The Latest Info on Retirement Visas from Immigrations

[Andrew Dwyer]

Yes, I obtained my O-A in Singapore in 2010 at the US Embassy there.
 
NO! I just looked at my old passport, and the visa I was issued in Singapore at the THAI embassy in 2004 and was an O. It doesn't say what kind of O.

Have you considered a job in immigration Bill ? [emoji51]

Only joking [emoji854].

Your initial posting on this thread was interesting and has brought up a lot of discussions, but this latest saga about O/OA is unnecessary and detracting from your initial information.

I suggest we forget about this and concentrate more on your findings at immigration.

[skatewash]

7 minutes ago, billsmart said:

Yes, I just dug out my old passport and it was in 2004 at the Thai embassy in Singapore, and it was an O visa, not an O-A. 

Makes sense to me now, I was just thrown by the use of the A on the O-A visa.  An O makes perfect sense.

[billsmart]

Okay, enough!

 

You've beaten me down enough and I've wasted too much of my time trying to answer each one of your queries.

 

I wanted to share with everyone what I was told at my local immigration regarding the new regulations concerning one-year stay extensions for Retirement visas (whatever they are). I was surprised to have been told that beginning in 2020, letters from your bank would not be accepted as proof of monthly income.

I know many (most) of you don't believe that, but that's what I was told and was given documentation corroborating it.

AS far as the whole O-A to O to O-A thing, I think I understand it a little better now. And, I was wrong about where I got my visa and what class it was. I only know I've now lived in Thailand for over 20 years, and most of that time have lived here under "Retirement visa" extension rules, and those seemed to have recently changed.

 

So, having said all that, I won't try to respond to every remark on my posts starting now, but do hope this entire saga about the requirements for a one-year extension for a "Retirement visa" will be resolved soon and know to all. As for me, I'm going to abide by whatever my local IO tells me. What else could I do?

 

[billsmart]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Have you considered a job in immigration Bill ?

Only joking .

Your initial posting on this thread was interesting and has brought up a lot of discussions, but this latest saga about O/OA is unnecessary and detracting from your initial information.

I suggest we forget about this and concentrate more on your findings at immigration.

Yes, Let's please do!

 

The only reason I brought that up is that one of my options is to "change" from a "Retirement visa" to a "Marriage visa" (whatever that means) which I've done before and which my local IO told me last Friday I could do again in 2020 if I needed to.

 

That's the only reason I brought it up.

[notamember]

O-A visa ?

O-A retirement visa?

confusing?

 

i rest my case

after pages of now deleted posts trying to tell you all not to call an O-A visa, a retirement visa, this is just one more illustration of why it does matter

 

By doing so many O-A visa holders are worried about the 800,000 rules when it does not affect them at all

i know one from this morning from UK who was told to bring in the money, he has brought in 850,000 baht equivalent as his O-A visa expires on March 10th after being given bad advise by friends, agents and reading TV

 

He did not even know he could stretch it out for another year with a quick trip in and out before the end date and then buy a multiple entry to make the second year the same as the first

 

whether you realize it or not this distinction is screwing up peoples lives

this is the 3rd such case i have heard of since Friday

 

again an O-A visa is not a retirement visa

 

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by notamember

[Joe Mcseismic]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The Embassy could have easily  changed it's [procedure by  asking the applicant to bring in their proof of income statements (Pension letter; military retirement letter etc) and indicate that the applicant presented documentation showing  xxx amount of  income per month.  Have the applicant swear under Oath it is true and sign the form.  Of course- the disclaimer still there.  this would have easily  been accepted by Thai immigration and indicate the Embassy wasn't responsible for the content and the onus was on the applicant should there be a discrepancy.

IMO the Embassy has failed in this regard for an unknown reason=

So what about the request from immigration that the EMBASSY verify the persons income claims?

Your so called solution doesn't meet immigration's request.

Still not letting go, I see......

[Thaidream]

3 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

So what about the request from immigration that the EMBASSY verify the persons income claims?

Your so called solution doesn't meet immigration's request.

Still not letting go, I see....

Thai Immigration may have requested that all Embassies verify information from source and all Embassies cannot do this.  It is impossible just as it is impossible for the US Embassy or any other Embassy to verify from source the documentation that a Thai citizen presents from source.

