last few hours at https://thaivisavientiane.com/. WARNING: You should visit the site using the url I give in this post. If you specify thaivisavientiane.com without the https:// you will connect to the site insecurely, and run the risk of the information you enter on the site being viewed by others. Hopefully, the developers will soon make the simple change required to redirect those entering the site insecurely.