Denied Entry at Suvarnabhumi on METV

[BritTim]

21 hours ago, BrakkaToss said:

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

You only get a choice if the airline flies to other destinations, you know the rules, and the airline cannot grab unused flight sectors, using the proceeds as they see fit (probably illegally, but hard to fight). Your leverage is that the airline does fly where you want to go, and they want to be paid for the flight.

[DrJack54]

50 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You only get a choice if the airline flies to other destinations, you know the rules, and the airline cannot grab unused flight sectors, using the proceeds as they see fit (probably illegally, but hard to fight). Your leverage is that the airline does fly where you want to go, and they want to be paid for the flight.

Tim, while I have head it happen that someone "negotiated" flight to other than where he/she boarded, that was bar chat.

I would imagine almost for sure person denied entry would be flown back to where they embarked. A report few months back where UK guy got returned to Saigon (he had a setv). Problem is UK having visa exempt 15 day imm would not allow him reentry visa exempt. I found that interesting as airline would have know that. Anyway after rejected at Saigon was flown to UK. 

There are few folk with long continuous stay then fly back to Europe, USA, etc. Shortly after fly back bkk.

That would make for one hell of nervous flight into bkk. 

Point of this long winded post is even after rejection at Saigon the guy could not select say nearby country. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by DrJack54

[BritTim]

50 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Point of this long winded post is even after rejection at Saigon the guy could not select say nearby country. 

I do not know which airline was involved, their route map, or whether the guy knew the rules and how to fight for his rights. The people who post in this forum are better informed than most travellers to Thailand, but you will see from their posts that few of them know the rules. You cannot fight for your rights if you are unaware of them.

[NanLaew]

13 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I do not know which airline was involved, their route map, or whether the guy knew the rules and how to fight for his rights. The people who post in this forum are better informed than most travellers to Thailand, but you will see from their posts that few of them know the rules. You cannot fight for your rights if you are unaware of them.

Thailand... immigration... rights...

 

Right.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

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.

Yes but if that option was removed, an I.O. might find it difficult to deny entry on spurious grounds.

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

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);

Wait a moment, if I'm understanding that correctly then........ I don't think there is any onus on the airline's part to check that you have sufficient funds, and we know that many who are denied entry for that reason actually do have funds. Therefore, neither the person who is being denied entry or the airline are responsible for the cost of any deportation flight and Thai immigration will have to pay.

 

A few flights like that and they may change their policy.

 

I've always thought that if I was denied entry I would tell them they can stick paying for the flight out myself.  I guess they would counter that by locking you up for longer though.

[DrJack54]

27 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Yes but if that option was removed, an I.O. might find it difficult to deny entry on spurious grounds.

Your posts get more funnier by the day. That option cannot be removed because its part of law. Yes maybe applied incorrectly but that's another thread for debate.

Edited August 8, 2019 by DrJack54

[BritTim]

6 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Wait a moment, if I'm understanding that correctly then........ I don't think there is any onus on the airline's part to check that you have sufficient funds, and we know that many who are denied entry for that reason actually do have funds. Therefore, neither the person who is being denied entry or the airline are responsible for the cost of any deportation flight and Thai immigration will have to pay.

I should have phrased this a little differently to avoid some misinterpreting. The airline is always responsible for removing inadmissible passengers. What varies is who must pay for food and lodging.

[KhaoYai]

8 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Your posts get more funnier by the day.

Pleased to amuse you. Why don't you stop being an arrogant <deleted> and actually read the conversation before you make such stupid comments?

 

If you took the time to do that you would see that I was saying that its time the rule was either removed or updated. Or are you claiming that all Thai rules and laws are cast in stone forever, nothing can be changed?

[DrJack54]

17 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Wait a moment, if I'm understanding that correctly then........ I don't think there is any onus on the airline's part to check that you have sufficient funds, and we know that many who are denied entry for that reason actually do have funds. Therefore, neither the person who is being denied entry or the airline are responsible for the cost of any deportation flight and Thai immigration will have to pay.

 

A few flights like that and they may change their policy.

 

I've always thought that if I was denied entry I would tell them they can stick paying for the flight out myself.  I guess they would counter that by locking you up for longer though.

The passenger pays. At very least the airline will (rare).

