How strict are The IOs at DMK now?

[Took]

Hi,

 

I postdated the cancellation of my Non-B extension at the

local Immigration Office before flying to Vietnam last month.

And I'm planning to fly back to DMK and make a visa-exemp

entry into Thailand this coming May or June.

 

Will I get questioned by The IO about why I'm coming back

to Thailand this time and/or be asked by them to show them

20,000B cash when I arrive in DMK then? Can I get away with

showing them my Kasikorn Bank and BKK Bank debit cards or

showing them my balance on the online banking? I have more

than 20,000B in each of those bank accounts now.

 

I have only 2 stamps of my Non-B extension in my passport,

not a single stamp of a tourist visa or visa-exempt entry.

 

Thank you in advance.

[onera1961]

1 hour ago, Took said:

I get away with

showing them my Kasikorn Bank and BKK Bank debit cards or

showing them my balance on the online banking?

If they ask you to show money, they are looking for a reason for

denial. No, you cannot get away with debit card or other BS. Only cash rules. 

 

1 hour ago, Took said:

I have only 2 stamps of my Non-B extension in my passport,

not a single stamp of a tourist visa or visa-exempt entry.

How about in previous passports?

They are now able to see you history in their view-screen. 

Most probably you'll be OK but don't count on it. There is no stricto-memeter to gauge it. They can deny anybody entry at their whims? Do you plan to sue them after  a denial and your entry through a land border? That will be a sensational news in the media. If you're going to take the risk and plan to sue them for a denial, go ahead and use the DMK airport.

 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, Took said:

Will I get questioned by The IO about why I'm coming back to Thailand this time and/or be asked by them to show them 20,000B cash when I arrive in DMK then?

Maybe. It’s 10K for VE entry.

 

1 hour ago, Took said:

Can I get away with showing them my Kasikorn Bank and BKK Bank debit cards or showing them my balance on the online banking? I have more

than 20,000B in each of those bank accounts now.

No. Cash which can be in foreign currency equivalent to 10K baht or travellers cheques.

 

1 hour ago, Took said:

 I have only 2 stamps of my Non-B extension in my passport, not a single stamp of a tourist visa or visa-exempt entry.

As long as you don’t have a recent history of long stays for tourism you shouldn’t have any problems entering using VE. 

[Took]

Hi,

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I got a Non-B visa and 3 stamps of Non-B extension

in my old passport. I've lived in Thailand on a Non-B

visa for almost 5 years, during which time I have not

entered The Kingdom for pleasure, as you can see.

 

I'm afraid that I might get questioned by The IO about

the purpose of visit this time if I make a visa-exempt

entry into Thailand via DMK after having lived in the

Kingdom on a Non-B visa for such a long time.

 

I'll see what happens.

[JackThompson]

5 hours ago, Took said:

I'll see what happens.

Let us know how it goes.  They don't operate by any laws or published-rules at that entry point, so its up to their whims / how they "feel" about your entry. 

 

But, I do think you have good odds of being allowed in, if carrying the required cash (10K Baht worth) and having proof of a flight-out (you may also need the flight-proof to board the airplane in Vietnam).  I would also carry proof of where you will be staying (can be an online booking, which can be canceled later).

 

If they start to make problems, a good strategy might be saying you are returning only to get your stuff and leave Thailand forever (which is what they most desire of longer-staying foreigners).

[NoshowJones]

Silly question. A lot will depend on which side of the bed they get out of in the morning.

[seancbk]

9 hours ago, Took said:

Hi,

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I got a Non-B visa and 3 stamps of Non-B extension

in my old passport. I've lived in Thailand on a Non-B

visa for almost 5 years, during which time I have not

entered The Kingdom for pleasure, as you can see.

 

I'm afraid that I might get questioned by The IO about

the purpose of visit this time if I make a visa-exempt

entry into Thailand via DMK after having lived in the

Kingdom on a Non-B visa for such a long time.

 

I'll see what happens.

 

If you've been here for 5 years on Non B visas they'll simply assume you've been working (legally) and not just living here as a Tourist (and possibly working illegally, although as a percentage of the numbers of people staying in Thailand very very few Farangs work here illegally). 

I doubt you'll have any issue. 

 

[Took]

Thanks again for your comments.