In the Us where I am from  one cannot even verify a person's income by calling the source.  What happens is an applicant for a mortgage or a job or a Visa has to show  a variety of documents which cross reference each other- a pay slip shows your income; now cross reference it with a bank account  that received the income

 

During the so called negotiation with Thai Immigration a full explanation of what can be done and what cannot plus the Embassy actually viewing the documents and stating on the affidavit that the applicant provided documentation showing xxx amount of income per month and then swearing an Oath (under penalty of perjury) that it is correct. 

 

I have actually done this at the US Embassy  and sworn income- not for Immigration- but a US Court. It was accepted without any issue and it would be accepted today by Thai Immigration if the Embassy had the desire to do it.

 

It is apparent Thai immigration is perfectly satisfied with what all Embassies currently are doing which view their citizens' documents and then sign off on their affidavit.  If they were not satisfied- they would not currently accept them.

 

The  reason I don't let it go is because I know it can be  done.  I can't change that it has been stopped but I am not going to sit back and smile and say thank you for making a poor decision.

 

In the meantime- I plan for my next extension in early June  and started transferring 65K per month unless they stop that. If so- marriage extension here I come.

[Joe Mcseismic]

The bottom line is that the embassy's that stopped the letters do not want to be held legally accountable if the info they're certifying is not true. As they can't guarantee it's true, no letter. They're being honest. 

[johnjohn2]

I went to my local immigration office today (Khon Kaen). Just got back about thirty min ago.

I had to get the resident paper so I could renew my drivers license so I used it as an opportunity to also ask about the topic here.

Asking an officer about showing monthly income proof stopping in 2020 they had not heard anything at all about it stopping.

As far as what you needed to show for the income method was a statement from the bank and another letter showing that the account is valid. Both documents signed by the bank.

Also

For monthly international transfers in they said it had to be every month of at least the min rate. Cant be bulk amounts over 4 months or whatever. I showed her my statements and showed that I transferred over 400k into my bank internationally but I would have less than 12 monthly transfers by the time my renewal came. So answer was cant do it. 

Im sorry I completely forgot to ask about combo method. Its been such a long day it slipped my mind.

Initially I went to immigration to get the resident paper. Was told I needed to go to the drivers license place to get the paper to bring to immigration to get the paper to bring back to the license office to get my license. 

After I went to the license office and got the paper for the paper I went back to immigration and it was lunch time so they were closed. Had to go home feed the dogs and came back. Got the paper and then stood in que to talk to an officer.

After all this I just forgot about the combo method. But Basically Khon Kaen doesnt know anything about the dicontinue of the income method the way it is now.

I did ask if anyone there had used the income method and was told just one individual.

I do thank billsmart for putting out what he was told. It does seem a bit odd as they just put out the police order without any mention of what he was told. I think it may be some confusion as discussed in this thread but something we should all look at a possibility of in the future.

 

 

[Thaidream]

7 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

The bottom line is that the embassy's that stopped the letters do not want to be held legally accountable if the info they're certifying is not true. As they can't guarantee it's true, no letter. They're being honest. 

They are using an opportunity of confusion to stop something they  grew tired of doing.  The applicant's have complained about the cost $50 per signature. Having to travel to the Embassy- and the staff have complained about the numbers they have to do.  This was the opportunity to stop a service.

 

What legality- does anyone think Thailand is going to sue the US  Government because someone lied on their income affidavit?

 

The Embassy has always put a disclaimer indicating it cannot  be  held responsible in that it  cannot guarantee  the information.  However, if the applicant lied- they are subject to Penalty of Perjury - a felony under US Law.

 

If the US Embassy in Columbia can provide the exact service being denied in Thailand- it is obvious to me that it could still be provided here.

 

I know of no Embassy in Thailand (or anywhere) that has immediate access to their citizens privaate income  

 

[Joe Mcseismic]

Just now, Thaidream said:

They are using an opportunity of confusion to stop something they  grew tired of doing.  The applicant's have complained about the cost $50 per signature. Having to travel to the Embassy- and the staff have complained about the numbers they have to do.  This was the opportunity to stop a service.

 

What legality- does anyone think Thailand is going to sue the US  Government because someone lied on their income affidavit?

 

The Embassy has always put a disclaimer indicating it cannot  be  held responsible in that it  cannot guarantee  the information.  However, if the applicant lied- they are subject to Penalty of Perjury - a felony under US Law.

 

If the US Embassy in Columbia can provide the exact service being denied in Thailand- it is obvious to me that it could still be provided here.

 

I know of no Embassy in Thailand (or anywhere) that has immediate access to their citizens privaate income  

 

Not a single sentence you haven't said before. Boooooooring.

