Belgian Embassy letter rejected by CW Immigration

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Any income you have in Thailand, such as rental income from a condo you own, cannot be used as part of your income proof.

Ridiculous! Why would they refuse such income?

It's probably the easiest income for them to verify.

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

Any income you have in Thailand, such as rental income from a condo you own, cannot be used as part of your income proof

Ridiculous! Why would they refuse such income?

It's probably the easiest income for them to verify.

Sadly, officials do not go by what makes sense. They go by what the rules mandate. The powers that be, in their infinite wisdom, have declared that income proof must henceforth consist of 65,000 baht each and every month transferred from overseas. If talking about what is sensible, why should you be obliged to transfer 65,000 baht into Thailand during the months when you are not even in Thailand if you subsequently want to qualify for a further extension?

[Joe Mcseismic]

14 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The easier thing for all  (applicants and Thai Imm) is to use the Embassy Letter; for the three offending Embassies to restore it-  have the applicant self certify the amount of income;; proved by award letters or bank statements and than signed under Oath.   Thai Immigration accepts the letter as they have in the past but randomly asks for some applicants to show the proof.  If there is a discrepancy- deny the extension and report back to the issuing Embassy there maybe a problem.  The very fact that there is a real possibility of being caught out if lying will stop the majority of it,  A single conviction by either the Thai Courts or the US FBI  would stop any fraud 

.......and once that's been done, we'll cure the world of all known diseases and bring about world peace.

[luckyluke]

For us, Belgians residing in Pattaya, there are 2 possibilities :

 

We can go to the Belgian Embassy in Bangkok and obtain an Affidavit ( no need to show anything, embassy seems not even interested in the documents you may have);

 

or

 

Go to the Austrian Consulate in Pattaya with documents proving your pension income. 

After "checking", (meaning in my particular case, they check that the monthly pension I receive, is credited on my bank account in Belgium) the Consulate issue a "Letter of Income" stating that they certify the income. 

 

Till now The Letter of Income has always been accepted by Jomtien Immigration without further additional proof necessary (again in my particular case, since +/-15 years, last one January 2019). 

 

Now it appears that an Affidavit is no more accepted as only proof of income (so far one case at one office). 

 

Will see, for the moment no any reaction on a Flemish forum of an expat encountering the same "problem" as the o.p..

 

[jacko45k]

18 hours ago, glegolo said:

did I understand this correctly..... did the op construct his very own affadavit and his belgian embassy did sign on off that piece of paper... yeah if that crap is true me myself would have denied it no question about that....

 

Why is not op going to his embassy and do what the rest of the freaking world is doing. present a piece of evidence of his income to the embassy and let them on their own letterhead issue the income-letter, strange people...

 

glegolo

I did not read it that way. Belgium never stopped issuing letters, and the OP said he submitted the same letter to CW that he had done for the past 10 years. In fact if he supplies supporting documentation, they would accept it this year too. 

I had actually thought Belgium issued letters that did indeed verify income, but perhaps I confuse something I read wrt Netherlands. What I find interesting is that CW actually read the letter, and decided it did not in itself confirm income, only actually supplying an affidavit. This letter was sufficient alone for many years, but now CW (perhaps in line with Immigration's rumoured past request that Embassies truly verify the income), are actually reading what they say.

Important. 

[glegolo]

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

I did not read it that way. Belgium never stopped issuing letters, and the OP said he submitted the same letter to CW that he had done for the past 10 years. In fact if he supplies supporting documentation, they would accept it this year too. 

I had actually thought Belgium issued letters that did indeed verify income, but perhaps I confuse something I read wrt Netherlands. What I find interesting is that CW really read the letter, and decided it did not in itself verify the income, only actually supplying an affidavit. This was sufficient alone for many years, but now CW (perhaps in line with Immigration's rumoured past request that Embassies truly verify the income), are actually reading what they say.

Important. 

he clearly says he constructed his very own affadavit and THEN asking his embassy to sign it which they did....... Me personally if being an IO here in Thailand, would have dismissed this document in a heartbeat.....

