Immigration Announces "latest visa relief measures on 7 April 2020"

[Tanoshi]

9 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:

I put my money on that this extension last at least til May 30th.

I put my money on this amnesty being extended until at least June 30th and beyond.

Until Lao, Myanmar, Cambodia reopen their borders there is little option for the Thai Government other than to keep extending the amnesty.

 

My prediction is that once borders do reopen, TI will make a further announcement to end the amnesty allowing 7 days beyond the date of borders reopening. Thai Embassies/Consulates will be inundated during this initial period. If it were me, I'd exit day 6 after they reopened and then bunker down in a hotel for a week to let the stampede die down.

[jacob29]

20 hours ago, Kerouacaurus said:

I've noticed 2 guys in exactly same situation as me regarding 'under consideration'. It's technically not visa, so I'm a little scared. Here's my question just as two people before me had, but I didn't find any confirmation until now:

Could anyone please clarify one thing? I don't want to start a new thread regarding this. My visa expired on April 1st, but I had a CoViD-19 emergency extension using the embassy letter. I am, as other people, 'under consideration' and have to appear at immigration on April 14. Does that imply that I don't have to go immigration on April 14 and my 'under consideration' will also be 'extended' till April 30? Thank you if anyone's aware of that. It seems like it's missing some vital points for those people who actually extended past the 26th of March.

Well the plot thickens.. 

 

 

So now we have conflicting reports, different depending on which immigration office you attend. Ultimately it comes down to what immigration at the airport decides in future. It would be nice to get official clarification on the immigration website though.

 

Trust immigration to find a way to complicate what sounded like a pretty straightforward announcement.

[audaciousnomad]

They should have said "all visitors whose permission to stay expires after 26-March".  They really narrowed it down by sneakily saying "whose visas expire". But even that is so unclear. Because technically a Visa Exemption is not really a visa, so it too should not be covered. Only the 60-day SETV or a METV would technically be covered.
<deleted>

[Coastrider]

On 4/9/2020 at 7:19 AM, bbi1 said:

Yep, absolutely useless! My METV has a 30 day extension which expires on the 2nd week of May. This announcement does nothing at all to give me a "visa relief".

I am confused now . My METV expired.April 6th.I have a 30 day extension till April 13. Is it not now automatically good till the 30th, or I need to go to immigration ?

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, Coastrider said:

I am confused now . My METV expired.April 6th.I have a 30 day extension till April 13. Is it not now automatically good till the 30th, or I need to go to immigration ?

You do not have to leave the country or apply for an extension until the emergency decree ends and it will certainly be extended beyond the 30th.

[ubonjoe]

15 hours ago, audaciousnomad said:

They should have said "all visitors whose permission to stay expires after 26-March".  They really narrowed it down by sneakily saying "whose visas expire". But even that is so unclear. Because technically a Visa Exemption is not really a visa, so it too should not be covered. Only the 60-day SETV or a METV would technically be covered.
<deleted>

Theis what the ministerial order states.

 

Section 35 lists the permit to stay for all categories of entries.

[Peter Denis]

15 hours ago, audaciousnomad said:

They should have said "all visitors whose permission to stay expires after 26-March".  They really narrowed it down by sneakily saying "whose visas expire". But even that is so unclear. Because technically a Visa Exemption is not really a visa, so it too should not be covered. Only the 60-day SETV or a METV would technically be covered.
<deleted>

Although it is - as usual - somewhat clumsy and ambiguously worded, it is pretty clear that the intent of the lower part of the diagram is that 'EVERY foreigner with a permission to stay stamp in his passport that expires after 26 March does NOT need to report at IO till 30 April'.

Note: Those that applied for the emergency extension and got an 'under consideration' stamp DO need to report, and on approval will get the required permission to stay stamp.

 

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, jacob29 said:

So now we have conflicting reports, different depending on which immigration office you attend.

Sadly  this is frequent when new rules come into effect...... 

