Integrity Legal: Cases of Non-O extensions requiring health insurance

[Roy Baht]

According to Benjamin W. Hart, Managing Director of Integrity Legal:

"I have personally dealt with multiple cases in the past 60 days in which individuals who have been extending as O retirees have been required to obtain medical insurance in order to maintain their status moving forward. It is happening, due to the vagueness of the new regulation it is implemented at the discretion of the adjudicating officer and some Immigration offices are not broadly implementing the requirement, but it is happening. --BWH"

[ThaiBunny]

Information about which offices might be useful

[treetops]

1 hour ago, Roy Baht said:

According to Benjamin W. Hart, Managing Director of Integrity Legal:

"I have personally dealt with multiple cases in the past 60 days in which individuals who have been extending as O retirees have been required to obtain medical insurance in order to maintain their status moving forward. It is happening, due to the vagueness of the new regulation it is implemented at the discretion of the adjudicating officer and some Immigration offices are not broadly implementing the requirement, but it is happening. --BWH"

Source please?

[Roy Baht]

3 minutes ago, treetops said:

Source please?

Comments beneath this video:
 

 

 

[Roy Baht]

Here's a longer account (same source):

"I have gone over this multiple times. The new regulations are vague, they seem to be intentionally designed to allow discretion either way. Also, as previously stated, all O visas are covered under the same "catch-all" section of the law and are subject to administrative rules and interpretation by the Immigration apparatus. There seems to be a campaign to create a hard and fast distinction between O retirement extensions and O-A visas/extensions with respect to the issue of medical insurance coverage where none has specifically been created based upon a reading of the plain language of the Immigration Act and the regulations (old and new). The "O-A" vs. "O" designations seem to have been created and applied for different cosmetic reasons. They seem to be internal designations. Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "O-A" in order to distinguish an O visa issued abroad granted annually as opposed to the standard practice of issuing such documents with a 90 day validity (hence the "A"). Meanwhile, the Immigration Bureau in Thailand applies the appellation "O retirement" to extensions in order to explain the reason for the extension (as opposed to an O marriage visa, for example). Some offices are allowing O retirees to extend without insurance while others are not. That stated, this exercise of discretion should not be confused with a mandate under the relevant law and regulations to treat "O" and "O-A" retirees differently with respect to the insurance requirement. There is nothing in the law creating such a differentiation. I have made multiple videos analyzing this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcsZ-IK5Vn8&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Js_5xPpKw0&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knuT1f3nBkk&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOP28MccsC4&t=14s --BWH"

[sucit]

Has there been a case like this reported at thaivisa (needing insurance for o i mean)?

[treetops]

5 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

Comments beneath this video:

So essentially an advert for his company/services and an opportunity to sow doubt and perhaps make  people lean towards using his company.

 

Do you think he might be inclined to do such a thing or do you think his altruistic self is coming to the fore?

[Roy Baht]

8 minutes ago, treetops said:

So essentially an advert for his company/services and an opportunity to sow doubt and perhaps make  people lean towards using his company.

 

Do you think he might be inclined to do such a thing or do you think his altruistic self is coming to the fore?

I don't use his company. Nor am I suggesting anybody do. I'm simply presenting factual accounts by real people so people making decisions will have as much information as possible, from as many sources as possible, before making important decisions. If I have an axe to grind, it's not "use this lawyer"--it's "if you're on a Non-O, don't be so sure you'll never have to buy health insurance" These are MY doubts--I'm not sowing them, I'm sharing them. Believe what you want.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Roy Baht

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, sucit said:

Has there been a case like this reported at thaivisa (needing insurance for o i mean)?

Not that I'm aware of.

However it wouldn't shock me if it has happened.

But if so, that still wouldn't mean it's something that most people on O based retirement extensions should really worry about.

I'm neutral on whether this requirement will be expanded to O based extensions. Logically I see no reason why it won't be eventually but as most realize, logic isn't a big factor here.