[skatewash]

11 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

The bottom line is that the embassy's that stopped the letters do not want to be held legally accountable if the info they're certifying is not true. As they can't guarantee it's true, no letter. They're being honest. 

Yes, I agree.  Citizens of those four countries were honestly screwed by their embassies.  The embassies could have done nothing.  This is what you learn the second day in diplomacy school.  Kind of like the diplomatic version of the Hippocratic oath, "do no harm."  If they had followed this course there's absolutely no reason to believe that Thai Immigration would have stopped accepting the income letters.  None.

 

There would have been no reason for Thai Immigration to have to scramble and cobble together the ill-thought out monthly income method in order to throw those citizens abandoned by their own country a lifeline so that they don't drown.  We wouldn't have experienced the utter chaos and angst of the last three months which was caused solely by those four embassies acting precipitously without thinking through what they were doing, either because they didn't care of they are simply not very smart.

 

I would love to hear how the Thai government would hold the US government legally responsible.  I can't believe anyone would give that any credence.  It's utter nonsense.  The income letter from the US embassy states accurately exactly what it is.  Either that's acceptable to Thai Immigration or it's not.  That's a decision for Thai Immigration to make.  Thai Immigration has made the decision that the income letters they receive from embassies are acceptable or they wouldn't accept them.  In fact, Thai Immigration has never failed to accept an income letter from any embassy.

 

The four embassies shot themselves in the foot, no one made them do anything, just like they can't make Thai Immigration do anything.  That's not how these things work.  They can, however, take unilateral action which will hurt their own citizens and that is what they decided to do.  They don't deserve any credit for that.  To the contrary they deserve condemnation.

[Joe Mcseismic]

2 minutes ago, skatewash said:

Yes, I agree.  Citizens of those four countries were honestly screwed by their embassies.  The embassies could have done nothing.  This is what you learn the second day in diplomacy school.  Kind of like the diplomatic version of the Hippocratic oath, "do no harm."  If they had followed this course there's absolutely no reason to believe that Thai Immigration would have stopped accepting the income letters.  None.

 

There would have been no reason for Thai Immigration to have to scramble and cobble together the ill-thought out monthly income method in order to throw those citizens abandoned by their own country a lifeline so that they don't drown.  We wouldn't have experienced the utter chaos and angst of the last three months which was caused solely by those four embassies acting precipitously without thinking through what they were doing, either because they didn't care of they are simply not very smart.

 

I would love to hear how the Thai government would hold the US government legally responsible.  I can't believe anyone would give that any credence.  It's utter nonsense.  The income letter from the US embassy states accurately exactly what it is.  Either that's acceptable to Thai Immigration or it's not.  That's a decision for Thai Immigration to make.  Thai Immigration has made the decision that the income letters they receive from embassies are acceptable or they wouldn't accept them.  In fact, Thai Immigration has never failed to accept an income letter from any embassy.

 

The four embassies shot themselves in the foot, no one made them do anything, just like they can't make Thai Immigration do anything.  That's not how these things work.  They can, however, take unilateral action which will hurt their own citizens and that is what they decided to do.  They don't deserve any credit for that.  To the contrary they deserve condemnation.

No.....it was Thai immigration that shot themselves in the foot. Then, put that foot into their mouth.

[Thaidream]

4 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

No.....it was Thai immigration that shot themselves in the foot. Then, put that foot into their mouth.

A statement with no substance and a complete lack of understanding.  Talk about boring!!

[Joe Mcseismic]

1 minute ago, Thaidream said:

A statement with no substance and a complete lack of understanding.  Talk about boring!!

It's obviously you that has no understanding as you still blame the embassy even though it was Thai immigration that initiated this mess. Educate yourself.

[dcnx]

On 2/10/2019 at 11:18 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It may well represent what someone in your local IO thinks the rules will be. But that's hardly official policy.

 

 

Just the opposite. What your local IO says the rules are, based on their interpretation, is official policy.

 

It all happens at the local level.

[Thaidream]

4 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

It's obviously you that has no understanding as you still blame the embassy even though it was Thai immigration that initiated this mess. Educate yourself.

I actually blame  both parties  for not being able to sit down like  reasonable people and come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

You will never  be able to convince me I am wrong on this issue  You might want to move on as I plan on doing.  The truth will eventually come out- it always does.  

[bigginhill]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

They don’t.

I,m sorry but I think they do. But I will let you know for sure once I have visited the Italian Embassy.

