Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Chiang Mai immigration demanding insurance for extensions

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post

I didnt believe it, but buddy is in CNX immigration now and they are informing people that 'retirement extensions' for dates after 31st Oct now must have insurance. If the extension is due before end of the month they are still processing it without it. 

 

He even sent a video with officer saying this and confirmed by local visa agent also. 

 

To my understanding thats counter to everything stated online and in press but hey.. Good old officer discretion again ?!? 

I fail to see why an 'extension based on retirement' which can be a extending a non imm O, rather than a non imm O-A, is now processed according to non O-A rules, or why those rules are being forced when all information said it was only when the visa was issued outside the kingdom, but thats how its apparently being done. 

 

I am sure it will be different all over, but thats this morning in Chiang Mai. 

  

  • Replies 101
  • Views 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Now that I have been able to listen to the video it is clear that both the video and the Line message from Agent do NOT say what thread claims, quite the opposite. Thread is thus closed. Please note f

  • scubascuba3
    scubascuba3

    should close the thread, scaremongering incorrect info about non imm O

  • scubascuba3
    scubascuba3

    no excuse for scaremongering about the O and it's not even mentioned

Posted Images

  • Popular Post

That confirms what was written by Assist Thai Visa on Facebook and comes as no surprise, for whatever reason CM Immi. seems always to be the first in the country to implement new processes, even if they are at odds with what Bangkok is doing.

The OP is pretty much what the Integrity Legal lawyer on youtube has been saying consistently. I am hoping he is wrong. But it's been unclear. I've been pushing back about anyone stating that they know for sure what's going to happen starting next month for EXTENSIONS either way. Why rush projecting CERTAINTY when there isn't enough basis for it? Of course it may end being yet another Thai immigration hodgepodge of different offices doing things different ways. God help us!

  • Author

I realize this is a little unclear, but this is what was sent when I protested that this was incorrect info.. 

72386042_698229150683228_3136173892494688256_n.jpg

Has April Fool.s Day come early.

Let.s see  it in Official Writing 

To my knowledge. all reports since  the Official announcement  are Bunkum

  • Popular Post

BTW -- if Chiang Mai is really going to enforce it this way, I would suggest they probably mean ALL extensions, not only those where the applicant started with an O-A. Again that's how the Integrity Legal guy reads it -- ALL retirement extensions. 

 

To add, to those that say such reports are rumor mongering, I would say, are they really?

 

As we have no certainty yet couldn't you also say members posting with authority DEFINITELY NOT FOR EXTENSIONS are doing a kind of rumor mongering themselves?

 

Is there anything that wrong with just admitting we don't know for certain yet?

Edited by Jingthing

I didnt believe it, but buddy is in CNX immigration now and they are informing people that 'retirement extensions' for dates after 31st Oct now must have insurance. If the extension is due before end of the month they are still processing it without it. 
 
He even sent a video with officer saying this and confirmed by local visa agent also. 
 
To my understanding thats counter to everything stated online and in press but hey.. Good old officer discretion again ?!? 

I fail to see why an 'extension based on retirement' which can be a extending a non imm O, rather than a non imm O-A, is now processed according to non O-A rules, or why those rules are being forced when all information said it was only when the visa was issued outside the kingdom, but thats how its apparently being done. 
 
I am sure it will be different all over, but thats this morning in Chiang Mai. 
  

Does this apply only for O-A or NonO as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
  • Author
Just now, Gweiloman said:


Does this apply only for O-A or NonO as well?

What appears to be said is that all extensions based on retirement are being treated as an O-A type no matter which initial visa generated the permission of stay thats being extended. 

 

I find that incredible, and find that counter to everything thats been said so far.. So dont shoot the messenger as I believe this to be wrong, but reports are that CNX is demanding insurance for retirement extensions, no matter the way those permissions of stay were created. 

