O-A visa 2005

[marcusarelus]

I arrived on an O-A visa in 2005.  I have been getting retirement extensions every year after that.  Am I still on an O-A visa?  

[fishtank]

No. That died Years ago.

You are on extensions of stay for retirement.

Edited July 8, 2019 by fishtank

[marcusarelus]

12 minutes ago, fishtank said:

No. That died Years ago.

You are on extensions of stay for retirement.

That's what I thought an insurance agent is quoting me insurance for an O-A and I wanted to tell him I'm not on one anymore if it makes a difference.  

[fishtank]

Makes a big difference. You don't need it.

It has not even been passed yet anyway.

[marcusarelus]

3 minutes ago, fishtank said:

Makes a big difference. You don't need it.

It has not even been passed yet anyway.

I realize that but I'm thinking of getting a different insurance before I get much older.  I'm not convinced I did the best job with my A1A when I got it a few years ago.  

[fishtank]

AIA are crap.

They are a life insurance company,

[marcusarelus]

Just now, fishtank said:

AIA are crap.

They are a life insurance company,

I am coming to that realization.  

[Tanoshi]

After your last 1 year entry on the O-A Visa, which then expired, you were granted permission of stay for 1 year. Within the last 30 days of the 1 year POS, you extended your POS again and have continued to do so each year since.

It's a permit, not a Visa.

[elviajero]

48 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

I arrived on an O-A visa in 2005.  I have been getting retirement extensions every year after that.  Am I still on an O-A visa?  

Yes.

 

It can’t be used anymore to enter the country, but details of that visa are required every year you apply for an extension of stay.

[fishtank]

Quote

I arrived on an O-A visa in 2005.  I have been getting retirement extensions every year after that.  Am I still on an O-A visa?

No.

[elviajero]

19 minutes ago, fishtank said:

Quote

I arrived on an O-A visa in 2005.  I have been getting retirement extensions every year after that.  Am I still on an O-A visa?

No.

If he doesn’t have a non-immigrant visa with the appropriate category how does he manage to extend his stay?

 

When he completes the TM.7 requesting to extend his stay, and has to fill out the part asking what type of “visa” he has, what should he write?

 

What do you think would happen if he applied to extend his stay based on retirement with a tourist visa?

 

A visa may no longer valid for new entries, but your visa status remains based on the last visa used to enter the country. In the OP’s case his visa status is “non-immigrant”, and the visa class is “O-A”.

[ubonjoe]

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

A visa may no longer valid for new entries, but your visa status remains based on the last visa used to enter the country. In the OP’s case his visa status is “non-immigrant”, and the visa class is “O-A”.

But that does not mean he is still her on a OA visa. It does not matter if it is non-o or a non-ed or a non-b visa or any other non immigrant visa since all of them are non immigrant visa. The visa class or reason for it being issued means nothing.

The only thing that matters the is reason for his extenion was issued for.

[Tanoshi]

18 minutes ago, elviajero said:

When he completes the TM.7 requesting to extend his stay, and has to fill out the part asking what type of “visa” he has, what should he write?

It only requests the Visa type, which is Non Immigrant.

The reason for any extension is based on entry from a particular Visa type.

 

[DrJack54]

50 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If he doesn’t have a non-immigrant visa with the appropriate category how does he manage to extend his stay?

 

When he completes the TM.7 requesting to extend his stay, and has to fill out the part asking what type of “visa” he has, what should he write?

 

What do you think would happen if he applied to extend his stay based on retirement with a tourist visa?

 

A visa may no longer valid for new entries, but your visa status remains based on the last visa used to enter the country. In the OP’s case his visa status is “non-immigrant”, and the visa class is “O-A”.

I've had this discussion before. Sometimes being so precise confuses the punters on TVF (like me). 

Thai imm do not help stamping your extension with a big RETIREMENT (in my case). So every punter states..."I have a retirement visa". You stick that and its misleading for many. 

A chap that had original OA or whatever changes reason for extension, eg retirement to based on marriage. 

On reentry the arrival card asks for VISA #. Sort of strange when you do not have a visa. You have permission of stay based on whatever. The "visa number" is your reentry permit number.

 

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

But that does not mean he is still her on a OA visa. It does not matter if it is non-o or a non-ed or a non-b visa or any other non immigrant visa since all of them are non immigrant visa. The visa class or reason for it being issued means nothing.

The only thing that matters the is reason for his extenion was issued for.

You accept that we need a non-immigrant visa to extend a stay, but claim the OP does not have a visa. That is a contradiction.

 

We are issued visas for specific reason to visit the country. On entry that visa class is written on the entry stamp, and that dictates how long we can stay and what extensions of that stay are available in the future.

 

You know better than most that sometimes immigration will only issue an extension if the applicant has the correct class of non-immigrant visa. For example sometimes, when going by the book, they will not allow someone with a non B issued for work to extend a stay based on retirement. And the applicant has to go outside of the country to get a Non O. 

 

I know that the police order only specifies that you need a non-immigrant visa, which is in part true, but in order to qualify for an extension based on retirement the orders are assuming the applicant has the correct class of visa on entry. 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

It only requests the Visa type, which is Non Immigrant.