In Italy you have to do an end of year tax return,  any sums you recieve, pension income  or from investments etc etc, all have to go on the return.

Your tax declaration is online for the authorities. If I take my hard copy into the embassy I presume they will verify it online. 

I will let you know as i shall be going there shortly.

This brings me to another point, I have to have the assurance from the embassy that should they decide to stop the income letters that they will give at least 1 year notice. Failing this I could end up with no income letter in the middle of the year and no way of making the 12 monthly deposits.

 

[Joe Mcseismic]

8 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

You might want to move on as I plan on doing.  

I think you have proved that you are unable to do that.

[skatewash]

3 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I actually blame  both parties  for not being able to sit down like  reasonable people and come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

You will never  be able to convince me I am wrong on this issue  You might want to move on as I plan on doing.  The truth will eventually come out- it always does.  

I hope we may know one day.

 

But, the one thing we do know without question today is that one side acted unilaterally by stopping the income letters.  The Thais could have been the original "cause" of all this but if that's the case they played these four embassies masterfully.  Instead of having to do anything themselves they got to sit back and watch the embassies throw in the towel themselves.  You can't continue negotiating about income letters after you unilaterally decide to stop having anything to do with them.  The Thais didn't throw in the towel and as a consequence, the embassy letter systems remains alive and well benefiting both Thai Immigration and the citizens of countries represented by embassies with better foresight and patience.

[Rimmer]

A post incorrectly attributed has been removed also all the replies

[sumrit]

4 hours ago, billsmart said:

The stamps the IOs put in your passport (or at least in mine) on my extensions for my O-A visa say in red letters, "Retirement." ????

That stamp on your extension simply states its based on retirement, NOT that it's a "retirement visa". If the extension was based on marriage it would have a marriage stamp on it. That WOULDN'T make it a marriage visa. 

[sumrit]

3 hours ago, billsmart said:

No. Let me go through it again...
 

• I first got an Type O-A (2010). (Singapore)
• I got yearly stay extensions through 2014.
• In 2015, I just went into my local Immigrations Office and "changed" it to an Type O - Marriage. I had to file a new application. (Phitsanoluk)
• At that time I was given a 30-day stay to wait on approval of the Type O.
• 30 days later I was given a one-year stay extension (see the photos of my passport I've posted, but no big stamp with a new visa.
• I stayed with the Type O marriage (Thai Wife) for a few years.
• Then in 2017, I again went in with a new application for a Type O-A (Retirement) and immediately "got" that. I never got a new visa stamp, but did then start getting stay extensions marked "Retirement." (Phitsanoluk)
• To this day I get my stay extensions based on the Type O-A requirements. (Phetchabun)

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that since I first had a Type O-A, I was allowed to go to a Type O, and then back to an O-A because they are both Type Os. Of course, I have no idea of what or how Immigrations navigated their way through all this. I only know what I have in my passport.

I would suggest that because your O-A visa had not expired, even though you had applied for an O visa, your extension was based on your O-A visa. You should have had to supply a copy of your visa when applying for further extensions. If you had an O visa to qualify you for future extensions you would have that in your passport yet you say it's not there, plus when your O visa was issued and became the "live" visa, Immigration would have written "CANCELED" on your O-A visa. Did they do that? What copy of your last/most recent visa did you use for your extension applications?

[billsmart]

Just in case anyone is interested...

My last Thai visa in any of my passports is an O-A Long Stay visa issued two passports ago by the Thai embassy in New York in 2008.

 

In both my subsequent passports, the first, stamped entry is the transfer of that visa to the new passport. These show it as an O-A and have the date of the original issue, although in my current passport it was miswritten as "2003," not "2008." ???? 

 

There are no other actual Thai visas issued after that, but plenty of stay extensions, some with red stamps of "Thai Wife," and some with red stamps of "Retirement." (Some of these, the earlier ones, are written in Thai.)

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! ????

Edited February 11, 2019 by billsmart
Correcting Document

[smerty]

Anybody know if you can satisfy the 800,000 baht requirement by having a Brokerage account at a Thai Bank with 800,000 worth of Thai Stocks in it?

[Moon37]

22 hours ago, billsmart said:

...and again, I state, that I was told the option of providing documentation from your bank verifying monthly, international transfers will only be accepted through 2019. In 2020, the only acceptable method of verifying monthly income according to the paperwork I was given will be a letter from your embassy. ????

The last part of my post above was redacted at the end.

Bill, I commend you for getting this forum going and I am not disagreeing with your documentation criteria or statements to support them.

