Retirement visa refused in Chiang Mai

[ubonjoe]

A off topic post bringing politics into the discussion has been removed.

Edit: And now a comment about moderation has been removed.

The previous removal was under this forum rule since it was meant to deflect the topic.

Quote

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

 

[SammyJ]

17 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

They should accept a annual statement.

I think CM are just continuing the same requirements they did for those with income affidavits for a while.

Unfortunately not, CM immigration, regardless of whether you were one of those that got an income affidavit, still want you to provide the supporting bank documents--letter from bank, bank statements showing international transfers, and your bank book.

 

I just applied and received my retirement extension last month---I had made one of the last appts late December 2018 at US Consulate to obtain an income affidavit (as I had done the last time) as I was told that they would be accepted as usual for six months.  Well, i discovered, much to my disappointment, that it appears in Bkk and other places, they are accepting the affidavits if you have one, just as they had before, but in us lucky CM folks, NO SUCH LUCK!

 

I was able to get my bank to provide the bank statements showing international transfers of at least 65,000 baht for the last 12 months, plus had a letter from the bank and my bank book--so, the expense and time of getting the affidavit proved unnecessary, and I was advised to go elsewhere, then, to get my extension, but as I had the documents, it was unnecessary and it also was uncertain if other immigration offices outside CM would accept an affidavit from the US Consulate in Chiang Mai.

 

Also, Nancy L--i may have misunderstood and you did not mean to demonstrate the monthly deposits into a US Bank??  I have been told that the monthly deposits must be into a Thai bank and shown as an international transfer---further, I have been told, that CM immigration now, or soon, will want from you bank statements that only list the international transfers, no other transactions---my monthly statements submitted, and provided to me by bkk bank listed ALL transactions for the month.  I had to argue with my branch of the bkk bank to get even that--usually, my branch had been very friendly and helpful, but that day, i was unlucky enough to get a rep that i had never seen before and was very abrupt, rude, and unhelpful and insisted she could NOT provide me any statements, even for a fee--ultimately, i had to ask for the manager and it got sorted, but really irritated me.

[ubonjoe]

32 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

A off topic post bringing politics into the discussion has been removed.

Edit: And now a comment about moderation has been removed.

The previous removal was under this forum rule since it was meant to deflect the topic.

Quote

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

And now another post has been removed for the same rule infraction.

[SammyJ]

14 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

They will nto accept 1099s. annual statements from foreign financial institutions etc etc.  Only and solely, proof of transfer of funds from abroad to a Thai bank account as evidenced by Thai bank statement. Don't waste your time getting any other documentation together.

 

 

Sheryl, you are 100% correct, and I have discovered this directly in my recent retirement extension effort!

[sfokevin]

5 minutes ago, SammyJ said:

i was unlucky enough to get a rep that i had never seen before and was very abrupt, rude, and unhelpful and insisted she could NOT provide me any statements, even for a fee--ultimately, i had to ask for the manager and it got sorted, but really irritated me.

You say you got it sorted out.. What did they finally provide you in terms of a statement that would be accepted by immigration?

[SammyJ]

1 minute ago, sfokevin said:

You say you got it sorted out.. What did they finally provide you in terms of a statement that would be accepted by immigration?

Finally, i got the necessary the monthly bank statements, as needed--as I shared, the statements given to me had a list of ALL the transactions from my acct--but had the international deposits coded correctly, and we highlighted them, so easy to spot for IO, but was told that in future they want banks to provide monthly statements which only show the international transfers, which I wonder how helpful bkk bank will be in providing a more customized monthly statement--which in reality, should be quite easy for them to do, but, as you probably know, they act as if everything is an ordeal and imposition on them, and how could you possibly want them to do that??>!

 

So, yes, i then had my monthly bank statements, a certified letter by the bank of my acct and current balance, and my bank book--as i shared, i had an income affidavit from the US consulate, but it was of no real use, but since i had it, I included it in my packet.  I had met other Americans at the US consulate last late Dec when I obtained my affidavit who were very happy having heard that immigration would, for at least the next six months, accept the affidavits as they had in the past (with no requirement for supporting bank documents), as they admitted, they had neither the 800,000 baht to put on deposit, nor 65,000 in monthly income.  I guess that is exactly whom the new requirements were meant to target, but I feel for them, as I am sure they were quite upset to subsequently learn, as i did, that Chiang Mai immigration would still want all the supporting bank documents.

[roobaa01]

17 hours ago, Kadilo said:

A guy I know who has used an agent for years tells me his agent now charges 39,000 for all new customers up from the 25,000 he still pays.......and she’s inundated.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

the amounts out of jomtien as of yesterday 18k, 23k plus 500 baht after 90 days.

wbr

roobaa01

[SammyJ]

2 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

the amounts out of jomtien as of yesterday 18k, 23k plus 500 baht after 90 days.

wbr

roobaa01

are those fees just for help in processing the application or is that for having the 800,000 on deposit as well?