[Roy Baht]

Just now, Jingthing said:

But if so, that still wouldn't mean it's something that most people on O based retirement extensions should really worry about.

I agree. I'm simply presenting the information.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, treetops said:

So essentially an advert for his company/services and an opportunity to sow doubt and perhaps make  people lean towards using his company.

 

Do you think he might be inclined to do such a thing or do you think his altruistic self is coming to the fore?

Sure it's promotion and he hasn't always been correct but my opinion is that he posts his videos sincerely in good faith and if/when conditions change, he promptly posts adjustments. Not everyone that runs a profit based business has no credibility just because they are business. 

[Gweiloman]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sure it's promotion and he hasn't always been correct but my opinion is that he posts his videos sincerely in good faith and if/when conditions change, he promptly posts adjustments. Not everyone that runs a profit based business has no credibility just because they are business. 

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

[Roy Baht]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

Exactly. I agree. It's up to you to decide who to believe.
 

Benjamin doesn't hide the fact that he's running a business. But how many lawyers tell you what they think BEFORE you hire them? With Benjamin, you can listen to what he says and if you don't like it or disagree, don't hire him. (Again, I am not a client of his. I have only watched his videos.)

 

Who you believe is up to you. I'm just presenting the info.

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

Both. He never said all or most O cases,

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, Roy Baht said:

From Ben Hart's dialogue:

"...That stated, this exercise of discretion should not be confused with a mandate under the relevant law and regulations to treat "O" and "O-A" retirees differently with respect to the insurance requirement. There is nothing in the law creating such a differentiation."

Sadly, he's right. For years, on the MFA website regarding Non Imm O-A visas, the following regarding obtaining such a visa has been (and still is) posted:

Quote

Applicant may submit their application at the Royal Thai embassy or Royal Thai Consulate-General in their home/residence country or at the Office of the Immigration Bureau in Thailand located on Government Center B, Chaengwattana Soi 7, Laksi, Bangkok 10210, Tel 0-2141-9889.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15385-Non-Immigrant-Visa-"O-A"-(Long-Stay).html

Most of us reading this know you can't obtain an O-A visa in Thailand. But the MFA clearly says you can get an O-A "long stay" retirement visa in Thailand at Immigration. Well, yes, you can get the exact same result as an O-A visa at Immigration, i.e., a one year permission of stay, based on being over age 50, having the same financial requirements, and being prohibited from working ('cause you're retired). That it really is a Non Imm O obtained at Immigration, then becoming a one year retirement extension, is a minor fact lost on MFA -- and apparently all the others involved. To them, the English term "Non Imm O-A Long Stay" visa is the all-encompassing term for folks here on one year extensions based on retirement criteria (how it reads in Thai is another question....).

 

Anyway, I can't see that Ben Hart is trying to sell us anything -- he's just trying to be an honest broker in interpreting this goat rope. Read his 15 minute presentation. Even tho' it's recorded before Oct 31, 2019 -- nothing really has happened to refute or confirm his concerns. But, yeah, would be nice to see where he gets his info on denied extensions with folks holding O visas. Remember, tho', not all info is contained on ThaiVisa -- duh.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Some people here seem to be accusing that lawyer of blatantly lying about his experience of hearing reports of some cases of O based retirement extensions requiring insurance.

 

I think that's kind of outrageous. 

 

You have no evidence that he's lying. 

 

Just because we probably haven't heard similar member reports on this site doesn't prove anything. 

 

Yes you can be skeptical that such reports mean anything for most people with O based extensions. 

 

But that's not the same thing as accusing a lawyer of lying. 

 

Geez. 

 

I hope he's not litigious. 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Jingthing

[DrJack54]

I think my favourite bit is ...

"I have personally dealt with multiple cases over the past 60 days....."

Mind you it was all pretty funny.

Can't wait for the sequel.

[Puchaiyank]

"due to the vagueness of the new regulation it is implemented at the discretion of the adjudicating officer."

