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

[Thaidream]

The way the lawyer explains what is happening is confusing and not clear.

 

The one thing that is clear in the police order is that in both Thai and English- the words - applies ONLY to O-A Visas.  

 

Every posting on any forum that I have read  indicates the Immigration Officer looks at the Passport and the  Original Visa one entered on- if the Passport shows O-A- insurance is required- except if the person is now appling under a marriage extension- some offices have indicated insurance still required. Other offices inidicate go out and get an O and others simply process without the insurance.

 

If the IO sees an original ( O) Visa-  then there is no question of the insurance at this time whether one is extending under  retirement or marriage.    This is the one  section that the order is clear on.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Thaidream

[smedly]

1 hour ago, Tagaa said:

Your assertion that O holders have "financials in Thailand" leads one to believe that you and possibly others believe that OA holders don't have financials in Thailand.

I am not saying that at all hence the grey area

 

when you get an OA in your home country you must show financials "in your home country"

 

the grey area

 

when an OA holder applies for a 12 month extension in Thailand they must show financials in Thailand - same as for an O visa holder extending except they are still being asked for insurance - this makes no sense and has been raised on TVF many times 

[smedly]

47 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I got a non-immigrant O in Vientiane something like 15 years ago. 

My extensions, based on retirement, have and still are obtained(last one last month) with no money in a Thai bank, neither a monthly transfer of 65000.

No need of insurance as well. 

I am Belgian. 

well bully for you, people from Belgium are special, what are you going to do when your Embassy stops giving you a letter

[Lovethailandelite]

46 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The way the lawyer explains what is happening is confusing and not clear.

 

The one thing that is clear in the police order is that in both Thai and English- the words - applies ONLY to O-A Visas.  

 

Every posting on any forum that I have read  indicates the Immigration Officer looks at the Passport and the  Original Visa one entered on- if the Passport shows O-A- insurance is required- except if the person is now appling under a marriage extension- some offices have indicated insurance still required. Other offices inidicate go out and get an O and others simply process without the insurance.

 

If the IO sees an original ( O) Visa-  then there is no question of the insurance at this time whether one is extending under  retirement or marriage.    This is the one  section that the order is clear on.

What is clear, is that you and other self appointed experts posting, never understood the police order when it was released and are still not understanding it. Just simply making it up as you go along. Best not to keep posting as some sort of Immigration lawyer and getting egg on your face....again

[Peter Denis]

15 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

What is clear, is that you and other self appointed experts posting, never understood the police order when it was released and are still not understanding it. Just simply making it up as you go along. Best not to keep posting as some sort of Immigration lawyer and getting egg on your face....again

What is clear, is that

- you consider yourself some kind of expert in these matters and

- with your post just flung a big omelet in your own face (to use your own analogy)

as the info provided by @Thaidream you are reacting on, is fully correct.

[Thaidream]

18 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

What is clear, is that you and other self appointed experts posting, never understood the police order when it was released and are still not understanding it. Just simply making it up as you go along. Best not to keep posting as some sort of Immigration lawyer and getting egg on your face....again

None of the posters here are  claiming to be an Immigration Lawyer . We can read just like you but you refuse to  understand the words written in Thai and English -  Applies ONLY to O-A Visas.   It's black and white- easy to understand and accurate.

 

You continually chime in and denigrate other's opinions  and claim everyone but you is wrong.  Since you claim we are all wrong provide proof and post it.

[Maestro]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Surely an extension on an O-A and an Extension on a O Permit have exactly the same financial requirements. The only difference is the O-A also requiring insurance for a retirement extension?

 

1. There is no "O-A extension", but there is an extension for the reason of of retirement, aka retirement extension and retirement visa.
   Source: Police Order 548/2562 Criteria - en
    
2. There is no "extension on O Permit", but there is a one-year extension for the the reason of being a parent, spouse, child, adopted child, or spouse’s child of Thai nationality, aka dependent extension or, depending on the case, parent extension, spouse extension or child extension.
   Source: Clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 (2014) - extension criteria & conditions en

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

well bully for you, people from Belgium are special, what are you going to do when your Embassy stops giving you a letter

I transfer since years voluntary 2000 Euro monthly.