The person is not being deported. Denied means not even entered country.

On side note. Not directly related to Thailand but makes a point. Made news headlines few times now in AU papers.....imm control Bali refused entry due to MINOR damage to pp. Denied entry to Bali passenger returned to au.

Also airline fined by Bali imm. 

[DrJack54]

5 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Pleased to amuse you. Why don't you stop being an arrogant <deleted> and actually read the conversation before you make such stupid comments?

 

If you took the time to do that you would see that I was saying that its time the rule was either removed or updated. Or are you claiming that all Thai rules and laws are cast in stone forever, nothing can be changed?

The laws that your referring to have been so for long time. Don't see them changing. We can hope for enforcement to change. However tm30 enforcement changes recently indicate that going in opposite direction.

Edited August 8, 2019 by DrJack54

[KhaoYai]

14 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

The laws that your referring to have been so for long time. Don't see them changing. We can hope for enforcement to change. However tm30 enforcement changes recently indicate that going in opposite direction.

Thank you and in fact I agree - change is unlikely. However, there is more chance of it changing if these things are brought to the attention of those in power than there is if they are allowed to continue to go on unchecked.

 

Consider this (hypothetically) - a person is denied entry on the grounds that he has insufficient funds when in fact he has the funds (as has been reported). His appeal is denied but somehow he manages to get the matter heard before a court. How would an immigration officer defend his stance if the traveller proved he did have the funds?

 

Yes, I know its Thailand and I know that fairness is 'out of the window' but its only through raising these issues in the right places that there is any chance of change.

 

I've now heard of tourists becoming concerned about visiting Thailand because of what they've heard about denials, TM30 etc. - even one case of a family cancelling their trip. Of course they really have no need to worry but if such things become more common and tourism is affected, I think that will produce some changes. I'm not a fan of social media but by god its powerful.

Edited August 8, 2019 by KhaoYai

[StayinThailand2much]

56 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

On side note. Not directly related to Thailand but makes a point. Made news headlines few times now in AU papers.....imm control Bali refused entry due to MINOR damage to pp. Denied entry to Bali passenger returned to au.

Also airline fined by Bali imm. 

Well, the Aussies do the same, as seen on the TV show: "Border Security: Australia's Frontline".

[acenase]

You get to fly where you want to go based on where the Airlines flies.

 

But most often the Airlines you flew in on, will only fly back to the country you came from. Such as Ukraine Air, there are no flights that go from BKK-Laos on Ukraine Air or Cathay Pacific, you most likely have to fly back to that country the plane comes from... so if you fly in on an airline, and get denied, you need to fly out on that same airline wherever they have a BKK-XYZ flight and 99% of the time, it will be back to where you came from. 

 

I used Thai Airlines, and they have many routes flying out of BKK- Laos, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. So if you're lucky and flew in on Thai Airlines and got denied, you can fly right into Laos and enter through the border on the same day.

Edited August 8, 2019 by acenase

[Sujo]

On 8/7/2019 at 7:04 PM, zhangxifu said:

 

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

 

Nowhere does it say you need 20,000 to be in cash. No reasonable person would even think that means cash.

[HampiK]

58 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Well, the Aussies do the same, as seen on the TV show: "Border Security: Australia's Frontline".

Not only Australia... there are the same for Canada, US, New Zealand... and I guess even more of this TV shows exists.. and in reality many border to the same. 

[KhaoYai]

27 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nowhere does it say you need 20,000 to be in cash. No reasonable person would even think that means cash.

Not supporting this in any way but it does say cash or traveller's cheques in some places - it also says 'or equivalent in another currency'  there is also some wording about alternative currencies being major or acceptable - something like that. Can't remember exactly where I've seen that but the Thai embassy in London has something similar - from their website:

 

'Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveller’s cheque or cash equivalent to 10,000 Baht per person and 20,000 Baht per family.'

 

Clearly a copy and paste from an old rule though - its now 20,000 and 40,000 respectively.

[BrakkaToss]

You get to fly where you want to go based on where the Airlines flies.
 
But most often the Airlines you flew in on, will only fly back to the country you came from. Such as Ukraine Air, there are no flights that go from BKK-Laos on Ukraine Air or Cathay Pacific, you most likely have to fly back to that country the plane comes from... so if you fly in on an airline, and get denied, you need to fly out on that same airline wherever they have a BKK-XYZ flight and 99% of the time, it will be back to where you came from. 
 