 

I've flown from SGN to DMK more than 10 times before

but never ever been asked to show an onward ticket

out of Thailand when I checked in at SGN. I've always

been asked when I last visited VN when I checked in

at DMK, though, because I can make a visa-exempt

entry into VN and they have a '30-day Rule.'

 

So I'm not going to book an onward ticket this time, 

either.

 

Alright, I'll have 10,000B cash on me just in case.

[JackThompson]

15 hours ago, Took said:

Thanks again for your comments.

 

I've flown from SGN to DMK more than 10 times before

but never ever been asked to show an onward ticket

out of Thailand when I checked in at SGN. I've always

been asked when I last visited VN when I checked in

at DMK, though, because I can make a visa-exempt

entry into VN and they have a '30-day Rule.'

 

So I'm not going to book an onward ticket this time, 

either.

 

Alright, I'll have 10,000B cash on me just in case.

You would not have needed an outbound ticket in the past, if you had a valid Visa, or a re-entry permit on an extension.  Some airline staff may ask for it, but only because they don't know the rules. 

 

On the other hand, an outgoing ticket in 30-days is legally-required for Visa Exempt entry (a published rule); it's a roll of the dice whether immigration asks to see it or not.

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

On the other hand, an outgoing ticket in 30-days is legally-required for Visa Exempt entry (a published rule); it's a roll of the dice whether immigration asks to see it or not.

No it’s not. Where is it published? 

 

You cannot be denied entey for not having an onward flight.

[ubonjoe]

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No it’s not. Where is it published? 

 

You cannot be denied entey for not having an onward flight.

Here one of many places where it is stated: https://thaiembdc.org/visas/

"Upon arrival, those entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption scheme must show the documents below at the port of entry:
• Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveler’s cheque or cash equivalent to 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family.
• Proof of onward travel (confirmed air, train, bus or boat tickets) to leave Thailand within 30 days of the arrival date."

It is apparently in the ministerial order allowing visa exempt entries that would be very hard to find a copy of now.

[Took]

Hi ubonjoe,

 

Will The IOs ask all that are going to make a visa-exempt

entry into Thailand if they have an onward ticket and/or

20,000B cash on them? And will they be denied entry if

they can't show any of them? Are The IOs so strict now?

 

Thank you

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, Took said:

Will The IOs ask all that are going to make a visa-exempt

entry into Thailand if they have an onward ticket and/or

20,000B cash on them? And will they be denied entry if

they can't show any of them? Are The IOs so strict now?

Immigration seldom ask to see the ticket out of the country within 30 days. Same for the 10k baht (20k is for an entry with a visa).

Most immigration officers are not that strict.

It is normally the airlines that asks to see the ticket out of the country prior to boarding the flight to here.

[Took]

Hi ubonjoe,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I've actually made a visa-exempt entry into DMK

almost 20 times before, but The IOs have never

ever asked to see an onward ticket or 10k baht.

 

It seems to me that some are a bit too nervous

about the requirements for a visa-exempt entry

into DMK, though I really appreciate their advice.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, Took said:

Hi ubonjoe,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I've actually made a visa-exempt entry into DMK

almost 20 times before, but The IOs have never

ever asked to see an onward ticket or 10k baht.

 

It seems to me that some are a bit too nervous

about the requirements for a visa-exempt entry

into DMK, though I really appreciate their advice.

It’s not the number of times you enter they are bothered about, it’s the cumulative time spent in the country.

 

I’ve a friend that has made 40+ entries each year for years (works in Cambodia) and never has a problem.

[elviajero]

On 4/5/2019 at 10:42 AM, ubonjoe said:

Here one of many places where it is stated: https://thaiembdc.org/visas/

"Upon arrival, those entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption scheme must show the documents below at the port of entry:
• Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveler’s cheque or cash equivalent to 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family.
• Proof of onward travel (confirmed air, train, bus or boat tickets) to leave Thailand within 30 days of the arrival date."

It is apparently in the ministerial order allowing visa exempt entries that would be very hard to find a copy of now.

The claim was that it’s a legal requirement.

 

There is no evidence of any ministerial order, and I have never heard of anyone being denied for the reason of not having an onward flight.

 

All tourists are expected/meant to have an onward flight, but there is no legal way to deny entry; as there is no way to deny entry based on time spent in the country.

 

The requirement is nothing more than a rule.

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

The claim was that it’s a legal requirement.

 

There is no evidence of any ministerial order, and I have never heard of anyone being denied for the reason of not having an onward flight.