There was a time I got 100000 ThB for this, now about 67000.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Maestro
deleted off-topic part of the post

[Peter Denis]

10 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

1. There is no "O-A extensionion", but there is an extension for the reason of of retirement, aka retirement extension.
   Source: Police Order 548/2562 Criteria - en
    
2. There is no "extension on O Permit", but there is a one-year extension for the the reason of being a parent, spouse, child, adopted
   child, or spouse’s child of Thai nationality, aka dependent extension or, depending on the case, parent extension, spouse extension or child extension.
   Source: Clause 2.18 of Police Order 327/2557 (2014) - extension criteria & conditions en

When posters use incorrect or inaccurate terminology that might confuse readers or moot their message, it is helpful to correct them (e.g. using the term Visa when referring to a permission to stay, or referring to extensions without specifying the reason for such extension).

But in this case I believe everybody understands that an O-A extension is short-speak for "an application to extend the permission of stay based on an original Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of retirement".

I agree that the 2nd part where he writes 'extension on O Permit' is less obvious.

But from the context it is once again clear that he is referring to "an application to extend the permission of stay based on a Non Imm O Visa".

Same goes for the - correct - conclusion he wants to convey that the requirements/conditions for an extension of stay for reason of retirement based on an original Non Imm O-A Visa or an extension of stay based on a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, are the same EXCEPT for the health-insurance requirement which is not required for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa extension.

The short-speak version of the above would be > except for the insurance-requirement there is no difference between an OA and O extension for reason of retirement.

 

[jacko45k]

20 hours ago, Maestro said:

There is no "O-A extension", but there is an extension for the reason of of retirement, aka retirement extension and retirement visa.
Source: Police Order 548/2562 Criteria - en

Since it is extremely apparent that a retirement extension based on an initial O-A Permit to Stay is to be treated differently than a retirement extension originating on a different type of Non-Imm Visa Entry (by obligating domestic insurance), I feel it is necessary to specify it. What I do not know of is a 'retirement visa', There are Non-Imm-O, single and multiple, and Non-Imm-O A and O-X, and of course an extension based on retirement. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by jacko45k

[JimGant]

20 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

But in this case I believe everybody understands that an O-A extension is short-speak for "an application to extend the permission of stay based on an original Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of retirement".

"Everybody," except the folks at MFA, who state on their website that you can obtain an O-A visa at Immigration in Thailand. LITERALLY we know this is bonkers -- a visa labelled "Non Immigrant O-A" can only be obtained at Thai embassies/consulates abroad. Period. Why is MFA so confused? Well, in the world of semantics, with the added confusion of transliteration from Thai to English, "O-A" has come to mean "long term permission of stay based on meeting financial requirements, being over age 50, and being prohibited from employment in Thailand." Pretty much  the definition of retirement in Thailand. (There are other long stay visas, like O-B for business -- but O-A is strictly for retirement, again, by the stated requirements.) Thus, when the cabinet gurus want to address farangs here on one-year stays based on retirement criteria, lo and behold, their new law in the form of a police order addresses "O-A visas"  They think they have all these decaying farangs covered.... (And, of course, the term "visa", even by the US Embassy, can now mean a one-year extension of stay based on an original entering visa [or one received at Immigration from a TM86 or TM87 application]. So, voila, a Non Imm O-A visa is Thai shorthand for all farangs here on one-year permissions of stay obtained by meeting O-A criteria.

 

But, LITERALLY, the law was written to address O-A visas (again, with the term visa same same as one-year permission of stay). So, literally, only folks with O-A visas and subsequent extensions are affected by the current LITERAL law.

 

I hope they are at least somewhat embarrassed by their stupidity -- but allowing, at least for now, an escape for the Non Imm O-A visa crowd to change to marriage extension, or do a border run to change to a Non Imm O, is convenient. Unfortunately, they're probably looking at how to reconcile this screw-up -- and bringing their understanding of O-A to include O retirement extensions. Ouch.

[OJAS]

23 hours ago, Thaidream said:

If the IO sees an original ( O) Visa-

And where said visa is in a passport which has now expired, it is what the IO sees in the Thai stamp which was placed on the first page of your current passport by your local immigration office as part of the stamps transfer process.

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

11 minutes ago, JimGant said:

I hope they are at least somewhat embarrassed by their stupidity -- but allowing, at least for now, an escape for the Non Imm O-A visa crowd to change to marriage extension, or do a border run to change to a Non Imm O, is convenient. Unfortunately, they're probably looking at how to reconcile this screw-up -- and bringing their understanding of O-A to include O retirement extensions. Ouch.

I don't believe it was their intention to impose the health-insurance requirement on all Non Imm O - retirement Visa and extensions. 

That would have been difficult as the Non Imm O Visa is a 90-day Visa, and imposing a 1-year health-insurance policy on such a Visa would be problematic.

