Denied Entry at Suvarnabhumi on METV

[jackdd]

51 minutes ago, BrakkaToss said:

Why does the expulsion order have a stamp by BFS instead of a signature from an immigration officer?

[Tony125]

20 minutes ago, Balance said:

What does an American citizen do who is coming to Thailand in October with his Thai wife for a three-week visit? What type of visa do I need? do I need to get a visa from the Thai embassy here in San Francisco before I come?

 

I lived in Thailand for 5 years with my wife from 2011 to 2016 on a retirement Visa. After coming back to Los Angeles for 3 months to get a serious AFib condition fixed, for several reasons we decided to come back to the States for a few years. We got her an immigrant visa and a green card at the embassy in Bangkok.

 

I am also curious as to what METV means.

You should not have any problems coming in Visa Exempt which is good for 30 days and can be extended at immigration for an additional 30 days for 1900 baht since you have not been here in a long time. Your wife  should hold on to her US passport and enter on her  Thai passport (even if it;s expired) That way she can stay as long as she wants as a returning Thai citizen. Can renew her Thai passport while she is here. You probably will need to show a ticket leaving Thailand  within 30 days if you come in visa exempt. Have at least the equivalent of 20,000 baht  cash on you. They will not have axcess to ATM till you clear immigration.

METV = Multible Entry Tourist Visa  can stay almost 9 months by extending each 60 day entry at immigration for 30 days for 1900 baht

Edited August 7, 2019 by Tony125

[StayinThailand2much]

1 hour ago, Straight8 said:

How exactly is it well known other than if you're a member of TV or know someone on TV???

 

Is it displayed when you purchase a ticket to Thailand - No, Is it mentioned on your Visa application form - No, Is it stated as a pre-requisite on your TM6 form when entering the country - No again.

 

So unless you frequent these forums or know someone who does, how the <deleted> are you meant to know this BS?

 

Wouldn't it at least make sense to have this requirement stated on your Tourist visa application form???

 

Then again, if, say, I book a flight to Australia, Russia, or China, etc., where I need a visa upfront, no-one will warn me that I need a visa for that country, or an adequate amount of funds (except, if I go to a brick-and-mortar travel agency)... You, the traveller, are supposed to know that in this day-and-age of the internet.

 

What makes it complicated, is, that certain IOs in countries like Thailand corrupt these simple regulations/laws by making up their own rules, e.g. "You have 20,000 baht, but I don't want to see them, so as far as I'm concerned, you do not have adequate funds..."

[zhangxifu]

Everyone here knows about this requirement. I've always travelled everywhere around the world with a good chunk of cash on me just in case I can't get to an ATM for a few days or there is some banking issue and I can't use one of my cards.
 
The issue here is people who are not familiar with the regulations, these are the people who are getting caught out and rejected.
 
The reason they're not familiar with the regulations is because they're so unusual.
 
Having said that I've never been asked to show any cash when entering the country anywhere, ever.

I know it is a bit weird requirement. But it really is this easy. For the type of traveller, for some there really is no helping.




Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[BrakkaToss]

Why does the expulsion order have a stamp by BFS instead of a signature from an immigration officer?

Sorry, I don’t know what is BFS. And I have no clue why this stamp is there and not another one. Is this unusual?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[moe666]

On 8/6/2019 at 4:57 PM, BritTim said:

I generally believe posts like yours until there is good reason to suspect something. However, immigration does not have the power to void visas. Perhaps, there is a problem in communication, but (if this report is not a complete fabrication) immigration is ignoring the visa, not cancelling it.

 

If your friend was not carrying cash, immigration can validly deny entry under Section 12 (9).

It has been stated here many times a visa is no guarantee of entry, the immigration officer at the airport can refuse you entry even for no reason which is what it appears they used on this guy.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, BrakkaToss said:

Sorry, I don’t know what is BFS. And I have no clue why this stamp is there and not another one. Is this unusual?

He was ordered to be locked up in a room by a private company (BFS looks like the airport management company)

I wouldn't let a private company lock me up in a room.

This is the government form they use to inform people that they are denied entry. To be valid it does of course have to be signed by an Immigration Officer. So if this is the only paper they gave him, your friend was never legally ordered to leave Thailand.

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, moe666 said:

the immigration officer at the airport can refuse you entry even for no reason

No, he can't.

This is the reason for them stamping people an arbitrary reason for denial in their passport.

[Baerboxer]

On 8/6/2019 at 4:55 PM, ukrules said:

They also audit your bank account prior to issuing this visa so we know this denial of entry is nothing to do with having funds available.

 

All countries allow their IO's some discretion to refuse entry if they suspect something.

 

Here though, we know that can sometimes seem a bit, er, abstract reasoning.

 

Maybe part of it is officers need to show their bosses they're rejecting people and refusing entry. So they're looking for any excuse to meet the target?