I agree and would put Non-Immigrant Visa.

 

4 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

The reason for any extension is based on entry from a particular Visa type.

Correct, but the visa was issued for a specific reason and any extension of stay is meant to reflect that reason or another reason available for the class of visa.

 

Do you think I could apply for a non-ED in London, enter the country, and have no problem applying for an extension of stay based on marriage 3 months after entry?

 

Do you think a wife piggybacking their husbands stay permit could do so if they had a non ED class visa?

 

If the claim that you only need any non-immigrant visa were true there would be no need for visa classes.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

I've had this discussion before. Sometimes being so precise confuses the punters on TVF (like me). 

Thai imm do not help stamping your extension with a big RETIREMENT (in my case). So every punter states..."I have a retirement visa". You stick that and its misleading for many. 

A chap that had original OA or whatever changes reason for extension, eg retirement to based on marriage. 

On reentry the arrival card asks for VISA #. Sort of strange when you do not have a visa. You have permission of stay based on whatever. The "visa number" is your reentry permit number.

 

Having a re-entry permit, to protect a stay permit, doesn't change the fact that the person has a non-immigrant visa too.

 

Unless the person has a non-immigrant visa, used or valid, they cannot apply for an extension of stay. Maybe you/others think the visas existence changes once the extension is issued. It doesn't, and the reason a record is transferred to replacement passports is because the visas existence is required for all future extensions.

Edited July 8, 2019 by elviajero

[jacko45k]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

You accept that we need a non-immigrant visa to extend a stay, but claim the OP does not have a visa. That is a contradiction.

No, we need a current entry permit to stay based on a Non-Imm-O. 

I have an old USA Visa in my old passport long-long expired, I would not claim to have a USA Visa. I don't. 

 

You are arguing semantics that frankly muddies the waters wrt the old Visa/Permit/Extension argument. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by jacko45k

[marcusarelus]

4 hours ago, elviajero said:

Having a re-entry permit, to protect a stay permit, doesn't change the fact that the person has a non-immigrant visa too.

 

Unless the person has a non-immigrant visa, used or valid, they cannot apply for an extension of stay. Maybe you/others think the visas existence changes once the extension is issued. It doesn't, and the reason a record is transferred to replacement passports is because the visas existence is required for all future extensions.

So, if they pass the insurance for the O-A visa I would have to have insurance because I had an O-A visa 15 years ago?

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

So, if they pass the insurance for the O-A visa I would have to have insurance because I had an O-A visa 15 years ago?

Very very unlikely. Your 15 yo expired Visa is not important. You could burn the passport it is in. 

The insurance requirement would only be on new Visa applications. (Not extensions).

Edited July 8, 2019 by jacko45k

[fishtank]

15 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

So, if they pass the insurance for the O-A visa I would have to have insurance because I had an O-A visa 15 years ago?

No. You have an extension of stay based on retirement.

You do not have any visa.

You have 800,000 in a Thai bank or proof of income coming into the country.

O-A Visa holders do not.

Edited July 8, 2019 by fishtank

[lamyai3]

14 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

So, if they pass the insurance for the O-A visa I would have to have insurance because I had an O-A visa 15 years ago?

No, they've said it's for new applications and not extensions of stay (if it finally passes).

 

The confusion here seems to be with the insurance agent, who may have become confused by all the recent hoohah about Non O-A mandatory insurance. This caused insurance companies to quickly knock together made to measure plans that include the 40k outpatient coverage etc, sounds like he might be trying to shoehorn you in to one of these. 

[ubonjoe]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

You accept that we need a non-immigrant visa to extend a stay, but claim the OP does not have a visa. That is a contradiction.

Where did I write specifically he did not have a visa?  He certainly does not a valid visa.

All he has is permit to stay from a visa that expired many years ago. His old visa in insignificant now other than to prove he has been extending a entry from a non immigrant visa.

If have no visa in my passport now. The only thing I have is a stamp stating I used a non-o visa plus where and when it was issued.

[ubonjoe]

30 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

So, if they pass the insurance for the O-A visa I would have to have insurance because I had an O-A visa 15 years ago?

Certainly not. As I wrote you only have a permit to stay you got from a visa that expired long ago that you have been extending based upon retirement.

[lkv]

A visa  is a conditional authorisation granted by a territory to a foreigner, allowing them to enter, remain within, or to leave that territory. Visas typically may include limits on the duration of the foreigner's stay, areas within the country they may enter, the dates they may enter, the number of permitted visits or an individual's right to work in the country in question.

 

Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter a territory and thus are, in most countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country.

 

So:

 

A non O-A visa, like any other visa, pre-authorizes someone to travel to Thailand, and, upon satisfying Immigration, one is granted a permission of stay. In the case of the non O-A, that permission of stay is up to 12 months.

 

When one applies for an extension of stay, what they are extending is not the visa. They are extending the original permission of stay.

 

So when one extends 5 times, they just keep extending the same permission of stay. They just make it longer and longer. That's what they keep extending.

 

An extension of stay is an extension of a permission of stay.