 

glegolo

[jacko45k]

19 minutes ago, glegolo said:

he clearly says he constructed his very own affadavit and THEN asking his embassy to sign it which they did....... Me personally if being an IO here in Thailand, would have dismissed this document in a heartbeat.....

 

glegolo

Important to me is that for 10 years worth of heartbeats it was accepted. If they now read Embassy letters, and reject those that are simply affidavit or Stat Dec types, the noose is tightening further.  

[jacko45k]

7 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Ridiculous! Why would they refuse such income?

It's probably the easiest income for them to verify.

Apparently they want to see pension type income from overseas. Domestic rental income is not guaranteed. No point saying 'ridiculous' (even if it is). This type of income was specifically singled out as not being acceptable at a talk by a Visa agent in Pattaya. 

[henry15]

2 weeks ago Nonthaburi immigration still excepted my income affidavit from the belgium embassy.. But the affidavit must be legalized by consular. But the can not read English like CW????

[jesimps]

20 hours ago, moontang said:

Even in the old days of widespread letter fraud; the IOs occasionally asked for proof of remittances, and suggested that they wanted to see the 65k brought over monthly.  I thought is was even more reason to do 800k..then there would be no reason to discuss monthly living expenses.

In my 12 years doing extensions using embassy letter, I've never been asked for proof of money coming into Thailand. I have always taken with me proof of my pensions in my home country as per the immigration rules, just in case they asked to see them, which they never have. That's not to say it hasn't happened, just the first time that I've heard of it.

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, davhend25 said:

Thank you, JackThompson, for your kind response to my questions.

 

There was a thread here the past few days regarding non-o visa's based on marriage that indicated no "financials" required. Just your wife's signed tabien baan and copies of her signed Thai ID card. In HCMC they also want a letter from your wife asking for the visa. I believe Savankhet in Laos and Ho chi min city in Vietnam. And money, of course, but no seasoned money or transfers into a Thai bank account.  Am I confused??

No financials/money are required at all for a Non-O Visa from a consulate abroad, if applied for at a Thai Consulate (any) in Laos or Vietnam.  Some other Thai consulates do require financials (Malaysia, Singapore). 

 

Correct about the consulates in Vietnam wanting the letter from your wife (but not Laos).  The "1 Year Multiple Entry" version of the Visa (90-day permitted-stay on each entry) is available at HCMC and Savannakhet - maybe Hanoi, but not Vientiane.

 

The money requirements I listed are for when you want to use an Immigration Office In Thailand for an "extension of stay" (not a Visa).   How those rules are "interpreted" varies by which office you use, and how the IO feels at that moment about doing the "hard work" to process your extension for "retail price" (i.e., no extra-money from one of his agent-partners).

 

[jesimps]

14 hours ago, Leaver said:

There seems to be some confusion around the word "pension." 

 

Typically, in the past, a pension is paid out by a government to its senior citizens, as it still is today, in many countries.

 

However, as more and more western countries tighten their financial criteria on senior citizens to qualify for a pension, more and more people will not be receiving a government pension in the future, and will be living off their savings and / or investments. 

 

Many people call the monthly / annual income from their own savings / investments a "pension" but this is a private income stream, not a government benefit.

 

As time goes by, less and less retirees from western countries will receive a government pension, thus, Thai Immigration's requirement the "embassy letters" relate only to government pensions will see most of these embassy letters not applicable to many retirees here.

 

In the future, I would not be surprised if immigration offices adopt a rule of not accept embassy letters from the rest of the countries still issuing them, regardless of the monthly income being a government pension, or income derived from investments, because that seems to be the way thing are going here.

My Uk civil service pension is as much a pension as my state pension. I had no choice but to contribute because the payment was taken at source, the amount being an element of each years salary negotiations with the union. My state and civil service pension letters were what I used to present as proof to the British Embassy to obtain the letter from them. Works pensions are just as much a pension as a state pension.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

Important to me is that for 10 years worth of heartbeats it was accepted. If they now read Embassy letters, and reject those that are simply affidavit or Stat Dec types, the noose is tightening further.  