 

This is so true...and the unknown "gotcha" that causes so much angst in the expat community...

[Jingthing]

I don't really understand why any seasoned expat would deny that sometimes immigration in some offices enforces in unexpected ways. We all know that happens sometimes. 

[asiaexpat]

This legal office is in Bangkok and can attest that NO insurance was required at CW when I renewed my Non-O based extension in late December. 

[blackcab]

Off topic and potentially libellous posts have been removed.

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, sucit said:

Has there been a case like this reported at thaivisa (needing insurance for o i mean)?

No, it's just scaremongering which is best ignored

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, treetops said:

Agreed, but on this subject there are no other reports I'm aware of that the claims made are true.  Couple that with the fact the guy may potentially make money from someone who believes his claims and the fact that many agents/lawyers/solicitors etc here are often not the most trustworthy chaps anyway, the whole story needs substantiating before I'm convinced.

That's because there have been zip, zero requests for insurance for extensions to non o. 

Reason being is that insurance (currently) is only required for extensions to O-A.

The whole thread is a crock.

[Jingthing]

So again some people here are explicitly accusing this lawyer of intentionally lying about something that he doesn't think actually happened for purposes of drumming up business. OK. Wow. I think that's extreme. Again, my impression is that he's a visa guru who is sincere, although not always perfect. There are no visa Gods. 

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So again some people here are explicitly accusing this lawyer of intentionally lying about something that he doesn't think actually happened for purposes of drumming up business. OK. Wow. I think that's extreme. Again, my impression is that he's a visa guru who is sincere, although not always perfect. There are no visa Gods. 

 

One thing is for sure. The fact that there has not been one application for extension to non O rejected on basis of not having insurance cover.

That's it! 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by DrJack54

[JimGant]

8 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

One thing is for sure. The fact that there has not been one application for extension to non O rejected on basis of not having insurance cover.

That's it!

Gosh, what impeccable logic: Any Non Imm O extendee denied for lack of insurance would report it to Thai Visa, even tho' he, like hundreds of others, have never participated on Thai Visa -- or even heard of it. Or maybe he is a member of TV -- but decided he could get better assistance from a visa lawyer than from a bunch squabbling hens. Imagine.

[DrJack54]

10 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Gosh, what impeccable logic: Any Non Imm O extendee denied for lack of insurance would report it to Thai Visa, even tho' he, like hundreds of others, have never participated on Thai Visa -- or even heard of it. Or maybe he is a member of TV -- but decided he could get better assistance from a visa lawyer than from a bunch squabbling hens. Imagine.

Surely that's a joke. I'm not relying on reports that extensions were rejected because of lack of insurance. Rather the common reports from members of their account of applying for extension to their non O, at the MANY various imm offices in Thailand. ALL of which NO insurance was required. 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by DrJack54

[ubonjoe]

Several defamatory posts have been removed.

Forum rule.

Quote

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel. Any such posts will be removed and the poster may face an immediate ban.
Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

 

[BritManToo]

5 hours ago, Roy Baht said:

"I have gone over this multiple times. The new regulations are vague, they seem to be intentionally designed to allow discretion either way. Also, as previously stated, all O visas are covered under the same "catch-all" section of the law and are subject to administrative rules and interpretation by the Immigration apparatus. There seems to be a campaign to create a hard and fast distinction between O retirement extensions and O-A visas/extensions with respect to the issue of medical insurance coverage where none has specifically been created based upon a reading of the plain language of the Immigration Act and the regulations (old and new). The "O-A" vs. "O" designations seem to have been created and applied for different cosmetic reasons.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

O-A VISA entry is for 1 year

Non Imm O entry is for 90 days

Completely different VISAs. Why not claim a SETV is also included?

Edited January 26, 2020 by BritManToo

[Lacessit]

If there is one thing I have learned about businesses in my 50 years of working for them and associating with them, it is that the ones who are honest, above board and don't bend data and information to suit their book are as rare as unicorns.