  • Author
6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

BTW -- if Chiang Mai is really going to enforce it this way, I would suggest they probably mean ALL extensions, not only those where the applicant started with an O-A. Again that's how the Integrity Legal guy reads it -- ALL retirement extensions. 

It sounds like thier position is an extension based on retirement is under the class of O-A. 

 

It shouldnt be IMO, the O-A is a specific visa class, but thats what is being said. 

 

Marriage extensions are currently not being asked for this. 

Edited by LivinLOS

  • Popular Post
Just now, LivinLOS said:

What appears to be said is that all extensions based on retirement are being treated as an O-A type no matter which initial visa generated the permission of stay thats being extended. 

 

I find that incredible, and find that counter to everything thats been said so far.. So dont shoot the messenger as I believe this to be wrong, but reports are that CNX is demanding insurance for retirement extensions, no matter the way those permissions of stay were created. 

Non-O retirement is not a Non O-A (as you know) and does not require the insurance I had that confirmed in writing by my visa company.

  • Popular Post
I didnt believe it, but buddy is in CNX immigration now and they are informing people that 'retirement extensions' for dates after 31st Oct now must have insurance. If the extension is due before end of the month they are still processing it without it.   

He even sent a video with officer saying this and confirmed by local visa agent also. 

 

To my understanding thats counter to everything stated online and in press but hey.. Good old officer discretion again ?!? 

 

I fail to see why an 'extension based on retirement' which can be a extending a non imm O, rather than a non imm O-A, is now processed according to non O-A rules, or why those rules are being forced when all information said it was only when the visa was issued outside the kingdom, but thats how its apparently being done. 

 

I am sure it will be different all over, but thats this morning in Chiang Mai. 

  

 

According to what you post later local visa agent did NOT confirm that all extensions need it. She talks only of O-A visa. 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

What appears to be said is that all extensions based on retirement are being treated as an O-A type no matter which initial visa generated the permission of stay thats being extended. 

 

I find that incredible, and find that counter to everything thats been said so far.. So dont shoot the messenger as I believe this to be wrong, but reports are that CNX is demanding insurance for retirement extensions, no matter the way those permissions of stay were created. 

If indeed Chiang mai Immigration are making a(nother) unilateral declaration of independence when it comes to enforcing making up immigration rules and the O's are getting lumped in with the O-A's insurance shake down, I foresee a rush of uninsured and unattached O's frantically seeking Thai spouses.

  • Author
Just now, Sheryl said:

According to what you post later local vida agent did NOT confirm that all extensions need it. She talks only of O-A visa.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I am told, they are calling all retirement extensions this class, she was replying to someone who was extending on the basis of marriage. So it didnt apply to his case. 

Also I am informed I was wrong above, extensions being done now, but whose extension date is after the 31st, are still being done without it. 

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Non-O retirement is not a Non O-A (as you know) and does not require the insurance I had that confirmed in writing by my visa company.

Your visa company in Chiang Mai?

4 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

What appears to be said is that all extensions based on retirement are being treated as an O-A type no matter which initial visa generated the permission of stay thats being extended. 

 

I find that incredible, and find that counter to everything thats been said so far.. So dont shoot the messenger as I believe this to be wrong, but reports are that CNX is demanding insurance for retirement extensions, no matter the way those permissions of stay were created. 

Yes that been something that the Integrity Legal guy has been focused on in a number of videos. According to him expats are living in fantasy land if they think that Thai immigration views extensions based on original O or O-A visa are different. According to him they are viewed exactly the same, There is evidence that he is correct. Once you enter the extension system in Thailand, it never makes one bit of difference. Is he right about that? I don't know. The party line here is that he is wrong. All I know at this point is UNCERTAINTY.

Just now, NanLaew said:

Your visa company in Chiang Mai?

Yes a very well known one.

3 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

What appears to be said is that all extensions based on retirement are being treated as an O-A type no matter which initial visa generated the permission of stay thats being extended. 

 

I find that incredible, and find that counter to everything thats been said so far.. So dont shoot the messenger as I believe this to be wrong, but reports are that CNX is demanding insurance for retirement extensions, no matter the way those permissions of stay were created. 

