My first Non Imm visa obtained from out of country, was a Non Imm 0, based on Marriage. Later, I changed that to based on Retirement. The visa page in the PP still states "Non Imm O". Can someone explain the difference, if any, and is there any difference on the potential insurance requirements for "Non Imm  O" vs "Non Imm O-A". Thanks. 

The non-o visa would not be subject to the purported insurance requirement for those on extensions of stay based upon retirement that extended a one year entry from a NON-OA visa.

You have nothing to worry about at this time or IMO in the future.

On 10/21/2019 at 7:52 AM, ubonjoe said:

The non-o visa would not be subject to the purported insurance requirement for those on extensions of stay based upon retirement that extended a one year entry from a NON-OA visa.

You have nothing to worry about at this time or IMO in the future.

That's a bit confusing to me, ubonjoe, and I've wondered about this myself. Does the NON-OA visa get turned into a NON-O visa upon extension based upon Retirement and/or Marriage?

36 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

Does the NON-OA visa get turned into a NON-O visa upon extension based upon Retirement and/or Marriage?

No it does not. It is just an extension of a non immigrant visa entry. The additional letter after the O makes no difference after a extension issued.

This is exactly the questionable point:
After the 1-year-extension the Non-O Visa is in the end the same as the Non-OA.
(Means you don't have to leave the country every 90 days (Non-O) and just doing the 90 day report instead (Non-OA)
All conditions for the extension for both visa types meet to 100%

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by Prizma

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

No it does not. It is just an extension of a non immigrant visa entry. The additional letter after the O makes no difference after a extension issued.

Then why would one extension require insurance and the other not require insurance? Sounds like by restricting the insurance requirement to an OA, for now, is just a way to ease into full implementation.

On 10/21/2019 at 7:52 AM, ubonjoe said:

The non-o visa would not be subject to the purported insurance requirement for those on extensions of stay based upon retirement that extended a one year entry from a NON-OA visa.

You have nothing to worry about at this time or IMO in the future.

Hi,

 

Are you saying Non Imm O-A extensions will need insurance in future? I thought the police order clearly stated in item (6) from 31-Oct-19 the original Non Imm O-A visa only will need insurance. I can find no info on extensions needing insurance in the order?

33 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Then why would one extension require insurance and the other not require insurance? Sounds like by restricting the insurance requirement to an OA, for now, is just a way to ease into full implementation.

As far as I know by reading the orders it is only for issuance of a OA visa and entries to country when using one. There is no mention of it applying to extensions in the order

3 minutes ago, MJKT2014 said:

Are you saying Non Imm O-A extensions will need insurance in future?

I did not write that. Note that I wrote purported in my post.

37 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

40 minutes ago, MJKT2014 said:

Are you saying Non Imm O-A extensions will need insurance in future?

I did not write that. Note that I wrote purported in my post.

Apologies as I may have phrased the question wrongly. I simply wanted to know if Non O-A extensions will need insurance - yes or no please?

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

Then why would one extension require insurance and the other not require insurance?

I have yet to hear of any extension requiring insurance... another post saying not required (3 times answered) wrt Jomtien today.

I like many others don't understand the difference between non immigration O and non immigration OA. I entered on a 30 day tourist visa in 2014 and went to Bangkok Immigration and converted to a non immigration O based on retirement and since then doing an annual  extension of stay. What is the difference between O and OA.

11 hours ago, ryane66 said:

I like many others don't understand the difference between non immigration O and non immigration OA. I entered on a 30 day tourist visa in 2014 and went to Bangkok Immigration and converted to a non immigration O based on retirement and since then doing an annual  extension of stay. What is the difference between O and OA.

You can never ever ever get an O-A issued in Thailand.

The -A subcategory signifies an annual visa I believe, one year validity and one year permit to stay each entry during the validity. 

More here.

Edited October 23, 20196 yr by jacko45k

13 hours ago, ryane66 said:

I like many others don't understand the difference between non immigration O and non immigration OA. I entered on a 30 day tourist visa in 2014 and went to Bangkok Immigration and converted to a non immigration O based on retirement and since then doing an annual  extension of stay. What is the difference between O and OA.

Same as me. I entered in 2011 with Visa on Arrival (30-day stamp). Then, knowing little about the process, I went to immigration to get a Retirement visa. They extended the VOA to 90 days and proceeded to issue a visa based on Retirement. I've been renewing yearly since then. 

 

Looking in the passport the Visa page only states "RETIREMENT" 

and the multiple re-entry permit shows "NON-IMM" under Category. So I don't understand what I'm missing. 

This a Non-O visa (not OA) but has the word "Retirement" written on it. So even if, in the future, all Non-OA visa holders were required to show proof of health insurance when they applied for extension, this visa holder would not?

 

6 hours ago, Roy Baht said:

This a Non-O visa (not OA) but has the word "Retirement" written on it. So even if, in the future, all Non-OA visa holders were required to show proof of health insurance when they applied for extension, this visa holder would not?

 

Yes that is the general consensus. I have an O retirement visa also.  Seems it’s a technical difference being issued in Thailand vs getting the OA while residing in your home country.   Since it isn’t logical to specify insurance for OA visa and not the nearly identical O many believe it’s just a matter of time before the law applies to both.  But not yet!

On 10/22/2019 at 7:58 PM, ryane66 said:

I like many others don't understand the difference between non immigration O and non immigration OA. I entered on a 30 day tourist visa in 2014 and went to Bangkok Immigration and converted to a non immigration O based on retirement and since then doing an annual  extension of stay. What is the difference between O and OA.

Can we still do an conversion from tourist visa to non immigrant O ? If yes, where ? in Bangkok ? thanks 

4 minutes ago, Aforek said:

Can we still do an conversion from tourist visa to non immigrant O ? If yes, where ?