I used Thai Airlines, and they have many routes flying out of BKK- Laos, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. So if you're lucky and flew in on Thai Airlines and got denied, you can fly right into Laos and enter through the border on the same day.

Good to know. Thank you. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, acenase said:

You get to fly where you want to go based on where the Airlines flies.

 

But most often the Airlines you flew in on, will only fly back to the country you came from. Such as Ukraine Air, there are no flights that go from BKK-Laos on Ukraine Air or Cathay Pacific, you most likely have to fly back to that country the plane comes from... so if you fly in on an airline, and get denied, you need to fly out on that same airline wherever they have a BKK-XYZ flight and 99% of the time, it will be back to where you came from. 

 

I used Thai Airlines, and they have many routes flying out of BKK- Laos, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. So if you're lucky and flew in on Thai Airlines and got denied, you can fly right into Laos and enter through the border on the same day.

Absolute rubbish. Can you quote ONE post of someone denied entry to Thailand and then obtained flight to destination other than where they embarked.

[elviajero]

4 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Absolute rubbish. Can you quote ONE post of someone denied entry to Thailand and then obtained flight to destination other than where they embarked.

I could l, but can’t be bothered to do the search. There was at least one report from a member that was denied and the airline allowed him to fly elsewhere.

 

And if you present immigration with a valid ticket to fly elsewhere they can — their choice — allow you to use it.

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I could l, but can’t be bothered to do the search. There was at least one report from a member that was denied and the airline allowed him to fly elsewhere.

 

And if you present immigration with a valid ticket to fly elsewhere they can — their choice — allow you to use it.

ONE of MANY does not support good advice on tvf.

Yes I am aware of post where very determined fella somehow managed to do that. He dodged bullet. 

The vast majority do not.

Let's stick to that advice.

Again nit pick. Geezus

Just read last part of your post ..if you present imm with valid ticket....Are you making this stuff up. So I get denied entry, imm won't even let me show cash...I'm on way to "waiting room" ....no one will talk to me and I quickly book online ticket to Saigon and flash it to escort...I'm all good to go.

Edited August 8, 2019 by DrJack54

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

ONE of MANY does not support good advice on tvf.

Yes I am aware of post where very determined fella somehow managed to do that. He dodged bullet. 

The vast majority do not.

555 and yet you accused the other member of writing "absolute rubbish" and asking for proof!

 

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

Let's stick to that advice.

Again nit pick. Geezus

Just read last part of your post ..if you present imm with valid ticket....Are you making this stuff up. So I get denied entry, imm won't even let me show cash...I'm on way to "waiting room" ....no one will talk to me and I quickly book online ticket to Saigon and flash it to escort...I'm all good to go.

I don't make anything up. It's the law;

Section 55 : Aliens being deported under this Act shall be sent back by any conveyance or route as the competent official may consider appropriate.

The expense of deportation shall be charged to the owner or person in charge of the conveyance which brought the alien into the Kingdom. If there appears to be no owner or person in charge of the conveyance, the alien committing the act against the provisions of Section 63 or 64 will have to pay the expense of deportation. The competent official shall have power to ask for deportation expenses from one of the aliens committing the offense or from all of them. However , if the alien concerned wishes to go by and other conveyance or by an other route, at his own expense , the competent official may permit him to do so.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

The person is not being deported. Denied means not even entered country.

You are expelled from the country and that is deportation.

 

Deported

"expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.

"he was deported for violation of immigration laws"

synonyms:

expel,

 

• Thai immigration issue an expulsion notice, when deporting someone denied entry using Thai immigration law entitled "Deportation of the Aliens" However, a deportation stamp isn't used; instead they issue a denied entry stamp, and the expulsion is not recorded as a formal deportation.
• You have entered the country. You just haven't been given formal permission to stay. 

[BritTim]

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You are expelled from the country and that is deportation.

 

Deported

"expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.