[Peter Denis]

6 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Although it is - as usual - somewhat clumsy and ambiguously worded, it is pretty clear that the intent of the lower part of the diagram is that 'EVERY foreigner with a permission to stay stamp in his passport that expires after 26 March does NOT need to report at IO till 30 April'.

Note: Those that applied for the emergency extension and got an 'under consideration' stamp DO need to report, and on approval will get the required permission to stay stamp.

 

Important UPDATE of my earlier post.

It seems that the 'amnesty announcement' is also NOT applicable for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay.

[john thom]

Just to my IO (sisaket) yesterday as my non-o imm for 90 dys runs out on the 13th of April. was informed that everything is good till April 30. She also said that I didn't even have to come in, but want to hear it from her- said just keep up with updates-

[bkkguy1970]

5 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Important UPDATE of my earlier post.

It seems that the 'amnesty announcement' is also NOT applicable for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay.

in my case I suppose that is obvious - my NON-IMM O visa expired 10 years ago so would not be covered by an amnesty on visas that expire after 26 March 2020, but then the expiry date of a visa is only relevant before you enter the country so I am still not sure who technically is supposed to benefit from this amnesty

 

I have argued repeatedly that correct use of terminology would reduce the confusion, and length, of most discussions on ThaiVisa and elsewhere but this is obviously flogging a dead horse as even Immigration has given up on the distinction between visa expiry date and permission to stay expiry date

 

[Peter Denis]

35 minutes ago, bkkguy1970 said:

in my case I suppose that is obvious - my NON-IMM O visa expired 10 years ago so would not be covered by an amnesty on visas that expire after 26 March 2020, but then the expiry date of a visa is only relevant before you enter the country so I am still not sure who technically is supposed to benefit from this amnesty

 

I have argued repeatedly that correct use of terminology would reduce the confusion, and length, of most discussions on ThaiVisa and elsewhere but this is obviously flogging a dead horse as even Immigration has given up on the distinction between visa expiry date and permission to stay expiry date

I agree that correct use of terminology is not pedantry but of utmost importance. 

1 - The amnesty announcement is not applicable for ALL foreigners.  It seems they have limited it to certain classes of Visa holders, i.e. those on VisaExempt, those on a TouristVisa (SETV or METV) and those on a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides 90-day entry.  Why IO did choose to exclude long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders from those eligible for the amnesty is unclear.

2 - Those categories of foreigners that are eligible for the amnesty (see higher) need to have a permission to stay stamped in their passports that expires after 26th of March.  Such permission to stay will be automatically extended to 30th of April with no need to visit IO. 

3 - Those that already did receive an 'under consideration' stamp for their emergency extension application, do need to visit IO on the date indicated to receive their permission to stay, which will then fall under the amnesty announcement and will be automatically extended till 30th of April (or a later blanket amnesty date announced by Immigration).

Edited April 11, 2020 by Peter Denis

[Metropolitian]

 "  NOT applicable for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay. "

 

 

Would like to know what the measures are for Non O (Volunteers) .

 

In conjunction with extension of stay which was granted two times before (maximum 3).

[Maestro]

 

On 4/11/2020 at 3:22 PM, Peter Denis said:

...It seems they have limited it to certain classes of Visa holders, i.e. those on VisaExempt, those on a TouristVisa (SETV or METV) and those on a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides 90-day entry.  Why IO did choose to exclude long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders from those eligible for the amnesty is unclear...

 

In the Ministerial Notification, there is no limitation to the period of the current permission to stay expiring on or after 26 March to qualify for the automatic extension. There is also no mention of "a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides 90-day entry". This is the text of clause 2 of of the Notification:

Quote

2. For an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their type of visa (including Visa on Arrival) and an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their visa exemption privileges (P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90) whose specified period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom expires as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020)

 

The reference to "(P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90)" must be read in the correct context in which it is used, as I have highlighted above in bold. Earlier posts in this topic suggest that this cryptic reference is internal immigration jargon designating the various types of visa exemption privileges currently in force and sometimes I see, in fact, a scribbled ผ30 in the arrival stamp for a visa-exempt entry. The same numbers are in the list of "period of stay in the part of the header I have framed in red in the PDF document "Summary of Countries and Territories entitled for Visa Exemption and Visa on Arrival to Thailand" which I downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Please use the following link to view this document:

 

 Entitlements to visa exemption and visa on arrival.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

7 hours ago, Metropolitian said:

 "  NOT applicable for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay. "

 

Would like to know what the measures are for Non O (Volunteers) .