Yes you can apply for a non immigrant visa at any office now. They are all allowed to accept the applications now, 

23 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Yes you can apply for a non immigrant visa at any office now. They are all allowed to accept the applications now, 

Thanks, because for some reason I am not sure to have a Thai insurance on time, I have to do some exams before being accepted and my visa O-A finishes november 14

I think of going to Phnom phen , ask for a tourist visa, then ask for a O visa ( not O-A anymore, too many problems ) in Thailand  ; I qualify for everything, money, insurance at home, if I can avoid the Thai insurance it would be good 

On 10/21/2019 at 7:52 AM, ubonjoe said:

The non-o visa would not be subject to the purported insurance requirement for those on extensions of stay based upon retirement that extended a one year entry from a NON-OA visa.

You have nothing to worry about at this time or IMO in the future.

Dear Ubonjoe,

Several sources, including Integrity Legal, think that all long-stay retirees, both OA and O, will eventually be required to show proof of health insurance in order be granted extensions. You write that Non-O visa holders on extensions of stay (even retirees?) have nothing to worry about now or (in your opinion) in the future. May I ask what you have based this optimistic opinion on? Most sources and posters are not so optimistic.

Respectfully,

Roy Baht

Edited October 24, 20196 yr by Roy Baht
typo

9 hours ago, Roy Baht said:

May I ask what you have based this optimistic opinion on? Most sources and posters are not so optimistic.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

I don't think immigration wants to have anything to do with checking for insurance. Look how long it to even issue an order relating to OA visas issued at embassies and consulates. The only thing they have done is issue the procedure to check for valid insurance for those entering the country with a OA visa issued after October 31st.

My reading of the attachment to police order 548/2562, which explicitly applies to requests for extensions of stay (not original issuance of O-A visas), is as follows.  If the original visa on which you entered was O-A, the health insurance requirement applies when you request an extension.  There is an exception for people who have been here on continual extensions since 1998.  
 

I’m new here, and I can see Ubon Joe knows his stuff. I hope he’s right, but if he is, it flies in the face of police order 548/2562. 

11 minutes ago, Timofe said:

My reading of the attachment to police order 548/2562, which explicitly applies to requests for extensions of stay (not original issuance of O-A visas), is as follows.  If the original visa on which you entered was O-A, the health insurance requirement applies when you request an extension. 

I see nothing in the amended clause of the police that states it is for extensions. It only says permit to stay and that means a entry to the country using a OA visa.

The heading to the attachment to police order 548/2562 says, both in the original Thai version and in the translation, “extension of stay.”

I am not as fully versed in this as you, Joe.  But if the health insurance requirement will not apply to extensions of stay, why a grandfathering exception for those on extension since 1998?

28 minutes ago, Timofe said:

The heading to the attachment to police order 548/2562 says, both in the original Thai version and in the translation, “extension of stay.”

We will start to know in about a week.. 

 

Expect a mess either way.. 

This is all very confusing and worrying.  I too read that the Police Order also applies to extensions of stay, but Ubon Joe knows his stuff and if he says it does not, then I will live with his interpretation, but it's all still confusing and worrying for the short to medium term. On top of that, every year that goes by makes it increasingly problematic for older expats to get any kind of health insurance, so the longer the uncertainty, the more impassible it all becomes to meet that kind of requirement, should it be introduced at a later date.   

5 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

I don't think immigration wants to have anything to do with checking for insurance. Look how long it to even issue an order relating to OA visas issued at embassies and consulates. The only thing they have done is issue the procedure to check for valid insurance for those entering the country with a OA visa issued after October 31st.

And by making it mandatory for initial OA people only, they are pushing the verification and issuance of the insurance to the out of country embassies.  Can't wait to here how some foreign embassies are handling the new OA visas issued from some expats that get OA visas later this year.  How the insurance was bought and paid, what certificates or proofs did they get or will need or are expected to be shown if at all to IO officials at BKK upon arrival, how long it takes and in what order of steps did they do to get the visa, get insurance, pay for insurance, then of course have to fret if Visa is issued, while having paid one full year of insurance?  How to align start of insurance with start of using visa.  Did they buy insurance and coverage clock starts immediately, but they don't get or perhaps use the OA visa and enter Thailand for several months after that?.

And by making it mandatory for initial OA people only, they are pushing the verification and issuance of the insurance to the out of country embassies.  Can't wait to here how some foreign embassies are handling the new OA visas issued from some expats that get OA visas later this year.  How the insurance was bought and paid, what certificates or proofs did they get or will need or are expected to be shown if at all to IO officials at BKK upon arrival, how long it takes and in what order of steps did they do to get the visa, get insurance, pay for insurance, then of course have to fret if Visa is issued, while having paid one full year of insurance?  How to align start of insurance with start of using visa.  Did they buy insurance and coverage clock starts immediately, but they don't get or perhaps use the OA visa and enter Thailand for several months after that?.

The embassies of Schengen countries seem to be able to handle visa applications with compulsory insurance just fine. Why wouldn't Thai embassies be able to do the same?

1 hour ago, Timofe said:

The heading to the attachment to police order 548/2562 says, both in the original Thai version and in the translation, “extension of stay.”

That is what the entire existing police order 327/2557 was issued for.

No mention in clause 2.22 of that order about it appling to extension in (2) or (6) of the amended clause.

They just added (2) to give them authority to enforce the rule of entries to the country. Number (1) is for extensions and (2) is for OA visa entries.

 

1 hour ago, Timofe said:

I am not as fully versed in this as you, Joe.  But if the health insurance requirement will not apply to extensions of stay, why a grandfathering exception for those on extension since 1998?

That has been in every police order since 1998. It is nothing new.