Overstayed by 2 days what are my options?

[spiceman]

Hello, got my 30 day stamp on arrival but will overstay by 2 days. What are my options? Can you still pay the 500 baht at the airport like I have done a few times previous or will I need to extend my 30 day stamp, if so where do I get this done and how much will it cost me?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[elviajero]

Yes you can pay the overstay fine af the airport on the way out. Two days will cost you 1,000 baht.

[BritTim]

Your options are to pay the overstay fine on exit, or to apply for an extension of your permission to stay (costing 1,900 baht) at the local immigration office. There are no immediate consequences to the short overstay. However, I fear repeated overstays (even short ones) could become a factor in immigration decisions in the future. My sense is that it is worth a small investment of time and money to avoid it.

[MZsolt]

If its only once overstay (for 10 days) then can be in the future any consequesnces? Or still can leave with this? Had this overstay in January, after this I been once in Thailand and no problem at all - but still have in my mind.

My history: at last 6 years I spent 60-70 procent of each years in TH, based on turist visas (one or multiple entry). Reading the news, topics here and because of some last happenings (4 month ago I was first time asked why I visit so many times TH, but was only a question, and that's all, and after 10 days overstay what was fully my mistake) feel a bit worried about upcomming visits.

 

I see 2 options:

- apply soon for Thailand Elite Visa, and save time spent with worries and secure my situation

- or still keep do things like this and apply for Thailand Elite Visa if ever will be denied my entry.

 

Actually not work in TH, do nothing illegal but can understand that staying there 60-70 procent of ever year it not like a real turist. ????

 

 

[ukrules]

4 minutes ago, MZsolt said:

I see 2 options:

- apply soon for Thailand Elite Visa, and save time spent with worries and secure my situation

- or still keep do things like this and apply for Thailand Elite Visa if ever will be denied my entry.

 

If you have an overstay of (apparently) any length during the past three years they will deny your Thailand Elite application.

 

Also if you overstay by just a couple of days and get it sorted at any immigration office by applying for an extension they will record and attach an overstay stamp. My mother did this last year as she forgot to extend on time and she had to pay whatever the fine was (3 days overstay = 150 Baht I think) plus the 1900 extension fee. She wasn't happy about this and felt they were ripping her off.

[MZsolt]

18 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

If you have an overstay of (apparently) any length during the past three years they will deny your Thailand Elite application.

 

This for sure? Earlier I try to get informations about this but never read this.

Sent them an email right now.

[ukrules]

32 minutes ago, MZsolt said:

This for sure? Earlier I try to get informations about this but never read this.

Sent them an email right now.

Yes, it was confirmed by someone elsewhere on this forum. They also enquired by email so I'm sure they will confirm this to you.

 

Apparently immigration are tightening things up. I have no idea why they would do this other than that they must dislike us in some way.

[MZsolt]

6 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Apparently immigration are tightening things up. I have no idea why they would do this other than that they must dislike us in some way.

Somehow I can understand them - to many people to long time abuse this system.

 

But now I have to find replies for my problem and not start a discussion about this is justified or not, or the way how they do - so will confirm here when I got response from them.

[Snow Leopard]

7 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Yes, it was confirmed by someone elsewhere on this forum. They also enquired by email so I'm sure they will confirm this to you.

 

Apparently immigration are tightening things up. I have no idea why they would do this other than that they must dislike us in some way.

I was looking at the Thai Elite option last year. The question if you have had any overstays is asked for sure. If it's to the point of denying the application I wouldn't know. I never went that far. 

[elviajero]

47 minutes ago, MZsolt said:

This for sure? Earlier I try to get informations about this but never read this.

Sent them an email right now.

There’s nothing written, that I’ve seen, on their website, but the following is written in the membership acceptance letter;

 

“Despite this approval letter, the immigration could reject your Elite Visa if you have overstayed more than once in the past three years or have a bad record that we have not yet found in the immigration system.”

 

So it seems immigration could refuse to issue the visa to someone with more than one overstay. 