In my posts, I'm focused on how to get my money into Thailand because of Bangkok Bank's IAT rule.

1.  Bank of Bangkok NYC - BB BKK is the only bank to do the International ACH Transfer which is what BB BKK says it will accept from BB NYC.

2. I was explaining that it can be done, but with many restrictions about having to open a DIrect Deposit account at BB BKK and use your Thai address

3. So in my opinion, the IAT is too difficult even though it caters to all the agencies in the above box.

4. I've been using BB NYC - BKK for five years and do not know what other way to get my funds to BKK

5. Bangkok Bank is using an old law that they  just decided to implement - with in one month of Immigration.  It is not the route to solving anything save getting money here.  If I wanted to go the IAT route, there's not enough time to use the SF1199 processed etc.

7.  Immigration is like a Swamp and can only  be dealt with Politically by our Embassies (Political, Econ, & ACS sections). 

BOTTOM LINE: Instead of  re-interpreting, let's consolidate and engage with our respective Embassies requesting their understanding, guidance from State Department, options, and timeline to engage with the  Royal Thai Police Immigration to solve this dilemma.

[skatewash]

32 minutes ago, smerty said:

Anybody know if you can satisfy the 800,000 baht requirement by having a Brokerage account at a Thai Bank with 800,000 worth of Thai Stocks in it?

Only bank accounts (savings, fixed-term, or foreign currency deposits) are allowed.  The money must be immediately available for use with only the possible loss of interest as the penalty for withdrawal and the principal must be immune from market fluctuation.  I think stocks would not satisfy the latter condition as stocks are by definition affected by market fluctuation.

Edited February 11, 2019 by skatewash

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, pmarlin said:

After spending a couple of hours reading all this and the OP post and replies I understand how the OP got confused.  Maybe he should take copies of the two new police orders to his IO and get a clarification from them.

There won't be anything close to 'clarity' for the next few months - and even then, expect different Immigration offices and officers to have different 'rules' ☹️.

[Moon37]

Do the Math:     65,000 THB x 12 months is 780,000 THB.  (800,000)

If my condo rent, golf and night life expenses add up to around 65,000 a month, I would transfer 65,000 THB to Bangkok every month, regardless if I had 800,000 in the bank or not.  If I had the 800,000 THB sitting in their bank and I'm still sending 780.000 (65,000) per month to live on.  So why would one go with the 800,000 route if you're going to be sending that much anyways.   My apologies to those who don't golf.

 

[billsmart]

8 minutes ago, Moon37 said:

The last part of my post above was redacted at the end.

Bill, I commend you for getting this forum going and I am not disagreeing with your documentation criteria or statements to support them.

In my posts, I'm focused on how to get my money into Thailand because of Bangkok Bank's IAT rule.

1.  Bank of Bangkok NYC - BB BKK is the only bank to do the International ACH Transfer which is what BB BKK says it will accept from BB NYC.

2. I was explaining that it can be done, but with many restrictions about having to open a DIrect Deposit account at BB BKK and use your Thai address

3. So in my opinion, the IAT is too difficult even though it caters to all the agencies in the above box.

4. I've been using BB NYC - BKK for five years and do not know what other way to get my funds to BKK

5. Bangkok Bank is using an old law that they  just decided to implement - with in one month of Immigration.  It is not the route to solving anything save getting money here.  If I wanted to go the IAT route, there's not enough time to use the SF1199 processed etc.

7.  Immigration is like a Swamp and can only  be dealt with Politically by our Embassies (Political, Econ, & ACS sections). 

BOTTOM LINE: Instead of  re-interpreting, let's consolidate and engage with our respective Embassies requesting their understanding, guidance from State Department, options, and timeline to engage with the  Royal Thai Police Immigration to solve this dilemma.

Thanks for your information and tips.

 

Before now, I have been using Transferwise, and it shows up in my bank book as a domestic transfer from an account at Thai Military Bank. At the end of this week, I will get my SS deposit in my BofA account in California. I am then going to try to transfer it directly to my Krungsri/Ahudyha account using online banking and BofA's international wire transfer based on my bank's SWIFT code. When it arrives, I will then see if it shows up as an international transfer or not.

 

If that works, great. I'm not yet home free on it, but I won't go into detail of what other hurdles I'd have to jump to perform this type of transaction on BofA's online banking here every month. I think I've got that figured out - if this works.

 

If it doesn't, I have some other alternatives lined up, including making sure I have the right amount of money deposited in the bank before my stay extension is due next December.