[Baerboxer]

18 minutes ago, jackdd said:

No, he can't.

This is the reason for them stamping people an arbitrary reason for denial in their passport.

 

Yes they can! If they don't like the look of you, feel something is wrong they can simply deny you entry. The fact they look for a reason against a number of specifics makes it easier for them to find a reason they can fit from the list. 

[balo]

6 hours ago, BrakkaToss said:

What saved his situation was that he did have thai sim card and internet and was allowed to have his phone in the cell (I read about people having their phones taken away from them). So he was able to share his documents (probably bank statements and stuff not sure yet) to someone in Thailand who then contacted the airport immigration and managed to get him out. Without that sim card he would have been on his way back to Europe.

 

I'm sorry , but how is that possible?   Are you telling us that immigration will change their mind if someone from the outside , probably a Thai was helping him? Maybe he had a work permit in the past?  I find this whole thing bizarre. 

[Letseng]

37 minutes ago, jackdd said:

He was ordered to be locked up in a room by a private company (BFS looks like the airport management company)

I wouldn't let a private company lock me up in a room.

This is the government form they use to inform people that they are denied entry. To be valid it does of course have to be signed by an Immigration Officer. So if this is the only paper they gave him, your friend was never legally ordered to leave Thailand.

BFS = Bangkok Flight Service. It is a services company. 

[balo]

2 hours ago, BrakkaToss said:

People who contacted immigration were the family of his thai girlfriend and a law firm of a company where a friend works.

Thanks, forget my earlier post, so a lawyer was helping out. 

Maybe we all should hire a Thai lawyer before we decide to take a break from Thailand in case we want to return. 
 

[Our Man in the Tropics]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Why does the expulsion order have a stamp by BFS instead of a signature from an immigration officer?

 

https://www.bangkokflightservices.com/home/

[BrakkaToss]

 
I'm sorry , but how is that possible?   Are you telling us that immigration will change their mind if someone from the outside , probably a Thai was helping him? Maybe he had a work permit in the past?  I find this whole thing bizarre. 

He never ever worked here. In fact last year was his first ever visit to south east asia on his previous METV. This one is the second time traveling to asia from Europe. It is bizzare I know. The lady who let him out of detention told him that she has never seen immigration change their mind like this. He isn’t sure who did what or said what or if that even helped, but the people who contacted immigration were his gf family and some lawyers from law firm in Thailand. Maybe because of this they reviewed the case again and found nothing wrong. I don’t know. But it happened and now he is in Thailand not on his way back to Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[BrakkaToss]

Thanks, forget my earlier post, so a lawyer was helping out. 

Maybe we all should hire a Thai lawyer before we decide to take a break from Thailand in case we want to return. 
 

He didn’t hire anyone, just someone was kind enough to have their lawyers to give legal advice, but it seems like they just contacted immigration instead of giving an advice :))


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

On 8/6/2019 at 6:08 PM, jackdd said:

The airline is responsible for taking him back out of Thailand. If he offers to buy a ticket with them to somewhere else, they will probably accept it.

Would be good to know if it is officially possible to buy a ticket out with another airline.

No he is. He had a valid METV when he boarded and thus they are not responsible.

[BrakkaToss]

He wasn’t allowed to choose where he wanted to fly. Had to use same airlines and they only fly to Ukraine. Also there are no direct flights from Bangkok to Lithuania so the only option was Ukraine (the connecting flight). They chose for him and were not considering any other options. Only home country or where he boarded his flight to Bangkok.
I would like to know too when and how other people get to choose where to fly by themselves.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[jackdd]

14 minutes ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

No he is. He had a valid METV when he boarded and thus they are not responsible.

According to Thai law, and also according to ICAO or IATA rules, they are responsible

[zhangxifu]

He wasn’t allowed to choose where he wanted to fly. Had to use same airlines and they only fly to Ukraine. Also there are no direct flights from Bangkok to Lithuania so the only option was Ukraine (the connecting flight). They chose for him and were not considering any other options. Only home country or where he boarded his flight to Bangkok.
I would like to know too when and how other people get to choose where to fly by themselves.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

That’s right, incase denied entry must use the same airline. If he used Airasia, plenty of options.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JayBird]

That’s right, incase denied entry must use the same airline. If he used Airasia, plenty of options.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Pro tip:

Never fly directly to Thailand. Always use air Asia from a nearby country.

[emoji14]

[jacko45k]

17 hours ago, atyclb said:

doesn't the thai embassy abroad verify finances required to obtain the visa ??  below from los angeles thai embassy

Yes, but you are expected to bring some of that with you.

[seancbk]

On 8/6/2019 at 4:52 PM, ukrules said:

Don't go to Thailand more than once a year as a tourist - the message is very clear.