In conjunction with extension of stay which was granted two times before (maximum 3).

The first criterium for being eligible for the amnesty is that you would normally be expected to leave the country at the end of the permission to stay that was granted to you when entering the country.  So if you entered on a short-stay Non Imm O Visa (permission to stay of 90 days) you were expected to leave the country at the end of those 90 days.  With borders closed that is not possible now, so that category of Visa meet the first criterium.

However when you are here on a 1-year extension of stay based on your Non Imm O or O-A Visa, you are normally expected NOT to leave the country but extend that long-stay at your local IO.  And therefore the amnesty does not apply for those on a long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on a 1-year extension of stay, and they need to visit their local IO when their permission to stay is due to expire.

Note: The second criterium to be eligible for the amnesty is that your current permission to stay (be it the initial one you received on entry or already extended at an IO) expires AFTER 26 March. 

[jackdd]

11 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The first criterium for being eligible for the amnesty is that you would normally be expected to leave the country at the end of the permission to stay that was granted to you when entering the country.

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

Edited April 15, 2020 by jackdd

[Peter Denis]

5 hours ago, Maestro said:

In the Ministerial Notification, there is no limitation to the period of the current permission to stay expiring on or after 26 March to qualify for the automatic extension. There is also no mention of "a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides 90-day entry".

Thanks for providing the info. 

But we are not on the same page re this issue.

> See my response to the post of Metropolitian just above this one (post 165).

The background of the statements I made is addressed in more detail in the LINK below

> https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1158844-no-automatic-extension-for-people-with-covid-extension/?do=findComment&comment=15293655

Please note that there are already many reports of long-stay Non Imm O and O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay that visited their IO to extend their permission to stay that was due to expire.  IO did not tell them that it was not necessary due to the amnesty, but processed their applications 'business as usual'.  There is also a report of an immigration officer queried whether it was necessary for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders to visit their IO for re-extension of their current permission to stay, and the answer was YES.  Not attending would result in being on over-stay and even though the fine might be waved (due to the covid-19 situation), they would then be forced to leave the country and start from scratch again to apply for a new Non Imm O Visa.  

[Peter Denis]

12 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

I do not know what is your driver to cast doubt on the advice that those on 1-year extensions of stay need to visit their IO to renew their extension when their permission to stay is due to expire as it is not 100% clear whether the amnesty would also be applicable for them.

In another thread you wrote:

 

15 hours ago, jackdd said:

...

Of course you can recommend them to get the extension now (which is what i would recommend as well in most cases), but you should inform people that it's not required.

...

Since you don't want to back off (in spite of an IO officer in charge that when queried on the issue, told that you would be on over-stay if not visiting your IO when your long-stay extension is due for renewal), I will concede and say now that you are right.

But my advice still stands > Even if it is not required - as you claim - it is strongly recommended to do it anyway as those that believe that the amnesty also pertains to their long-stay extensions, might be in for a rude awakening.

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

8 hours ago, Metropolitian said:

Would like to know what the measures are for Non O (Volunteers) .

In conjunction with extension of stay which was granted two times before (maximum 3).

It is same for all long stay extensions (90 days or more). You have to apply for a new extension.

If you currently getting a 90 day extensions you will have to apply for a new one when it is near ending. When you reach a total stay of 12 months and need to go a embassy or consulate for a new non-o visa then then you could stay until the emergency is over.

[cleopatra2]

53 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

For me it hinges on the terms ' temporary stay according to type of visa ' , and it's interpretation.

 

A visa gives a fixed length of stay on entry into the Kingdom ( 90 , 60 days etc). 