[gk10002000]

18 hours ago, NancyL said:

This inspired me to check the website of my private pension provider.  They just send an annual 1099 tax document.  Fortunately, I can logon to the pension provider's website and printout what looks like a paystub for each month, complete with a color logo of the company.  I guess that's what I'll do before my next  retirement extension for each month to provide something that looks like "proof of monthly pension income".  Fortunately, it's in English.  I can't believe that CM Imm. are so childish as to want something that looks like this as proof.

Sorry, but I doubt that will satisfy them.  They really do want to see a Thailand bank book showing monthly incoming transfers equal to the minimum monthly 65,000 each month.  They don't accept a monthly average, or one large lump sum transfer.  They want to see the 65,000 baht monthly in a Thai account and it must show it came from overseas.   Some statement from overseas, while reasonable proof in many places is not the direction he Thais seem to going.

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

the amounts out of jomtien as of yesterday 18k, 23k plus 500 baht after 90 days.

 

 

 

Meaning a total of 41,500?  Why split it up into three amounts?

[roobaa01]

5 minutes ago, SammyJ said:

are those fees just for help in processing the application or is that for having the 800,000 on deposit as well?

as acc. to the 2 different agents the whole process is covered for people w/o funds.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[roobaa01]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Meaning a total of 41,500?  Why split it up into three amounts?

agent 1 18k

agent 2 23.5 k

wbr

roobaa01

[JackThompson]

 

17 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Yes.

Guys in Pattaya telling me 30 to 35,000 b now.

That would include covering the "come back in 90-days to show you still have the money" part - a scheme they hatched to more than double their revenue for agent-facilitated extensions.

 

17 hours ago, Kadilo said:

A guy I know who has used an agent for years tells me his agent now charges 39,000 for all new customers up from the 25,000 he still pays.......and she’s inundated.

Pattaya?  Other areas are generally more expensive, historically.

 

17 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I recently renewed using income method . The thai bank provided 12 bankstatements, signed, and a letter showing all foreign incoming deposits also signed, I also brought my bankbook updated that day. This was completed ay main office Bangkok, my bank is Bangkok bank.

No relation to what they are/will do in CM, though.  Every office is permitted to run it's own schemes to maximize agent-money.

 

Reported in pattaya/jomtien:

 

12 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

agent 1 18k

agent 2 23.5 k

Up from 12.5K and 15K, before.  Yep, they are cashing in, just as BJ's new plan was designed to enable.  The guys at the top must have negotiated larger payoffs, but the local office probably got a raise in their corruption-money, too.

 

16 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

...  plus 500 baht after 90 days.

I'm surprised this is not 3K in corruption-money per follow-up visit - like the current ED scheme.

 

Not having to comply with the hoop-jumping of manually transferring money, or "come back" to prove you still have the money in the bank is a strong incentive by itself.  Then add in the PITA of losing access to one's funds "in the bank" - or having to xfer monthly instead of quarterly or annually vs timing with exchange-rate shifts, or when one's money comes in from investments and/or overseas-businesses.

 

The new changes will send many, many more people who qualify to agent-offices.  The IOs and their agent-partners are celebrating.  This was the point of the rule-changes - to force more HONEST people to agents.  The dishonest were already using them. 

[JackThompson]

18 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

... If I understand your post correctly, you only made 2  transactions of 20,000 baht then that would not total the 800,000 baht requirement.

He was using the combo-method - had 600K seasoned, also.

 

17 hours ago, NancyL said:

I can't believe that CM Imm. are so childish as to want something that looks like this as proof.

They have been doing this for those with embassy-letters, also.  First, you meet the primary qualifications (foreign-deposits or embassy-letter), then you also need secondary-proof of the money-origin - but they won't accept the money-origin docs, alone.

 

15 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The rules are very clear. SS letters, pension statements and the like  will not be accepted. The only thing that will be accepted is proof of deposit of 65K or more, every single month, in a Thai bank plus proof the funds originated abroad.

 

they will nto even look through the sort of documentation you mention.

15 hours ago, Sheryl said:

They will nto accept 1099s. annual statements from foreign financial institutions etc etc.  Only and solely, proof of transfer of funds from abroad to a Thai bank account as evidenced by Thai bank statement. Don't waste your time getting any other documentation together.

Agree they won't do any good by themselves, but in CM, they are reported to want to see those other things (secondary income-proof) In Addition to the primary-proof of mo-deposit proof OR embassy-letter.  Also, Only the embassy-letter is acceptable for primary-proof, if your nationality provides them (the latter reported in more than one office).