Hell my life. is caving in.

before comitting  sucide LOL

please some one. get it from the

The Immgration Dept in Writing 

 

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

According to what you post later local vida agent did NOT confirm that all extensions need it. She talks only of O-A visa.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes but you're making an assumption that Thai immigration offices actually make that distinction. it's a reasonable assumption but based on their internal processes it might not be true. 

  • Popular Post

should close the thread, scaremongering incorrect info about non imm O

5 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

It sounds like thier position is an extension based on retirement is under the class of O-A. 

 

It shouldnt be IMO, the O-A is a specific visa class, but thats what is being said. 

 

Marriage extensions are currently not being asked for this. 

Yes you got it. That's what Integrity Legal thinks. His videos explain why he thinks that way.

  • Popular Post
Just now, scubascuba3 said:

should close the thread, scaremongering incorrect info about non imm O

Is a tornado warning scaremongering? Don't act like there is certainly about these issues when there isn't. Ignorance isn't always bliss.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Yes but you're making an assumption that Thai immigration offices actually make that distinction. it's a reasonable assumption but based on their internal processes it might not be true. 

In  Official  Immgr Dept writing . u are with respect stirring the pot

Thank u 

  • Author
5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

should close the thread, scaremongering incorrect info about non imm O

I am simply reporting what is being said (with proof in the video) by Chiang Mai immigration. 

 

I dont agree with it, I dont think this is what was announced, and I think this is an incorrect interpretation by CNX immi.. But it IS a valid report based on what is being said this morning. 

Your also missing the crucial point that many had stated this would not be checked at extensions (on any class even O-As) and that clearly is now proven incorrect. This is confirmation at least that after Oct 31 an extension incountry of an O-A class does require insurance. 

Edited by LivinLOS

  • Popular Post

Agree, incorrect interptetation by CM Imm.

I would suggest anyone doing an extension there to have with them copy of the police order with the O-A part highlighted and be orepated to call the Immigration info line if necessary and have them talk to the IO.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

  • Popular Post
2 minutes ago, deej said:

In  Official  Immgr Dept writing . u are with respect stirring the pot

Thank u 

Then put me on ignore. I am posting with total sincerity. These issues are definitely not resolved yet and I think it's a disservice to the public to play act like they are. 

  • Popular Post
I am simply reporting what is being said (with proof in the video) by Chiang Mai immigration. 

 

I dont agree with it, I dont think this is what was announced, and I think this is an incorrect interpretation by CNX immi.. But it IS a valid report based on what is being said this morning. 

no mention of non imm O in the video or line message so like i said purely scaremongering to mention it

 

  • Popular Post

some people on retirement here are on their last legs and a post like this could actually push them over the edge. It is highly irresponsible to leave this post on here at this moment in time. 

 

Please remove it before someone does something stupid. ????

  • Author
Just now, scubascuba3 said:
3 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:
I am simply reporting what is being said (with proof in the video) by Chiang Mai immigration. 
 
I dont agree with it, I dont think this is what was announced, and I think this is an incorrect interpretation by CNX immi.. But it IS a valid report based on what is being said this morning. 

no mention of non imm O in the video so like i said purely scaremongering to mention it

And the part about people claiming that no incountry extensions needed insurance, only the initial issueane of the visa outside the kingdom ?? 

Just now, Sheryl said:

Agree, incorrect interptetation by CM Imm.

I would suggest anyone doing an extension there to have with them copy of the police order with the O-A part highlighted and be orepated to call the Immigration info line if necessary and have them talk to the IO.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The order in English.

Your certainty is based on that reading but you have no knowledge of the internal processes of immigration offices where indeed there is evidence they make NO distinction between O and O-A at the time of applying for extensions. 

  • Popular Post

Well unless I misheard the video clip he says only for Non O-A issued at a Thai embassy or consulate outside Thailand..

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.