 

All tourists are expected/meant to have an onward flight, but there is no legal way to deny entry; as there is no way to deny entry based on time spent in the country.

 

The requirement is nothing more than a rule.

Even if "just a rule" - it is a published rule, so visitors can know exactly what to expect.  This is why the airlines demand the tickets / why the airline guidelines and US State-dept guidelines state the onward ticket may be asked for. 

 

Not so with the never-published "time spent" routine - unknown if it really exists or what is permitted if it does. 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Even if "just a rule" - it is a published rule, so visitors can know exactly what to expect.  This is why the airlines demand the tickets / why the airline guidelines and US State-dept guidelines state the onward ticket may be asked for. 

 

Not so with the never-published "time spent" routine - unknown if it really exists or what is permitted if it does. 

This is published on the current, recently re-vamped, Thai embassy website in London;

 

"Foreigners who enter Thailand under this Tourist Visa Exemption Scheme may only do so for 30 days at one time with a maximum of 3 times in a 6-month period by flight and 2 times a year for overland crossing."

 

So based on your requirement of published rules a Brit, being told they've stayed too long, has nothing to complain about, right? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

12 hours ago, elviajero said:

There is no evidence of any ministerial order, and I have never heard of anyone being denied for the reason of not having an onward flight.

I have seen a recent report of that happening.

It is certainly in a ministerial order for visa exempt entries. 

The airlines are aware of the requirement and often ask for it before a person is allowed to check in for their flight.

[jacko45k]

12 hours ago, elviajero said:

I’ve a friend that has made 40+ entries each year for years (works in Cambodia) and never has a problem.

Does this friend have a Visa, like a Non-Imm O (multiple or category A)?

Or an extension to one with a multiple re-entry permit?

If he is coming in on Visa waivers I am surprised he hasn't been at least questioned. 

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

This is published on the current, recently re-vamped, Thai embassy website in London;

 

"Foreigners who enter Thailand under this Tourist Visa Exemption Scheme may only do so for 30 days at one time with a maximum of 3 times in a 6-month period by flight and 2 times a year for overland crossing."

 

So based on your requirement of published rules a Brit, being told they've stayed too long, has nothing to complain about, right?

The 2x by land is in a published police order, and travelers are given warning when doing the first of them - there is no question about that rule.

 

The air-rule stated on that website isn't clear.  Three times in 6 months extended = 6 months  - but they say "for 30-days at one time" - which would mean extensions are not permitted?  Yet the extensions are being given by immigration?  So, is this a rehash of the old 90-days per 180-days rule which is clearly not the law any more, per the published police-order which quashed it? 

 

As to "reason to complain" - there are 2 levels - the first is, is the person being denied-entry for breaking an actual legal rule?  But setting that aside for now, and assuming each entry point can make up its own rules - the second is, "Can a visitor be aware of the rules in effect at a specific entry-point - DMK, as an example - so have the knowledge needed to stay within those rules?

 

In the case of the 2nd, the visitor would need to know the specifics.  If a person can do 3x non-extended visa-exempts in a row by air in 6 months at DMK w/o being harassed/denied, I would be surprised.  And what happens if they show up a week later with a valid Tourist Visa?  If they extend that TR-Visa entry, they are into another 6-mo block, so could do another 3x Visa-Exempts in a row into DMK unmolested? 

 

I certainly would not advise anyone to try this at DMK - not even the 3x non-extended Visa-Exempts in a row at the beginning.  There is no boundary one can know and stay within to be "safe" with that crew.

 

If there were a known rule-set, the airlines should be so advised, and required to pass the specific-rules for the destination entry-point on to their customers as a detailed "I have read and understand..." condition - both upon purchase, and pre-boarding.  That would greatly reduce the cause for "surprised" complaints, though it would not address the underlying legal questions.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Does this friend have a Visa, like a Non-Imm O (multiple or category A)?

Or an extension to one with a multiple re-entry permit?

If he is coming in on Visa waivers I am surprised he hasn't been at least questioned. 

Always Visa waivers. He’s under 50 and has no Thai family so he doesn’t qualify for any long term visa/permit.

 

He owns a condo in Bangkok, that he considers his home, but works/lives in Cambodia Mon to Fri. He’s only in Thailand at the weekends and when on holiday for work.