[MZsolt]

1 minute ago, elviajero said:

“Despite this approval letter, the immigration could reject your Elite Visa if you have overstayed more than once in the past three years or have a bad record that we have not yet found in the immigration system.”
 

Thanks. ???? I had only 1 overstay.

Any idea what can mean "bad record". If I come many times with turist visas its allready considered "bad", or bad records mean if I had any issue in Thailand?

[MZsolt]

CONFIRMATION regarding Thailand Elite Visa after overstay!

 

Called customer service of Thailand Elite Visa (thailandelite.com) and they told like this: if only one overstay then its not a problem. If more then its POSSIBLE to be problem.

[elviajero]

56 minutes ago, MZsolt said:

Thanks. ???? I had only 1 overstay.

Any idea what can mean "bad record". If I come many times with turist visas its allready considered "bad", or bad records mean if I had any issue in Thailand?

I don’t know. But I don’t think that long term tourism would be a problem at all. 

[ukrules]

9 hours ago, MZsolt said:

CONFIRMATION regarding Thailand Elite Visa after overstay!

 

Called customer service of Thailand Elite Visa (thailandelite.com) and they told like this: if only one overstay then its not a problem. If more then its POSSIBLE to be problem.

I would take this to mean multiple long term overstays - like many months or years.

 

Lots of people did this before, they then left, paid a 20k fine and returned a couple of days later. That's a bad record.

 

However - it was NOT illegal but now i'ts being used against people retroactively which doesn't look good.

 

On the other hand my record is good so I don't really care.

[lamyai3]

12 hours ago, MZsolt said:

Thanks. ???? I had only 1 overstay.

Any idea what can mean "bad record". If I come many times with turist visas its allready considered "bad", or bad records mean if I had any issue in Thailand?

I don't think you'd be rejected. Until they scrapped double and triple entry visas around three years ago and replaced them with the far less friendly METV, it was very acceptable to live back to back on them long term. I doubt you'd have a problem on an Elite visa application with a two day overstay, when the visa itself costs $16000(!) though if you had a criminal offence in Thailand I could understand it. But if they rejected anyone due to such a short overstay I'd say they're seriously losing their marbles. On the other hand, Thai immigration policy isn't making a whole lot of sense lately... 

[lamyai3]

2 hours ago, ukrules said:

Lots of people did this before, they then left, paid a 20k fine and returned a couple of days later. That's a bad record.

 

However - it was NOT illegal but now i'ts being used against people retroactively which doesn't look good. 

I also avoided overstays, as after a few days it gets expensive. But a decade ago, any immigration officer would tell you it was no problem, and you'd just pay the fine at the airport and get a clean slate. It absolutely doesn't look good when immigration has flipped 180% and is now penalising people retroactively for something they endorsed and recommended in the past.

[JackThompson]

18 hours ago, MZsolt said:

Actually not work in TH, do nothing illegal but can understand that staying there 60-70 procent of ever year it not like a real turist. ????

As long as what you are doing here does not go outside the bounds of what a tourist can do, you are not violating any law.  The only issue from spending more time in-Thailand is that some entry points think there should be limits based on past-time, and will issue a rejection based on a false-reason (usually "not having funds of support"), in lieu of a legal restriction which does not exist.  All land-borders other than Poipet/Aranya are fine - they only enforce the actual published laws.

 

BUT, the Malaysian land-borders have been reported to reject entry to those with past overstays (more than one short overstay, in the case reported), so it is possible you could have a problem - especially if more than just the one 10-day incident.

16 hours ago, MZsolt said:

Thanks. ???? I had only 1 overstay.

Likely no problem then, even entering from Malaysia.

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

As long as what you are doing here does not go outside the bounds of what a tourist can do, you are not violating any law.  The only issue from spending more time in-Thailand is that some entry points think there should be limits based on past-time, and will issue a rejection based on a false-reason (usually "not having funds of support"), in lieu of a legal restriction which does not exist.  All land-borders other than Poipet/Aranya are fine - they only enforce the actual published laws.