[Kadilo]

18 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

That would include covering the "come back in 90-days to show you still have the money" part - a scheme they hatched to more than double their revenue for agent-facilitated extensions.

 

Pattaya?  Other areas are generally more expensive, historically.

 

No Udon so the elevated level confirms that. 

[JackThompson]

16 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

The ring leader of the American Embassy circus could put an immediate stop to all this unnecessary nonsense by just issuing "Income Verification Letters."  

They just need certify docs Americans bring in with a cover-letter. 

 

The "verification" standard was floated in the meeting last May, but deemed impossible.  That led to the loss of embassy-letters.  Thai Immigration's new rules now say "certified" - so we bring a doc, and they stamp that we swore it was true and correct - same as many other embassies are doing now.   It is time to bring the letters back under the current "certified" standard.
 

16 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

I am so disappointed with how the American Embassy has abandoned American retirees who call Thailand their home.

Likewise.  I suspect they would prefer we be human-shields as a deterrent to Chinese expansion somewhere else (PI or Vietnam).  But, Thai Immigration was more than willing to help them throw us under the bus.  We don't seem to have any friends here - except the vast majority of Thai people who appreciate us.  But, unfortunately, they don't have much control over our situation.

[JackThompson]

17 hours ago, molen02 said:

Okay I will get a 60 day tourist visa and start all over again. Is that possible?

Or, you could get a Non-O Single (possibly Multiple-Entry) based on retirement from Savannaket Laos or Penang, Malaysia.  This skips the entire "non-o stamp" process at the immigration office in Thailand, which can be a PITA, in some cases - mostly depending on which office - and CM has not, historically, been one of the best.

 

Per the rules 15 days permitted-stay remaining is the minimum to apply.  Of course, you could apply with more days remaining, if desired, hence the "more than" in the rules - you would not have to wait until exactly 15 days. 

 

But CM made-up a 21 day minimum, and formerly had an "appointment" system which made it impossible to get an appointment before you would not have enough days left.  That may have changed with the recent changes there, which reduced their exploitation-schemes. 

 

CM's most infamous scheme was the "overnight parking lot camping" to get an extension-slot, or pay us off via an agent for a "no waiting" slot scheme; this was recently shut-down.  But how they handled Non-O stamps was similarly bad, in the past.  It may be better, now.

 

16 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I plan on just keeping the 800 k in an account no need to fool with the time or 400 k.

17 hours ago, Thaidream said:

In some offices one has to return after 90 days and show the bank book again

This is the trouble with "Just use the 800K method" - not as easy as before, depending on which office. 

 

I am not sure if CM is doing the forced return-visits to "prove you still have the money in the bank" after 90-days or not.  CW-Bangkok is not, but some other offices are.  Was there a report on this from CM yet? 

 

If the OP is looking at having to deal with that, using the 800K "in the bank" method, then the Non-OA Visa from Australia becomes more attractive.

[Mavideol]

19 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The problem is with the office you are dealing with. 

so the law is not the same for each/every immigration office in Thailand?

[jacko45k]

59 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

They don't accept a monthly average, or one large lump sum transfer.  They want to see the 65,000 baht monthly in a Thai account and it must show it came from overseas.   Some statement from overseas, while reasonable proof in many places is not the direction he Thais seem to going.

I had a friend get his extension recently (Jomtiem) based on income and he did not fulfill the 65,000 pcm requirement. His habit was to send money over monthly depending how much he still had available in his Thai account. So a number of months were less, many were more than 65,000. I believe 1.2m over the year was shown. (Although a hospital bill bumped that!) He had to spend a lot of time persuading the IO to go along with it and his Thai speaking Mrs helped a lot. No mention of actually only needing to show 3-4 months of transfers as per the leniency motion!

Edited March 13, 2019 by jacko45k

[molen02]

1 hour ago, holy cow cm said:

Molen02... BTW, was the IO a man or woman? Young or old?

I'm a male mid sixties I can not see that that matters. I used all the available info to prepare the documents but if they made up other requirements that they don't tel you about!

I don't know if what happened with the previous guy had any bearing on the way I got treated, I just put it in as an observation.

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, molen02 said:

I'm a male mid sixties I can not see that that matters.

I believe he wanted to know about the Immigration Official, but thanks for that!

[Tanoshi]

36 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

He was using the combo-method - had 600K seasoned, also.

He used a Passbook as proof of income and that does not guarantee being coded as from a foreign source because all transactions go through HQ to your local account, often showing as 'domestic' transfers.

 

He should acquire bank statements, that could have shown his transactions as 'International'.

[JimGant]

16 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I agree and I believe  Thai Immigration  would be glad to accept new Income Letters from the US Embassy as it would make their life easier.  From simply an economic perspective- The Us Embassy in stopping the letters has most likely thrown away almost $300,000 worth of income per year in lost fees. Not a very smart way to do business especially since  virtually every other Embassy (except 4) are still issuing the letters.