 

He was doing this too when the 90/180 day limit was being enforced, and at that time he handed the IO at passport control a print out (his own) of his time in the country to help them keep count!

 

Since that regulation was lifted he’s had questions when entering, but he’s never been formally interviewed or threatened with being denied.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

I have seen a recent report of that happening.

What reason was given on the stamp/expulsion notice for denying entry?

 

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

It is certainly in a ministerial order for visa exempt entries. 

I have been looking for this mythical order for years and there is no evidence of it's existence.

 

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The airlines are aware of the requirement and often ask for it before a person is allowed to check in for their flight.

All tourist are expected to have an onward flight. Embassies/Consulates should get proof before issuing a visa (many don't), and airlines are supposed to check for onward flights when traveling without a visa (many don't).

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

What reason was given on the stamp/expulsion notice for denying entry?

I don't recall the reason. 

 

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I have been looking for this mythical order for years and there is no evidence of it's existence.

It may be this one mentioned in police order 778/255 that rescinded the 90 days in 6 months rule.

 

 

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

All tourist are expected to have an onward flight.

Expected yes but not a requirement if they have a valid visa for entry.

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The 2x by land is in a published police order, and travelers are given warning when doing the first of them - there is no question about that rule.

It's not a "police order". It is a ministerial regulation.

 

And because it's a regulation entry can be denied if attempting a 3rd entry, by quoting the regulation.

 

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The air-rule stated on that website isn't clear.  Three times in 6 months extended = 6 months  - but they say "for 30-days at one time" - which would mean extensions are not permitted?  Yet the extensions are being given by immigration?  So, is this a rehash of the old 90-days per 180-days rule which is clearly not the law any more, per the published police-order which quashed it? 

It's crystal clear. The maximum stay is 30 days per entry meaning 3 x 30 = 90; and would be the maximum stay allowed during 6 months (equivalent to 180 days/year). Extensions are not a right and never quoted as part of a stay entitlement regardless of the method used to enter.

 

When the 90/180 day regulation was "quashed" the 180 day per year limit clearly became an unofficial line in the sand. Since then it has been regularly quoted by IO's and different borders as being a limit. It is why the VE entry flag is set at 6 ( 6 x 30 = 180). But instead of it being an enforceable regulation it is a guideline for IO's to use when scrutinising a long term tourist. 

 

I have explained why the regulation was "quashed" (replaced), and why it's not likely to be re-instated until/unless the immigration system is able to keep count.

 

It has been suggested that the London Embassy website is out of date and quoting the "quashed" rule. Hard to believe considering it's been over 10 years, the website has been regularly updated and the more recent land limit added. When I was last at the Embassy (2016) I asked about the rule and was told it's not a mistake and that it's a current rule. They could be wrong, but I believe they are quoting the unofficial rule IO's are ordered to follow when deciding entry.

 

 

I have never seen an airline display a warning at the airport about potential entry denial because of an onward flight, not having 10K/20K, or staying too long, because ultimately it's down to the person visiting a foreign country to know the rules/regs/laws.

 

Airlines are responsible for the return of anyone denied entry, regardless of visa status. IMO the reason they - sometimes - check for an onward flight is because it's one of their responsibilities as the carrier. In the same way it is the responsibility of the consular staff issuing a tourist visa.

 

IO's are only interested in onward flights when considering (evidencing) the visitors claim that the visit is for tourism. That's evidenced by the guidelines issued to IO's in 2014.

 

If there was an enforceable regulation in place regarding onward flights, don't you think we'd have seen at least one denial quoting such a regulation?

 

[elviajero]

40 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't recall the reason. 

I bet you 20 baht they didn't deny based on a regulation, but instead used the standard 12 (2), (3) or (9) reasons.

 

Quote

It may be this one mentioned in police order 778/255 that rescinded the 90 days in 6 months rule.

 

Maybe. But if so they could have been denying entry using 12 (1) or (10) ever since. And I haven't seen one formal denial on that basis.

 

Quote

Expected yes but not a requirement if they have a valid visa for entry.

Clearly, based on the lack of enforcement at passport control, it's not a requirement for VE either. Millions enter every year and IO's only seem to ask visitors they are considering denying entry to because they've 'stayed too long as a tourist'. It is the time spent in the country that is the issue, not specifically the lack of onward flight. And neither reason can be used to deny entry - because no regulation/law allows it - which is why they use other reasons that fit.