It is especially insane, given the OP has been living here all that time, and clearly able to support himself.  This is another case where "grandfathering" would be the appropriate - and moral - thing to do.   With a new-applicant, at least a case could be made they are an "unknown quantity" - and additional means-testing could be justified. 

 

Instead of respecting those who retired here under the original rules, they are trying to force people to either pay them off with agent-bribes, or leave the country.   I think many IOs are happy with either outcome, since they care not for other Thais or Thailand (it is not their lives/families being wrecked when foreign-spenders leave Thailand), and "doing something" at work for "only their salary" seems to be perceived as a great imposition on them.  Their utopia would be when all their work is derived from agents (with fat envelopes accompanying each application), and all other foreigners are simply gone.

[Thaidream]

4 hours ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

.......and once that's been done, we'll cure the world of all known diseases and bring about world peace.

You would be surprised what can be done when people of good will sit down and talk whether it be restoring Embassy Letters or yes-even World Peace.

[madmen]

9 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Ridiculous! Why would they refuse such income?

It's probably the easiest income for them to verify.

That would mean you really are declaring income   so that would then bring into question taxes and maybe even work permits. Currently we have have it very good with rental returns compared to the west where they are taxed to death.

[ThaiBunny]

12 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

You would be surprised what can be done when people of good will sit down and talk whether it be restoring Embassy Letters or yes-even World Peace.

Nope, not April 1 ... ????

[davhend25]

43 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

No financials/money are required at all for a Non-O Visa from a consulate abroad, if applied for at a Thai Consulate (any) in Laos or Vietnam.  Some other Thai consulates do require financials (Malaysia, Singapore). 

 

Correct about the consulates in Vietnam wanting the letter from your wife (but not Laos).  The "1 Year Multiple Entry" version of the Visa (90-day permitted-stay on each entry) is available at HCMC and Savannakhet - maybe Hanoi, but not Vientiane.

 

The money requirements I listed are for when you want to use an Immigration Office In Thailand for an "extension of stay" (not a Visa).   How those rules are "interpreted" varies by which office you use, and how the IO feels at that moment about doing the "hard work" to process your extension for "retail price" (i.e., no extra-money from one of his agent-partners).

 

Thank you, again, "JackThompson," for the additional clarification on this problem.  

 

Money, up to a point, is not that important to me at this juncture. I need to stay in Thailand another 4 to 6 months to wait on my wife's U.S. spousal visa approval. If getting my extension based on Retirement means paying someone extra, I'm okay with that. A trip to Savannakhet or HCMC is certainly going to cost me additional funds, so it would be much easier to just get my extension done locally like I have done in the past; extra money (agent) or not.

 

Interestingly, when I first came to Thailand two years ago, I had gotten a non-0 single entry visa from a Thai consulate in the U.S. with the help of a Bangkok based law firm. During the last 30 days of the 90 day permit, my wife and I went to Changwattana with same lawyers and they got me an extension based on Retirement, using our Bangkok Hotel address, I assume; even though we were living in Chanthaburi at the time.

 

The following year when I went to my local office in Chanthaburi to apply for my new annual extension based on Retirement, the IO asked me why I had originally extended at Changwattana while living in their jurisdiction of Chanthaburi. The IO then asked me if I used an "Agent," not knowing exactly what an agent was, I replied yes. The IO was polite, but said that in the future, I should just come to their local office (Chanthaburi) and they would do my retirement extension for only 1900 baht. In other words, they were discouraging the use of an "agent." 

 

I will be traveling to this same office next week for my next retirement extension with one of the last U.S. Embassy income letters and back-up U.S. banking and pension documents. I'm hoping for the best, but If I need an agent to get this done, I will get one.

 

Which brings up one last question. If I am denied an extension next week without an agent, will that preclude my getting one and applying again, or will I need to go the "foreign consulate non-0 route???"

 

As always, thanks in advance for any helpful replies.

 

DH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rabas]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

Sadly, officials do not go by what makes sense. They go by what the rules mandate. The powers that be, in their infinite wisdom, have declared that income proof must henceforth consist of 65,000 baht each and every month transferred from overseas. If talking about what is sensible, why should you be obliged to transfer 65,000 baht into Thailand during the months when you are not even in Thailand if you subsequently want to qualify for a further extension?

