rejection

[mvausterlitz]

I did not get back in to Thailand through Poi Pet border. I have a lot of visas(no visa waiver stamps). The officer told that I am not a tourist anymore and stamped my passport with the stamp you see in the attached picture. You probably know what it is about. Now I would like to know when and how  I can come back to Thailand. I have there a lady friend since 6 years. 

[Briggsy]

You can come tomorrow. I would not recommend flying Phnom Penh to Bangkok. Instead, use one of the 3 entry points south of Poipet, on the Thai-Cambodian border.

 

Your stamp is just a denial of entry stamp. It is no big deal.

 

What have you been doing for a week in Cambodia?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Briggsy

[Thailand Outcast]

Precisely why I started this thread. 

 

I expect a huge increase in the denial of entry in the future, and then, certain land boarders to be overwhelmed, until they deny entry also.   

 

 

[Pilotman]

why not just get a 12 month METV and you wouldn't risk the agro? 

[phuketrichard]

never heard of a 12 month metv  ONLY 6 months and only issued in your home country...

Or just apply for a regular tourist visa ( unless you have also had to many of them)

[jackdd]

Don't use the Poipet border, everybody here on Thaivisa is aware of that ????

Just use any other land border to go back into Thailand

 

You were denied for 12.2 "Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

IOs use this option to deny people arbitrarily if they think the person should not enter Thailand.

In your case the IO thinks you should not be allowed to spend so much time in Thailand, but this is no legal reason to deny you, so he abuses 12.2 to deny you.

 

[elviajero]

49 minutes ago, mvausterlitz said:

Now I would like to know when and how  I can come back to Thailand.

It’s still possible to enter at other land borders. The denial stamp does not automatically mean you’ll be denied again.

 

You increase your chances of entry with a Tourist Visa, 

[mvausterlitz]

51 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

You can come tomorrow. I would not recommend flying Phnom Penh to Bangkok. Instead, use one of the 3 entry points south of Poipet, on the Thai-Cambodian border.

 

Your stamp is just a denial of entry stamp. It is no big deal.

 

What have you been doing for a week in Cambodia?

I just have stayed learning something of this country and start liking the people. Thank you for an encouraging answer. But why not to fly?  I thought it is better to fly with return ticket because at Poi Pet an onward ticket would have helped. What about requirements at those other borders?

Edited April 1, 2019 by mvausterlitz

[mvausterlitz]

5 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Don't use the Poipet border, everybody here on Thaivisa is aware of that ????

Just use any other land border to go back into Thailand

 

You were denied for 12.2 "Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom."

IOs use this option to deny people arbitrarily if they think the person should not enter Thailand.

In your case the IO thinks you should not be allowed to spend so much time in Thailand, but this is no legal reason to deny you, so he abuses 12.2 to deny you.

 

so this was a lie. I HAD the money but he did not even want to see it.

[elviajero]

6 minutes ago, mvausterlitz said:

so this was a lie. I HAD the money but he did not even want to see it.

No. Having money ONLY satisfies section 12 (9). You were denied under 12 (2).

 

Section 12 (2) is a catch all clause that legally enables IO’s to deny entry on the basis that you don’t have an appropriate means of living in the country.

[Dmitry2222]

10 minutes ago, mvausterlitz said:

so this was a lie. I HAD the money but he did not even want to see it.

Nothing new here - it is Thailand.

[Lacessit]

What is your age? You may qualify for a retirement visa.

[NanLaew]

16 minutes ago, mvausterlitz said:

so this was a lie. I HAD the money but he did not even want to see it.

Look at it his way.

 

He didn't ask you if you had sufficient cash.

 

Therefore he didn't see any cash.

 

Therefore to him, the cash didn't exist.

 

Thus you obviously didn't have it and another application of rule 12.2 was validated.

Edited April 1, 2019 by NanLaew

[MARK74]

you could go over to the border at baen laem. should have no problems there

[Briggsy]

22 minutes ago, mvausterlitz said:

I thought it is better to fly with return ticket because at Poi Pet an onward ticket would have helped. What about requirements at those other borders?

Don't fly in to Don Meuang. They like to deny entry too if you have been here a while on Tourist Visas and Visa Exempts.

 

Use the land borders south of Poipet. They will let you in. Do not try Poipet again.

 

 

[Caldera]

8 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No. Having money ONLY satisfies section 12 (9). You were denied under 12 (2).

 

Section 12 (2) is a catch all clause that legally enables IO’s to deny entry on the basis that you don’t have an appropriate means of living in the country.