They usually deny entry under section 12 (2), because the person does not have an appropriate means of living following entry, not because they don’t have the “funds of support”.

 

That is not a “false reason” if the person does not have a proven income, proven money in the bank, or a job in the country.

[Bullie]

Everybody talks about the Thai Elite all of a sudden, but the OP talks about 2 days overstay. No biggie (1000 baht at the airport), but a serious offence i f you are stopped, for whatever reason during the overstay period. Expect a hefty attempt at extortion, or, worse, time in jail, a fine, and buying a new ticket a week later.

 

Thank you, you can go hide under the bed now.

[BritTim]

59 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They usually deny entry under section 12 (2), because the person does not have an appropriate means of living following entry, not because they don’t have the “funds of support”.

 

That is not a “false reason” if the person does not have a proven income, proven money in the bank, or a job in the country.

You know as well as I do that Section 12 (2) is often used as a justification for denied entry when the official provides no opportunity for the traveller to show he has sufficient funds. Indeed, officials will sometimes use this reason when they have seen convincing evidence that you are comfortably off. They use it because they feel they can get away with it more easily than, say, citing Section 12 (4).

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

You know as well as I do that Section 12 (2) is often used as a justification for denied entry when the official provides no opportunity for the traveller to show he has sufficient funds. Indeed, officials will sometimes use this reason when they have seen convincing evidence that you are comfortably off. They use it because they feel they can get away with it more easily than, say, citing Section 12 (4).

It’s not just about evidence that you can afford to stay, it’s also about appropriate evidence of the appropriate means given at the appropriate time and place.

 

Anyone wanting to stay long term is required to provide evidence of their means to live in the country that’s considered appropriate under the rules/regs.

 

Waiving a bank statement at the border is obviously not the time or place; therefore, not taken as “evidence”.

[MZsolt]

5 hours ago, Bullie said:

Everybody talks about the Thai Elite all of a sudden, but the OP talks about 2 days overstay.

I sabotaged this topic with asking about overstay in the past (10 days) and Elite Visa. So its my fault, hopefully not created any confusion.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

It’s not just about evidence that you can afford to stay, it’s also about appropriate evidence of the appropriate means given at the appropriate time and place.

Funnily enough, I agree with the exact words you have written. For those entering with a visa, the appropriate time and place where it is appropriate to check that someone has the means for a visit to Thailand as a tourist is at the consulate at the time the application is made for the tourist visa. Once the consulate has determined you qualify, I do not believe it is the job of the immigration official on entry to determine whether the visa was properly issued. The Immigration Act was never intended to give immigration officials the power to decide who is and is not a "genuine tourist". The reasons for denying entry under Section 12 are supposed to deal with situations the immigration official is in a position to detect at the time of entry which would not be apparent at the time visa applications were made.

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

They usually deny entry under section 12 (2), because the person does not have an appropriate means of living following entry, not because they don’t have the “funds of support”.

 

That is not a “false reason” if the person does not have a proven income, proven money in the bank, or a job in the country.

In that case, everyone entering as a tourist, ED, etc would be denied under the same rule.  The rule was intended for cases where there was evidence that the person in question didn't have money - not cases where a repeat-tourist has repeatedly shown by their travels that they obviously do have it.  They have literally turned that cause for denial on it's head.

[Lovethailandelite]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Funnily enough, I agree with the exact words you have written. For those entering with a visa, the appropriate time and place where it is appropriate to check that someone has the means for a visit to Thailand as a tourist is at the consulate at the time the application is made for the tourist visa. Once the consulate has determined you qualify, I do not believe it is the job of the immigration official on entry to determine whether the visa was properly issued. The Immigration Act was never intended to give immigration officials the power to decide who is and is not a "genuine tourist". The reasons for denying entry under Section 12 are supposed to deal with situations the immigration official is in a position to detect at the time of entry which would not be apparent at the time visa applications were made.

Vientiane, Hanoi and Savannakhet for a start, in that case, should be looking how they are issuing some visas with no financial checking?