Because they are looking for proof that a retiree really possesses ~800K to get him through the next year in Thailand for which he is asking for a visa. Either 800K in the bank or as a kind gesture to retirees show proof that you really received 12 * 65000B in the previous year. They do not care about the future or the Western definition of pension because they provide no proof. It is really that simple.

 

But this has been abused by foreigners (to a less extend by farang), Thai, Embassies, and immigration themselves. Now they are going to be asking for proof, which explains all the new rules. Why so picky? Thailand has absolutely no capability to authenticate 1000s of documents from 100s of countries in so many languages. Nada. No country does. Pension? They don't care except they thought maybe that form of overseas money they could believe, even that did not work out well.

 

EOD the new rules are causing lots of problems for many and frustration for all, but maybe it is a little less stressful if you understand they are just saying show me the beef, then I'll give you a visa.

[rabas]

9 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

11 hours ago, BritTim said:

Any income you have in Thailand, such as rental income from a condo you own, cannot be used as part of your income proof.

Ridiculous! Why would they refuse such income?

It's probably the easiest income for them to verify.

 

They don't. Just stick it in the bank and season appropriately. Use as part of a combo method. Easy as pie and no need even to confirm a 'stream'. Of course, retirees are forbidden to work so there is little in-country retiree income for most.

 

They will accept a FD account. They will not accept a local broker account, but if you take dividends out and add them to your bank account your good to go. Why no stocks? Stocks promise is in the future, they are not proof.

[BritTim]

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

Because they are looking for proof that a retiree really possesses ~800K to get him through the next year in Thailand for which he is asking for a visa. Either 800K in the bank or as a kind gesture to retirees show proof that you really received 12 * 65000B in the previous year. They do not care about the future or the Western definition of pension because they provides no proof. It is really that simple.

 

But this has been abused by foreigners (to a less extend by farang), Thai, Embassies, and immigration themselves. Now they are going to be asking for proof, which explains all the new rules. Why so picky? Thailand has absolutely no capability to authenticate 1000s of documents from 100s of countries in so many languages. Nada. No country does. Pension? They don't care except they thought maybe that form of overseas money they could believe, even that did not work out well.

 

EOD the new rules are causing lots of problems for many and frustration for all, but maybe it is a little less stressful if you understand they are just saying show me the beef, then I'll give you a visa.

There are a lot of assumptions that immigration is making based on your reading of their objective.

 

The first is that 800,000 baht a year is an appropriate budget for a retiree who spends at least, say, six months  year in Thailand. In fact, this may be too little or excessive depending on the retiree's situation. For someone living alone in a small condo he owns, it may be quite reasonable to assume actual spending of half that. On the other hand, someone renting a house, and supporting a girlfriend and two children will be spending more.

 

More important, immigration is assuming that a retiree will spend all his income in Thailand. Leaving aside the fact that someone spending only half the year in Thailand would obviously be spending much of his income elsewhere, many will have major expenses to meet elsewhere. For retirees, this will often be a health insurance package arranged and paid for in his home country.

 

For those whose current income is to a substantial degree based on investments made in Thailand, it can be very difficult to quickly convert them into overseas investments so that the income can be transferred into Thailand as opposed to originating here (and it is difficult to construct an explanation as to why this is in Thailand's best interests).

 

The old system, although I accept it was open to abuse, was more practical. Demonstrate a reasonable level of income (from whatever source) and bring into Thailand whatever is necessary to meet the expenses incurred here.

[DPKANKAN]

22 hours ago, JTXR said:

This is not good news.  I've been planning on using next month the US embassy affidavit I got at the very end of December 2018, which should have been good for 6 months (until the end of June).  The US embassy affidavit has always been just a certification of the US citizen's signature, never a certification of income.  If CW is not accepting the affidavits anymore, I'm effed. 

 

The thing is.... the wife went with me to CW the last time I did the 90-day report and we were assured by TI that they would accept the affidavit until the end of June.  Grrrr.

 

 

I did mine in March on my UK embassy affidavit letter from December no problems!!