Your posts should come with a disclaimer that goes like: "This is my personal interpretation of section 12.2, possibly shared by certain criminal elements within Thai immigration at certain checkpoints."

[Briggsy]

1 minute ago, Caldera said:

Your posts should come with a disclaimer that goes like: "This is my personal interpretation of section 12.2, possibly shared by certain criminal elements within Thai immigration at certain checkpoints."

Who holds the power to deny entry under section 12.2? The Immigration Officers.

Whose interpretation, therefore, of Section 12.2 matters? The Immigration Officers

[Sheryl]

Basically they think you are not really a tourist because of the sheer amount of time you are spending in Thailand so suspect you are either working  here without proper visa and work permit, or engaging in illegal activity.

 

You do not mention how much time you have spent here, how many tourist visas and how long between trips etc, all of these are factors an IO may look at. Poipet is notoriously bad (and corrupt) but if you have been here more or less continuously on back to back tourist visas (or virtually back to back), while you may get in through on of the crossings mentioned you are apt to have problems again sooner or later and really should think about getting an appropriate visa. if over age 50, retirement, if under 50, Thai Elite unless your relationship is such that you are considering marriage, in which case you can come in on an O visa and get annual one year extensions of stay based on marriage.

[BritTim]

Attempting to enter visa exempt at Poipet when you have many previous visa exempt entries is almost certain to be unsuccessful/ Even if you have a visa, they will try to find an excuse to deny entry.

 

Thai immigration will try to convince you to fly to Don Muang because it is conceivable you could end up in real trouble there, possibly even immigration's wet dream of forcing you back to your home country. Do not do that!

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, Caldera said:

Your posts should come with a disclaimer that goes like: "This is my personal interpretation of section 12.2, possibly shared by certain criminal elements within Thai immigration at certain checkpoints."

So, just so anyone from immigration reading this is clear - you are publicly accusing Deputy Inspector Chatchai Phahaan of the Sa Kaeo immigration office of being a "criminal" for denying entry to the OP?

 

 

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Look at it his way.

 

He didn't ask you if you had sufficient cash.

 

Therefore he didn't see any cash.

 

Therefore to him, the cash didn't exist.

 

Thus you obviously didn't have it and another application of rule 12.2 was validated.

He didn't ask to see cash, because it was irrelevant, because he wasn't denying entry under 12 (9) for not having 10K.

 

He was denying entry under 12 (2) for not having an appropriate means of living in the country.

[lkv]

1. Ban Laem

2. Bangkok Airways to Suvarnabhumi.

 

Avoid DMK.

Edited April 1, 2019 by lkv

[lkv]

 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

So, just so anyone from immigration reading this is clear - you are publicly accusing Deputy Inspector Chatchai Phahaan of the Sa Kaeo immigration office of being a "criminal" for denying entry to the OP?

 

 

If Immigration is reading this I would like to say one word to them. TEA.

 

 

[Caldera]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

So, just so anyone from immigration reading this is clear - you are publicly accusing Deputy Inspector Chatchai Phahaan of the Sa Kaeo immigration office of being a "criminal" for denying entry to the OP?

 

 

No, I don't know the specific reasons that the OP was denied entry for, and I also don't know if the officer in charge of doing so shares your absurd interpretation of section 12.2. Their thought process might well differ from yours; it's worth keeping in mind that you aren't actually an immigration spokesperson. I'm just worried that some people take the nonsense you post seriously.

[NanLaew]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

He didn't ask to see cash, because it was irrelevant, because he wasn't denying entry under 12 (9) for not having 10K.

 

He was denying entry under 12 (2) for not having an appropriate means of living in the country.

I love the sound of semantics in the morning.

 

"Appropriate means" simply translates as having cash. I mean how else does one manage to live in any country? Unless you think "appropriate means" suggests that he has enough mama noodles and a carton of smokes to survive on?

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Basically they think you are not really a tourist because of the sheer amount of time you are spending in Thailand so suspect you are either working  here without proper visa and work permit, or engaging in illegal activity.

There are different rejection-stamps for illegally working or criminal-involvement. 

The rejection-reason used here, if applied as it was in this (and many other) cases, would apply to everyone entering with any type of visa. 

 

Basically, it amounts to, "You might not be able to support yourself after entering, and there is nothing you can show us here as evidence to the contrary."   Ergo, no one can enter Thailand.