"he was deported for violation of immigration laws"

synonyms:

expel,

 

• Thai immigration issue an expulsion notice, when deporting someone denied entry using Thai immigration law entitled "Deportation of the Aliens" However, a deportation stamp isn't used; instead they issue a denied entry stamp, and the expulsion is not recorded as a formal deportation.
• You have entered the country. You just haven't been given formal permission to stay. 

At the time of the 1979 law, the rules on inadmissible persons (especially as concerns those arriving by air) were not as well defined internationally as they are today. It is now well established that inadmissible persons are treated completely differently from deported persons. The law is not exactly wrong, but it is a little misleading as regards modern practice. Today, it is not considered that you have entered Thailand. Indeed, the modern interpretation is that you have been deemed inadmissible. Further, it does not imply that any laws have necessarily been broken, just that Thailand prefers not to receive you.

 

Other countries may want to know the reason you wee denied entry, but being an inadmissible person is generally taken much less seriously than someone being deported which usually implies a serious offence.

[elviajero]

39 minutes ago, BritTim said:

At the time of the 1979 law, the rules on inadmissible persons (especially as concerns those arriving by air) were not as well defined internationally as they are today. It is now well established that inadmissible persons are treated completely differently from deported persons. The law is not exactly wrong, but it is a little misleading as regards modern practice. Today, it is not considered that you have entered Thailand. Indeed, the modern interpretation is that you have been deemed inadmissible. Further, it does not imply that any laws have necessarily been broken, just that Thailand prefers not to receive you.

 

Other countries may want to know the reason you wee denied entry, but being an inadmissible person is generally taken much less seriously than someone being deported which usually implies a serious offence.

I agree. But to say someone being expelled from a country is not being deported, is wrong. It’s pedantic.

 

You are conflating entering a country with being given permission to stay in a country. If I land a plane in the middle of Thailand which country would I be in? You enter a country as soon as you cross it’s external border.

[sunnyboy2018]

On 8/6/2019 at 12:23 PM, TaoNow said:

Regarding the Facebook info, why would anyone use their passport name to create a FB account? 

 

Why relinquish your privacy? 

 

There is no way FB can verify whether a proposed account name is the passport name or not.

Yes they can. They freeze your account then you can only open it with PP as proof of name and identity.

[BritTim]

20 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I agree. But to say someone being expelled from a country is not being deported, is wrong. It’s pedantic.

 

You are conflating entering a country with being given permission to stay in a country. If I land a plane in the middle of Thailand which country would I be in? You enter a country as soon as you cross it’s external border.

Under that interpretation, I have frequently entered a dozen countries or more during a single international flight as I have entered those countries' airspace.

 

When talking about deportation and inadmissible persons, it is not pedantic to draw the distinction. It is essential. In the case of deportation, any country you are proposing to send the deportee to (or even transit through) must be informed beforehand and can refuse to receive them. The same is true of the airline. With an inadmissible person, the authorities have a lot of leeway. There is no international rule (though there can be local laws) that mandates stamps in the passport, and immigration are allowed by international rules to permit the inadmissible person to leave the country in the person's preferred manner. The international rules only state that (absent any other solution) the responsibility remains with the airline as the authorities in the arrival country have not assumed responsibility for them.

[elviajero]

5 minutes ago, BritTim said:

When talking about deportation and inadmissible persons, it is not pedantic to draw the distinction.

We are talking about the deportation OF inadmissible persons as opposed to the deportation of a criminal or illegal alien. In both cases they are deported, they just have different stamps/paperwork to distinguish between the two types of deportation.

 

The action of forcibly removing a foreigner is deportation; the reason for deportation is what is distinguished.

 

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Under that interpretation, I have frequently entered a dozen countries or more during a single international flight as I have entered those countries' airspace.

I specifically said land in Thailand to keep it simple. If I haven’t entered Thailand when I land where exactly am I?

 

There is illegal entry and legal entry. To complete a legal entry you must enter the country via a proper route, and then pass through immigration control to formalise that entry.

[BritTim]

43 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I specifically said land in Thailand to keep it simple. If I haven’t entered Thailand when I land where exactly am I?

By current international rules, you are considered to be in transit.

[lkv]

10 minutes ago, BritTim said:

By current international rules, you are considered to be in transit.

If the plane crashes in a field in Isaan am I:

 

A. In Thailand

B. In transit

C. Likely dead

 

Just kidding ????