[NanLaew]

3 hours ago, glegolo said:

he clearly says he constructed his very own affadavit and THEN asking his embassy to sign it which they did....... Me personally if being an IO here in Thailand, would have dismissed this document in a heartbeat.....

 

glegolo

That last sentence just confirms what a twunt you would be.

 

...or are.

[rabas]

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

There are a lot of assumptions that immigration is making based on your reading of their objective.

 

The first is that 800,000 baht a year is an appropriate budget for a retiree who spends at least, say, six months  year in Thailand. In fact, this may be too little or excessive depending on the retiree's situation. For someone living alone in a small condo he owns, it may be quite reasonable to assume actual spending of half that. On the other hand, someone renting a house, and supporting a girlfriend and two children will be spending more.

 

More important, immigration is assuming that a retiree will spend all his income in Thailand. Leaving aside the fact that someone spending only half the year in Thailand would obviously be spending much of his income elsewhere, many will have major expenses to meet elsewhere. For retirees, this will often be a health insurance package arranged and paid for in his home country.

All good points but you may still be looking from the expat view, I was trying to show the Thai view. As for partial year, that's like asking for a more complex set of rules.  Or, "Trust me, I will only be here 1/2 the time, not sure when, but give my 1 year visa." Again the issue of proof.

 

It literally comes down to how can Thai trust you when they cannot trust themselves?

 

As for how much you spend they don't care. There is no requirement to spend any of the  the 800K.  They only messy part is proving in the form of income from overseas, and again it is an issue of proof. 

 

"On the other hand, someone renting a house, and supporting a girlfriend and two children will be spending more."

 

True, but again, but how complex can they make the rules and enforce them?

[NanLaew]

23 minutes ago, DPKANKAN said:

I did mine in March on my UK embassy affidavit letter from December no problems!!

A Brit filing his retirement extension in March with a 3-month old income letter issued by the British embassy versus an American filing his retirement extension in June with a 6-month old income affidavit issued by the American embassy.

 

Yes, the similarities are truly uncanny.

[davhend25]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

A Brit filing his retirement extension in March with a 3-month old income letter issued by the British embassy versus an American filing his retirement extension in June with a 6-month old income affidavit issued by the American embassy.

 

Yes, the similarities are truly uncanny.

Your point being???

[BritTim]

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

True, but again, but how complex can they make the rules and enforce them?

As a practical matter, those who want to circumvent whatever rules are set will probably be able to do so. The question is what should reasonably be expected from someone who is trying to properly meet the requirements. It really comes down to what proportion of retirees were gaming the old system, how many of the cheats you are going to weed out with the new system, and how important it is to eliminate those who were misrepresenting their income (or, more likely, force the cheats to use agents instead). I would argue that the old system worked reasonable well as long as immigration was not suffering from collective paranoia.

[dddave]

23 hours ago, JTXR said:

This is not good news.  I've been planning on using next month the US embassy affidavit I got at the very end of December 2018, which should have been good for 6 months (until the end of June).  The US embassy affidavit has always been just a certification of the US citizen's signature, never a certification of income.  If CW is not accepting the affidavits anymore, I'm effed. 

 

The thing is.... the wife went with me to CW the last time I did the 90-day report and we were assured by TI that they would accept the affidavit until the end of June.  Grrrr.

 

 

I used the income affidavit I received at the US Embassy in December to renew my retirement extension last month at Chang Wattana.  It was accepted as it has always been and no other supporting documents were requested. 

[luckyluke]

So we have at ChaengW. a Belgian who's Affidavit was not accepted as only document, and an American who's was. 

 

Nothing changed : different day, different officer (even eventually same), different approach. 

[david555]

7 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

So we have at ChaengW. a Belgian who's Affidavit was not accepted as only document, and an American who's was. 

 

Nothing changed : different day, different officer (even eventually same), different approach. 

Just another day in Thai paradise ...business as usual T.i.T.

[glegolo]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

That last sentence just confirms what a twunt you would be.

 

...or are.

thank you - and by that you yourself has shown what kind of a man (or not) you are.....

 

glegolo