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Vientiane, Hanoi and Savannakhet for a start, in that case, should be looking how they are issuing some visas with no financial checking?

Well, let's look at the arguments for the most common example of this: consulates very often being willing to issue Non O visas to visit your spouse just based on evidence you are married to a Thai. According to Ministerial regulations, you are required to have 20,000 baht equivalent in cash on entry to Thailand. Whether that would be sufficient for a visit is going to depend on many factors: how long you stay, probably (but not necessarily) no hotel costs when staying with your spouse, possibly cheap food. It is very hard to assess. What I would claim is that the immigration official would be in no better position to judge than the consular official. Now, the decision could be made that someone could only visit their spouse if able to show substantial funds in the bank, but is that really fair on the Thai family members affected by such a restriction? Usually, to separate families, you need a good justification. Someone able to afford to make frequent short visits, while working abroad should not be a concern. Someone living off income from limited savings while pretty much living in Thailand is not much stimulating the economy, but, if part of a loving family, should surely still not be excluded if able to afford visa runs, and not involved in criminal activity.

[elviajero]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:29 PM, BritTim said:

On 3/1/2019 at 11:34 AM, elviajero said:

It’s not just about evidence that you can afford to stay, it’s also about appropriate evidence of the appropriate means given at the appropriate time and place.

Funnily enough, I agree with the exact words you have written. For those entering with a visa, the appropriate time and place where it is appropriate to check that someone has the means for a visit to Thailand as a tourist is at the consulate at the time the application is made for the tourist visa. Once the consulate has determined you qualify, I do not believe it is the job of the immigration official on entry to determine whether the visa was properly issued. The Immigration Act was never intended to give immigration officials the power to decide who is and is not a "genuine tourist". The reasons for denying entry under Section 12 are supposed to deal with situations the immigration official is in a position to detect at the time of entry which would not be apparent at the time visa applications were made.

You completely misunderstand the visa system, immigration law and the role of immigration officers!

 

Anyone that wants to live in Thailand long term needs to pay for the privilege or get the right visa/permit to stay. Any long term visa/permit requires the applicant to prove income/ money in the bank or a job.

 

You well know that people (myself in the past) that use tourist visas to live in the country have not proven the means to live in the country, because there is no way for them to do so, because that's not the purpose of the visa.

 

And you also know that a visa does not guarantee entry and that the IO is the last line of defence. Thread after thread on this forum discuss ways to 'trick' consulates in to issuing visas!

 

Of course it is an IO's job to "decide" whether or not someone is a genuine tourist! You've seen the evidence.

[elviajero]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:36 PM, JackThompson said:

On 3/1/2019 at 7:09 AM, elviajero said:

They usually deny entry under section 12 (2), because the person does not have an appropriate means of living following entry, not because they don’t have the “funds of support”.

 

That is not a “false reason” if the person does not have a proven income, proven money in the bank, or a job in the country.

In that case, everyone entering as a tourist, ED, etc would be denied under the same rule. 

Why would a 'tourist' be denied entry. 12 (2) only becomes relevant if the visitor has spent months/years in the country without proving an "appropriate" means of funding that to a consulate or immigration.

 

On 3/1/2019 at 1:36 PM, JackThompson said:

The rule was intended for cases where there was evidence that the person in question didn't have money - not cases where a repeat-tourist has repeatedly shown by their travels that they obviously do have it.  They have literally turned that cause for denial on it's head.

It is not just about the money! It's about having an "appropriate" means of providing a living. That's appropriate the the Thai authorities, not what is appropriate to you.

 

A long term tourist has never met the requirements for a long term stay.

 

It has dawned on me that you are happy to tell the world how to beat the visa system - as am I - but you are not happy when immigration turn the tables and use the system legitimately to stop you - which I accept is their right! You cant have it both ways.

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

Why would a 'tourist' be denied entry. 12 (2) only becomes relevant if the visitor has spent months/years in the country without proving an "appropriate" means of funding that to a consulate or immigration.