 

The US Embassy was visited by Thai Immigration official(s) and told that they now wanted the income information contained in the income letters "authenticated." Possibly they misunderstood, or it was lost in translation, that "authenticated" was not precisely what the Thais wanted. Most likely the Thais wanted a "good enough" review of a document, or documents, to support the income figures being submitted.

 

But apparently "authenticated" was the word understood. And the State Dept, and its Consular officers, have only one avenue of "authentication" -- and that is to authenticate the signature and seal upon a document. Not the information in the document upon which the seal and signature are affixed. So, sorry Thai Immigration, we can't "authenticate" the numbers in the income letters we prepare. So, we're outa here.

 

Quote

An authentication is the placing of the consular seal over the seal of a foreign authority whose seal and signature is on file with the American Embassy or Consulate. A consular authentication in no way attests to the authenticity of the contents of a document but merely to the seal and signature of the issuing authority.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/authentications-and-apostilles/Notarial-Authentication-Services-Consular.html

Apparently the Brit and Danish embassies, who were already doing a "good enough" review of supporting documents, also heard "authenticate," and thus were not in the position to do so. Australia, too, apparently heard "authenticate."

 

But apparently all the other embassies didn't hear "authenticate" or got a watered down briefing from Thai Immigration -- or the translated word authenticate has a less strict meaning in their language or consular services.

 

Had the Yanks and Aussies not seen the Brits fold, who were doing a "good enough" review of supporting documents, I'm sure they would now be in the "good enough" review mode. But the Brits (and Danes) were told that good enough was not good enough (although that's probably just their interpretation, as I really doubt the Thais really were asking for 100% verification, which is unrealistic). So, here we are.

 

Nice that the US Consulate briefed CM Immigration on which documentation was "good enough" to support income figures. But that doesn't correct the "authenticate" marching orders they believed they received. I wonder, however, if the Thais have considered revisiting this situation....? Or maybe they have, and the consulate officials are happy with the extra time they now have for golf..... particularly if issuing income letters would now involve scrutinizing supporting documentation. Hmmm.

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

19 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You cannot get a single entry non-o visa anywhere in Australia for being 50 or over for retirement. You can only get a OA long stay visa at the embassy in Canberra or the consulate in Sydney.

I am not completely sure the consulates are allowed to issue them still.

certainly not the consulate in Brisbane as it once did

[Tanoshi]

18 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Apparently the Brit and Danish embassies, who were already doing a "good enough" review of supporting documents, also heard "authenticate," and thus were not in the position to do so. Australia, too, apparently heard "authenticate."

The request by TI was according to the British Embassy, to 'verify' the incomes.

That would mean 'authenticating' the document and it's contents as genuine, which could only be confirmed by the person or organisation that issued the document in the first instance.

 

What I find amazing Jim, is that after these 4 Embassies ceased the service, TI introduced an amendment to existing orders stating Embassy Income letters only need to be 'certified' by the Embassy.

That's a massive U-turn, or perhaps they didn't understand the difference between an Apple and a Pear beforehand.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Tanoshi

[ubonjoe]

18 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

He used a Passbook as proof of income and that does not guarantee being coded as from a foreign source because all transactions go through HQ to your local account, often showing as 'domestic' transfers.

A far as I know most banks process the incoming transfer and credit it directly to your account so there is no transfer involved.

I know for a fact that is how Bangkok Bank does it.

[holy cow cm]

44 minutes ago, molen02 said:

I'm a male mid sixties I can not see that that matters. I used all the available info to prepare the documents but if they made up other requirements that they don't tel you about!

I don't know if what happened with the previous guy had any bearing on the way I got treated, I just put it in as an observation.

No not you as yourself molen02. I meant, was the immigration officer a male or female and young or old. Curious. 

[RJRS1301]

57 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

so the law is not the same for each/every immigration office in Thailand?

The rules are same, but the IO has discretion on the interpretation of rules, so it seems

[Tanoshi]

3 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

A far as I know most banks process the incoming transfer and credit it directly to your account so there is no transfer involved.

I know for a fact that is how Bangkok Bank does it.

All transfers go through the HQ of the bank, so there is a transfer from the HQ to your local branch.

BKK are the only bank who tag the source of the transfer, so it will appear as 'International' on your bank statement and as FTT in your passbook.

 

For other Thai banks, they don't tag the source of the transfer, so it can often show as a 'domestic' or 'dummy branch' in your Passbook. Bank statements however from HQ will show the source as 'International'.

This is why TI push the importance of providing bank statements.

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

The rules are same, but the IO has discretion on the interpretation of rules, so it seems

That is one rather charitable way of putting it.