 

Airlines will need to start screening passports prior to boarding or just stop flying to Thailand

 

I know an airline is fined when a person doesn't meet entry requirements, I wonder if this kind of denial also results in a fine for the airline....

 

That is nonsense.  Do you really think they are (or are going to) start turning away every person who arrives having been already in the past year or something?   

There is obviously some factor that we are not aware of and probably never will be aware of.  

 

 

[blorg]

The factor is he rolled the dice at BKK and got unlucky. No this is not going to happen to "every person" but it could happen to anyone a random IO decides in his personal opinion is "in Thailand too much".

 

I don't get why posters scramble so much to try to ascribe these things to some "other factor", some factor presumably that they feel they themselves are not at risk from.

 

There is overwhelming evidence of a long term but extra-legal and "unofficial" change in policy particularly at Bangkok airports resulting in capricious denials based on this criteria, of "being in Thailand too much".

 

I mean immigration even admitted they were wrong in this case and there was no legal basis for denying him eventually after lawyers got involved. But it took that, and if that didn't happen he would have been back on the plane to Ukraine.

 

So no, they are not going to deny "every person". But if you do visit Thailand frequently for extended periods on tourist visas, I would not fly into BKK or DMK. Maybe 9 times out of 10 you will be lucky, but there is an obvious risk there.

[StayinThailand2much]

5 hours ago, JayBird said:

Pro tip:

Never fly directly to Thailand. Always use air Asia from a nearby country.

Perhaps spend some of your holiday dollars in other nice places in the region.

[KhaoYai]

21 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Yes they can! If they don't like the look of you, feel something is wrong they can simply deny you entry.

In law they can't..................I think you know that. The answer is that legally they can't but they do. If the I.O. simply thinks you've visited too many times or for too long, I understand that the usual method is to deny entry on the grounds of insufficent cash - whether you sign the form given to that effect or not. You are then detained and deported. I believe there is an appeal process but no reports of anyone being successful. As I understand it there is no written rule that stipulates how many times you may enter or for how long.

 

This will continue until someone who has genuinely been wronged takes the matter further. I may be wrong but I can't see the appeal process being final. Yes, you may still be deported but I feel sure the matter can be challenged in the courts.

 

I have a meeting with a lawyer in a couple of weeks, I'll try to find out what process, if any, is available to someone who is denied entry with no good reason, appeals (at immigration) and fails.

 

This business of having to have 20,000 baht is ridiculous.  I'm old school and still use cash 90% of the time so I always have at least that amount available when I enter but I think in today's world, I am an exception. Most people use their cards for everything and few genuine visitors know about this requirement.  Its time this rule was either removed or updated to something like '20,000 baht in cash or proof that it is available'.

[Briggsy]

20 hours ago, BrakkaToss said:

I would like to know too when and how other people get to choose where to fly by themselves.

They don't. Everybody has to use the carrier they came on (like your friend). The previous poster was just speculating. 

[Briggsy]

6 hours ago, seancbk said:

There is obviously some factor that we are not aware of and probably never will be aware of.  

You are not aware of recent changes. They are turning away people who have spent several months in Thailand on tourist visas in the last couple of years. That is the criteria. That only applies to perhaps less than 5% of entries. There is no other factor. There is nothing else. I know. It happened to me. The only criteria is spending 50% of your time (usually the last year but doesn't have to be, could be last 6 months) in Thailand on tourist visas or visa exempt. That's it. Nothing else.

[Briggsy]

12 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

This business of having to have 20,000 baht is ridiculous.  I'm old school and still use cash 90% of the time so I always have at least that amount available when I enter but I think in today's world, I am an exception. Most people use their cards for everything and few genuine visitors know about this requirement.  Its time this rule was either removed or updated to something like '20,000 baht in cash or proof that it is available'.

Remember, they often don't ask to see the cash. They just deny you under 12 (2) "no appropriate means of supporting oneself". The cash reason is 12 (9). So even if you have the cash, they can and do still deny you.

[BritTim]

21 hours ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

No he is. He had a valid METV when he boarded and thus they are not responsible.

With respect, you clearly are ignorant of the IATA rules on inadmissible persons. The visa status and reason for denial of entry are irrelevant (though it can be a factor in whether the airline is fined). The airline that carried him to Thailand is responsible for removing him. This is true even if the airline is not paid for the flight. It is sometimes a totally unfair expense for the airline, but those are the rules. Some notes:

• the rules are totally different if someone is deported after being admitted to Thailand;
• if the airline was at fault, they are responsible for the cost of food and lodging for the inadmissible person, as well as their removal; otherwise authorities in the arrival country must foot the bill (which explains their reluctance to allow appeals by those who know the law);
• those incurring expenses due to the denied entry can try to get reimbursement, and whether they are successful will depend on the laws in the country they attempt this, as well as how well the inadmissible person knows the rules.

Edited August 8, 2019 by BritTim