 

It is not just about the money! It's about having an "appropriate" means of providing a living. That's appropriate the the Thai authorities, not what is appropriate to you.

What is "appropriate means", if not money from a foreign-source, as any tourist would have (or not have)?  Any tourist who shows up may or may not have an "appropriate means" of providing for the costs of their stay for the next 30 to 60 days, regardless of how that is defined. 

 

The fact that those on Tourist entries are almost always given extensions by immigration for another 30 days, shows that many in the immigration-system do not believe in rejecting based on an ill-defined and unproven "appropriate means" accusation.

 

Those who have been here more often and/or for longer periods have shown they have the money to live here, and are therefore statistically more likely to be able to pay their way for the next 30 or 60 days (vs 1st timers who get overwhelmed, and end up penniless).  If their foreign-money is not "appropriate," then immigration would need to define that term, and how ALL persons arriving (1st time or 50th time) would show otherwise. 

 

Denial on this basis, without evidence, and absent any published standard to be met in order to disprove such an allegation, can not be described by a reasonable person in any way other than abusing the law.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

A long term tourist has never met the requirements for a long term stay.

 

It has dawned on me that you are happy to tell the world how to beat the visa system - as am I -

We differ on this, and it explains a view which I find akin to stockholm-syndrome, on this issue.  I do not see any reason people should or would need to "beat" the system - when they can just follow the actual laws.  Obeying the laws as written is not "beating" a system - rather, it is abiding by it.  My advise is to seek out entry-points where the laws are followed - not "bribe your way in" or some such, which would be abusing/beating the system.

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

 but you are not happy when immigration turn the tables and use the system legitimately to stop you - which I accept is their right! You cant have it both ways.

I am not surprised you see the violations of law by immigration as using the system "legitimately," given your continuous justifications for their abuses.  I don't have it "both ways" because I don't support the premise that we are "beating" the system in the first place. 

 

Abuse of the system does occur, and on a massive scale, but this is primarily carried out by immigration, themselves.  Cases of abuse which find their way into news-coverage are always small-time schemes, used as cover for changing policies to increase profits taken via the large-scale abusive extortion-schemes carried out by cliques within the immigration bureaucracy, itself.

[BritTim]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

You completely misunderstand the visa system, immigration law and the role of immigration officers!

 

Anyone that wants to live in Thailand long term needs to pay for the privilege or get the right visa/permit to stay. Any long term visa/permit requires the applicant to prove income/ money in the bank or a job.

 

You well know that people (myself in the past) that use tourist visas to live in the country have not proven the means to live in the country, because there is no way for them to do so, because that's not the purpose of the visa.

 

And you also know that a visa does not guarantee entry and that the IO is the last line of defence. Thread after thread on this forum discuss ways to 'trick' consulates in to issuing visas!

 

Of course it is an IO's job to "decide" whether or not someone is a genuine tourist! You've seen the evidence.

You and I are never going to agree on this.

 

The Immigration Act makes very clear that, with the exception of the Minister, officials should only deny entry for reasons specified in Section 12. I believe the law (which differs from that in most countries) was deliberately written that way to reduce opportunities for corruption. Now, I am aware that you think there is a secret instruction to immigration officials giving them absolute discretion to deny you entry by claiming they doubt that you have funds to support your stay, and to say they are unqualified to judge any evidence to the contrary you might  try to show. If true, I think it is clearly against the spirit of the law. If officials should have the power to arbitrarily deny entry, the law should be amended accordingly. Telling officials, instead, to cite bogus reasons for denied entry is just ridiculous.

 

Consulates, on the other hand, are by law given wide discretion on the granting of visas. It is routinely stated that they can request any documents they like, and refuse to issue visas for any or no reason. I think they are given that power precisely because they are in the best position to judge. Under normal circumstances they specify the paperwork you must provide, and are well placed to evaluate it 

 

You could go for the kind of system they have in Singapore where visas are not required for tourists and other short term visitors, but officials decide on entry how long you are allowed to stay based on various factors, including your nationality and history of previous visits. That is not the system Thailand has chosen to use.