[JackThompson]

14 minutes ago, Caldera said:

No, I don't know the specific reasons that the OP was denied entry for, and I also don't know if the officer in charge of doing so shares your absurd interpretation of section 12.2. Their thought process might well differ from yours; it's worth keeping in mind that you aren't actually an immigration spokesperson. I'm just worried that some people take the nonsense you post seriously.

According to that interpretation, IOs  can Make Up A LIE to deny-entry, just because they feel like it, with no law or rule which actually pertains to the person being denied-entry.  Without any way to prove otherwise, no one can ever feel safe to enter Thailand, again

 

As to use of the "criminal" word - that is just bait, because we aren't supposed to call them that here (could make legal-problems).  Therefore, this is the best response:
 

Quote

Oh, no, of course not.  No one in immigration is on the take from agents, schools, etc - or carrying out their own personal agendas in contradiction to the Immigration Act.  Just pretend all the reports of these activities here (and many of our own personal experiences) are "fake" and everything is on the "up and up" with immigration, everywhere.

After all, pattern recognition (i.e. "intelligence") is a sign of mental-illness / paranoia / tin-foil hat stuff, so don't believe your lying eyes.  Much better buy into gaslighting / excuses for immigration's constant pattern of denying entry based on a lie at this entry-point (and some others).  By all means, don't call it out for what it really is.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, Caldera said:

No, I don't know the specific reasons that the OP was denied entry for, and I also don't know if the officer in charge of doing so shares your absurd interpretation of section 12.2.

LOL! So this officer isn’t a criminal, just all the others at all the other border points that are denying long term tourists for the same reason.

 

You do know the reason. The IO has stamped the passport quoting the law used to deny entry.

 

Maybe you could explain what “specific reasons” would make the IO a criminal.

 

Again, I am not interpreting the law, you are.

 

5 hours ago, Caldera said:

Their thought process might well differ from yours; it's worth keeping in mind that you aren't actually an immigration spokesperson. I'm just worried that some people take the nonsense you post seriously.

The concern is that members will beleive the misinformation and nonsense you/others spout in thread after thread. You/others keep claiming criminality, lawless airports, illegal denials, etc. without providing any evidence whatsoever.

 

They are formally denying entry and you are calling them criminals. Prove it and or make a complaint to the TIB. You have the officers name and their office.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, NanLaew said:

I love the sound of semantics in the morning.

 

"Appropriate means" simply translates as having cash.

No it doesn’t. If it was simply about cash it would say so, and somewhere it would state how much cash is required. 

 

The only cash required to enter the country is 10/20K as per section 12 (9).

 

Quote

I mean how else does one manage to live in any country? Unless you think "appropriate means" suggests that he has enough mama noodles and a carton of smokes to survive on?

Of course everyone needs money to live. 

 

“Appropriate means” — is what is considered appropriate by immigration.

 

A foreigner needs the “appropriate means” to live with his wife in the country, which is 400K in the bank, a foreign income of at least 40K pm, or a job in Thailand. He can’t get an extension if he’s being kept by his wife, or only has 200K, because that is not an “appropriate means”.

 

IO’s can use section 12 (2) to deny a long term tourist because they are clearly living in the country, want to continue living in the country, but have not satisfied immigration how they appropriately fund their stay. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by elviajero

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

LOL! So this officer isn’t a criminal, just all the others at all the other border points that are denying long term tourists for the same reason.

For legal reasons, we cannot use that term here to describe them.  It's like saying "go ahead and hit me" with a couple large bodyguards on either side while making the challenge. 

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

They are formally denying entry and you are calling them criminals. Prove it and or make a complaint to the TIB. You have the officers name and their office.

Based on our experiences here and all evidence to-date, why should be believe the TIB would care about IOs violating the laws/rules?  Billions of baht in payoffs from agents and schools don't seem to concern them - they even write the rules in such a way to maximize revenue from these schemes, while blaming "foreigners" for the actions of those in their own ranks who facilitate them.

 

As to comparing the requirements for 1-year permitted-stays with 30 to 60 day permitted-stays:

• There are no published-requirements to show additional funds (beyond the 10K/20K cash) for 30-day or 60-day tourist entries. 
• There is no legal reason for rejecting-entry based on "past time in the country," period.

Therefore, it is illegal to deny entry for "here too long before," or for not showing financials that are neither legally required nor requested.

 

The authorities can change the rules any time they want to add financials or limits on tourist-entries, but the clique currently misusing the 12-2 clause to deny entry at some entry-points are, evidently, unable to get the rule-changes they desire.