 

The visa expires on the date stated on it: Valid Until. Meaning,  until that date you can use it to be pre-authorised to enter Thailand and receive the associated permission of stay.

 

I hope I did not confuse some, Ubonjoe is saying the same, perhaps in a more clear way.

Edited July 9, 2019 by lkv

[ubonjoe]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Do you think I could apply for a non-ED in London, enter the country, and have no problem applying for an extension of stay based on marriage 3 months after entry?

Yes 

I can recall it being done. But in most cases it was done after the 90 day entry had been extended.

Only the most pedant offices will make a problem for having a non immigrant visa entry that does not match the reason for the extension being applied for.

 

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Do you think a wife piggybacking their husbands stay permit could do so if they had a non ED class visa?

Yes

[wgdanson]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

You accept that we need a non-immigrant visa to extend a stay, but claim the OP does not have a visa. That is a contradiction.

 

We are issued visas for specific reason to visit the country. On entry that visa class is written on the entry stamp, and that dictates how long we can stay and what extensions of that stay are available in the future.

 

You know better than most that sometimes immigration will only issue an extension if the applicant has the correct class of non-immigrant visa. For example sometimes, when going by the book, they will not allow someone with a non B issued for work to extend a stay based on retirement. And the applicant has to go outside of the country to get a Non O. 

 

I know that the police order only specifies that you need a non-immigrant visa, which is in part true, but in order to qualify for an extension based on retirement the orders are assuming the applicant has the correct class of visa on entry. 

 

I must be a lucky one, or Phitsanulok is very kind. My VISA is a non B issued in 2010 when I worked in Pattaya. Been on retirement extensions since 2012 using that Visa, which is now transferred to my new passport.

[ubonjoe]

47 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

Been on retirement extensions since 2012 using that Visa, which is now transferred to my new passport.

Your visa was not transferred. They did a stamp with spaces on it  for info about the visa you used for entry that you have been extending along with info about your old passport when you got a new passport.

Here is the stamp or one similar to what you got.

 

[soisanuk]

7 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

No, they've said it's for new applications and not extensions of stay (if it finally passes).

 

The confusion here seems to be with the insurance agent, who may have become confused by all the recent hoohah about Non O-A mandatory insurance. This caused insurance companies to quickly knock together made to measure plans that include the 40k outpatient coverage etc, sounds like he might be trying to shoehorn you in to one of these. 

From all I have read, whether someone who entered Thailand on a Non-Immigrant O-A Visa will be also be required to have the mandatory insurance when they extend or renew their annual extensions of stay is still unknown - it may, or it may not.

 

The initial announcement by the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) stating the Cabinet had approved the health insurance requirement for obtaining a Non-Immigrant O-A Visa also said it would apply to "renewal" of the Visa.   IMO, the individual did not fully understand the Visa vs Permission to Stay issue as there is no such thing as "renewal of an O-A Visa" - if it expires, one can apply for a new one at a Thai Embassy/Consulate in their country of residence, but that is not a renewal.

 

If I recall correctly, the MoPH Official also made mention of having health insurance from outside of Thailand would be permissible so long as it met the minimums AND for those that could not obtain insurance, there may be a requirement for a cash deposit.   Further, he said the requirements were expected to go in force in July 2019 because the MoPH, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MofFA), and the Immigration Bureau would be getting together to come up with the detailed requirements.

 

IMO during these "meetings", a decision will be made re the "renewal" issue -that is, does it apply to extensions of stay based on entry using an Non-O-A Visa?  It is possible Immigration may decide to implement the requirement for extensions OR they may decide it doesn't apply to extensions.  As for MofFA, they will implement rules for Embassies/Consulates to follow, which most likely result in the requirement being imposed for issuance of the O-A Visa, with the unknown for them being what "proof" they may require if using a Non-Thai health insurance policy for "cash deposit" if the applicant can't get health insurance for Thailand.  Likewise, IF Immigration should decide to require it for extensions of stay (initial entry on O-A Visa), then they would also need to implement requirements re "documentation" of proof of insurance or cash deposit.

 

Ironing out these details among the three Gov't agencies may take longer than the MofPH Official that made the announcement thought -- since the initial announcement, I have not seen anything official from those agencies re the health insurance requirement. 

 

So, until these issues are worked out, folks can speculate on "yes it does" or "no it don't" apply to extensions of stay all they want - but as mentioned, no one can really say one way or the other barring any official announcements from Immigration on the matter.

 

 

[arithai12]

21 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

That's what I thought an insurance agent is quoting me insurance for an O-A and I wanted to tell him I'm not on one anymore if it makes a difference.  

Like many already said in so many words before, you are on retirement extension, not O-A. Tell him that, however  I don't think that an insurance premium changes depending on which visa/extension you have. Usually it's about age, lifestyle, and previous conditions.

Even if an O-A visa applicant might have to have an insurance and a person on retirement extension might not (TBC, since nothing is confirmed afaik), it is as you said elsewhere a good idea to get yourself a health insurance anyway, sooner than later. The older you start, the more you'll have to pay for the same coverage.