Requiring it for the 1-year extensions of Non Imm O - retirement Visa, would have been relatively easy (and still is) but there is little incentive - at least from IO - to do this after the total shambles from the failed OA health-insurance experiment.

 

[Maestro]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

...What I do not know of is a 'retirement visa'...

 

Personally, I do not like to see the use of retirement visa for the retirement extension, either, but I was made to realise that this use has become pervasive and generally accepted on this forum and when I saw that the Cabinet Resolution also used it, I caved in.

[Maestro]

The lawyer's latest video covers several interesting points and I have selected the following at 10:23 for my comment because it touches on something I have been researching, with limited results, and confirms what the lawyer says:

 

Quote

The distinction between O-A and O is an internal one that I have found nowhere outlined either at law or a specific regulation which creates a hard-and-fast distinction between these two. 

 

My findings so far can be summarised as follows: 

1. The Immigration Act does not have a list of visa types and visa categories.
    
2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act specifies 15 categories of activities for which foreigners may enter Thailand for a temporary stay.
    
3. Section 5 of the Immigration Act puts the Minister of Interior in charge and control of the execution of the Immigration Act and gives him the power, among other things, to issue Ministerial Regulations and prescribe other activities for the execution of this Act. I consider it reasonable to assume that the list of visa types and visa categories is in a Ministerial Regulation or in some other rule or regulation issued under the authority of a Ministerial Regulation.
    
4. The original Thai text of the Cabinet Resolution on 2 April 2019 refers to the so-called O-A visa with a mixture of English and Thai language as the “Non-Immigrant Visa รหัส O-A” and the English translation provided by ThaiVisa as the “Non-Immigrant Visa O-A”
    
5. The earliest official reference to the so-called O-A visa I could find is the Immigration Bureau Memorandum 0029.142/160 dated 14.01.2008, where it was referred to as the “Non-Immigrant Visa with the letter ‘A’ after the purpose of visiting’s code” and this may well be the official name of the so-called O-A visa. “Code” (original Thai Text รหัส) appears to be what is currently called “Category” on the visa stickers placed in passports and previously was “Classification” on some rubber-stamped visas and "Category on others".
    
6. The Immigration Bureau Memorandum 0029.161/W 4603 dated 27.09.2019, which refers to the earlier Memorandum 0029.142/160 dated 14.01.2008, uses the name “Non-Immigrant Visa Class O-A” for the so-called O-A visa, with รหัส translated as “Class”

 

[Maestro]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:25 AM, jacko45k said:

Surely an extension on an O-A and an Extension on a O Permit have exactly the same financial requirements. The only difference is the O-A also requiring insurance for a retirement extension?

 

I am not quite sure what you mean with "extension on an O-A" and with "an Extension on a O Permit", but whatever it is that you may mean, the fact is that the amount of financial requirements for the one-year extension of stay does not depend on the visa category, O-A or O, upon which the extension is based, but on the reason for the extension, eg retirement or marriage.

 

However, this discussion of financial requirements is off-topic in this thread, which is about about the difference in the requirement for health insurance depending on the visa category, O-A or O, on the basis of which an application for extension is made.

 

Insurance with application for extension required under currently valid Police Orders

 

            Insurance required:

1. retirement extension under clause 2.22 based on an O-A visa
   
   Insurance not required:
    
2. retirement extension under clause 2.22  based on an O visa 
3. marriage extension under clause 2.18  based on an O-A visa
4. marriage extension under clause 2.18  based on an O visa

[Roy Baht]

Benjamin Hart of Integrity Legal speculates that in the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand, making sure that expat retirees have health insurance may become a greater priority for the Thai government. While at the moment Non-Immigrant O visa holders seem to be "grandfathered" in to not needing health insurance (as opposed to O-A visa holders), in the future that may be change.

 

https://www.facebook.com/thailandvloggers/posts/131119078527470

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Roy Baht

[JimGant]

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Roy Baht said:

Benjamin Hart of Integrity Legal speculates that in the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand, making sure that expat retirees have health insurance may become a greater priority for the Thai government. While at the moment Non-Immigrant O visa holders seem to be "grandfathered" in to not needing health insurance (as opposed to O-A visa holders), in the future that may be change.

https://www.facebook.com/thailandvloggers/posts/131119078527470

I hope they accept my Thai-SS-based health-insurance, obtained by having a job in Thailand, which I will be continuing to pay into independently, during my retirement-years here.