The visa does not grant an extension but provides a pathway to an extension.

[ubonjoe]

40 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

Visas are used to enter the country. Extensions are to extend the stay allowed from a visa.

The ministerial order is clearly written to to allow those that have entered the country on a visa or visa exempt and are unable to stay longer due to reaching the maximum stay they can get from their visa or exempt entry or extensions and could not leave the country for a new visa or entry from a existing visa or for a new visa exempt entry.

Those on long stay visas or extensions are not normally affected by the emergency situation. Those on a valid visa that allows a one year stay could be affected if their permit to stay is ending or if they are on 90 day extensions that are limited a total stay of one year.

[jackdd]

14 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

For me it hinges on the terms ' temporary stay according to type of visa ' , and it's interpretation.

 

A visa gives a fixed length of stay on entry into the Kingdom ( 90 , 60 days etc). 

The visa does not grant an extension but provides a pathway to an extension.

You are allowed to continue your stay in Thailand, but the rules "according to type of visa" still apply.

Somebody who entered Thailand with a non-b visa and gets this extension is still allowed to work.

A tourist who gets this automatic extension is still not allowed to work.

 

15 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Visas are used to enter the country. Extensions are to extend the stay allowed from a visa.

Most people here know that immigration commonly refers to "permission of stay" as "visa" in english texts, and this here is no exception.

Or do you want to claim that (according to immigration), anybody who had any previous extension is not eligable for the automatic extension? Because immigration website says this is about "visas".

 

48 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The ministerial order is clearly written to to allow those that have entered the country on a visa or visa exempt and are unable to stay longer due to reaching the maximum stay they can get from their visa or exempt entry or extensions and could not leave the country for a new visa or entry from a existing visa or for a new visa exempt entry.

Yes, this is the first part of the sentence.

But the second part of the sentence clearly says that it includes the stay within the kingdom.

It looks like you are selectively ignoring certain parts of the order which don't fit your opinion.

 

[cleopatra2]

25 minutes ago, jackdd said:

You are allowed to continue your stay in Thailand, but the rules "according to type of visa" still apply.

Somebody who entered Thailand with a non-b visa and gets this extension is still allowed to work.

A tourist who gets this automatic extension is still not allowed to work.

 

Most people here know that immigration commonly refers to "permission of stay" as "visa" in english texts, and this here is no exception.

Or do you want to claim that (according to immigration), anybody who had any previous extension is not eligable for the automatic extension? Because immigration website says this is about "visas".

 

Yes, this is the first part of the sentence.

But the second part of the sentence clearly says that it includes the stay within the kingdom.

It looks like you are selectively ignoring certain parts of the order which don't fit your opinion.

 

The rules for visa may stay the same on extension but the length of temporary stay does not.

[ubonjoe]

27 minutes ago, jackdd said:

It looks like you are selectively ignoring certain parts of the order which don't fit your opinion.

You are doing the same thing or worse.

I have explained my position on it several time and this the last time. 

Would you suggest a person that has a long stay extension not apply for new one and take the chance that your opinion is not correct?

[Maestro]

The problem is that that we do not know what instructions and guidelines the Immigration Bureau has sent out to the immigration offices and evev if we knew we would from experience have to expect variations on their implementation from one office to the next.

 

At a yet unknown point in the future the availability of the automatic extension of stay will end and if at that time an immigration official decides that somebody with a one-year permission to stay received upon arrival or a one-year extension of a permission to stay did not qualify for the automatic extension and insists on payment of the overstay fine and implemation of conjunctive sanctions, we cannot argue our point with the official on the basis of the Ministerial Notification. That argumentation would have to be done in a court of law and in most cases would probably not be practical.

 

Based on the above point of view it is indeed wise to play it safe if one does not want to risk the loss of the continuation of one's annual extensions. Analysing the Ministerial Notification from a purely legal point of view, as I have done, is one thing, the practical side of its implemation at the grassroots level can be quite another thing in Thailand, as experience has often shown.