question about Non-O extension update

[johnny1966]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

It is not my point it is what is written in the ministerial order.

Those that entered the country using a non immigrant visa on or before the March 26th are included since they could not leave the country to get a new entry or apply for another visa. 

 

Those that are here on an extension of stay can apply for a new extension of stay and do not need to leave the country to do it.

 

Considering your point regarding non immigrant visas, in particular ME non O visas, to be crystal clear to the holders of such, we would be best advised to sit tight whilst the Amnesty is in effect, even if one's permission to stay expires in April, and apply for a 60 day extension or border hop when the Amnesty ends. Correct?

Edited April 11, 2020 by johnny1966

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

If they could qualify for an extension that is correct. But they did not apply or have not applied for an extension they are covered under the order.

As far as I know the special 30 day extension in their case could still be applied for if they do not qualify for the extension.

 

It does make sense since people on an extension were not affected by the emergency decree since they could still apply for a new one. 

Let's take the example of two people in Thailand on a Non O visa based on retirement.

1. Entered using the Non O in 2019, extended for one year expiring in April 2020. Intended to leave rather than applying for a further extension. When unable to leave, would most likely neither have maintained the required balance in the bank for the previous 12 months nor have the required 12 months of deposits of 65,000 baht every month into a Thai bank account. Changing his mind, and applying for the extension, without using an agent, would be impossible.
2. Entered using the Non O in January 2020. Intended to leave rather than applying for a one-year extension of stay. When unable to leave would probably be in a position to transfer 800,000 baht into a bank account (or could show two months of transfers into a bank account from abroad). Applying for the extension would be possible.

It appears that the decision has been made that the person unable to qualify for a one-year extension would not be covered by the automatic extension until able to leave. The person who is covered by the automatic extension would be in a position to apply for the one-year extension if necessary. I know your interpretation of the announcement, and you may be right, but I persist in my view that it is neither fair nor logical. Possibly, the poor guy unable to apply for a one-year extension can persuade his embassy to cough up the necessary letter to apply for the 30-day extension(s), and the local immigration office will decide to grant those extensions without the overseas landlord attending immigration. However, I would be very nervous if I was placed in such a situation.

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

Let's take the example of two people in Thailand on a Non O visa based on retirement.

1. Entered using the Non O in 2019, extended for one year expiring in April 2020. Intended to leave rather than applying for a further extension. When unable to leave, would most likely neither have maintained the required balance in the bank for the previous 12 months nor have the required 12 months of deposits of 65,000 baht every month into a Thai bank account. Changing his mind, and applying for the extension, without using an agent, would be impossible.
2. Entered using the Non O in January 2020. Intended to leave rather than applying for a one-year extension of stay. When unable to leave would probably be in a position to transfer 800,000 baht into a bank account (or could show two months of transfers into a bank account from abroad). Applying for the extension would be possible.

1. In that situation the foreigner would need to apply to his Embassy for a supporting letter in order to receive a 30 day extension. He wouldn't qualify for an automatic extension as his Visa expired prior to 26th March 2020.

2. Assuming the visa was still within it's 3 month validity date, they could qualify to receive an automatic extension.

 

The obvious discrepancy with 2 is you could argue the Visa was used on entry, but based on the wording of the amnesty if the validity of the Visa expired after 26th March, you could equally argue the Visa hadn't expired - tough call!

If he intended to leave transferring 800K now would be to late - 2 months seasoning required for an annual extension. 

Last resort Immigration would have to extend if he also obtained a request from his Embassy, or apply under condition 3 of the original Immigration Memo, issued prior to the amnesty announcement.

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Tanoshi

[ubonjoe]

10 hours ago, BritTim said:

2. Entered using the Non O in January 2020. Intended to leave rather than applying for a one-year extension of stay. When unable to leave would probably be in a position to transfer 800,000 baht into a bank account (or could show two months of transfers into a bank account from abroad). Applying for the extension would be possible.

When they entered on a visa and got a 90 permit to stay that would of  ended in late March or April. If the 90 days had ended before the 8th he would of qualified for the the 30 day special extension and would still be on it.. After the 30 days he would be on the emergency rules.

 

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

When they entered on a visa and got a 90 permit to stay that would of  ended in late March or April. If the 90 days had ended before the 8th he would of qualified for the the 30 day special extension and would still be on it.. After the 30 days he would be on the emergency rules.

 

Just to clarify your quote Joe;

Your stating if their initial permission of stay ended before 8th, they would have received an extension by virtue of an Embassy letter. After that 30 day extension they wouldn't have to apply for further extensions by virtue of the amnesty.

Did I understand you correctly?

Edited April 12, 2020 by Tanoshi

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Did I understand you correctly?

Yes

The special extension is no different than a normal extension. The special extensions were just way to allow people to stay legally until they were able to get approval of the ministerial order that is now in effect.

[Tanoshi]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Yes

The special extension is no different than a normal extension. The special extensions were just way to allow people to stay legally until they were able to get approval of the ministerial order that is now in effect.

I'm in 100% agreement with you so far based on my interpretation of the wording of the amnesty.

 

It's the actual wording that is ambiguous.

Quote

????‍♂️ The person whose visas has expired from 26th of March 2020 will be automatically extended to 30th of April 2020. There is no need to apply for a visa extension at Immigration Office for this period and will not be fined THB 500 per day for this case.

Would you agree that in effect it's when the permission of stay ends from a Visa entry that is determining Immigrations decision, not the date of Visa expiry.

The category of Visas being VE, TV, Non O or any other considered a short stay Visa (up to 90 days).

[yaman]

Sorry for the similar question. I can't get a call from immigration, so let me ask you a question here.

 

I entered the country on November 16 with a non-imm O single entry.
Then I extended it for 60 days to visit my wife further on February 14.
In other words, it expires on April 14.
In this case, does the automatic extension apply?
I'm confused as to whether a 60 day extension would be included in the automatic extension.

[ubonjoe]

24 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

It's the actual wording that is ambiguous.

That is only the wording created by the person writing the announcement on the immigration website.

This is what the ministerial order states.

Basically if you are stuck here and cannot leave the country to get a new entry you fall under the order.

You can read the entire order here. Ministeral Order for Emgency Situation.pdf  But you also need a copy of the immigration act understand the rest of the order.

[ubonjoe]

14 minutes ago, yaman said:

In this case, does the automatic extension apply?

Yes

You qualify since the only way you can get a longer stay is to leave the country to get a new visa or enter the country getting a visa exempt entry or apply for long stay extension if you can qualify for it.

[RocketDog]

I vote that this topic be closed as it has become confusing and is dependent on interpreting the comments of an arguably confused authority which nonetheless holds the power to arbitrarily make immigration law. 

At the end of the day we'll all dance to that tune even if it's discordant atonal rap. 

 

 

........... 

And yes, even NCC1701A will have to dance. (sorry, I couldn't resist the lame attempt at humor). No offense intended ????

[up-country_sinclair]

Ubonjoe has the patience of a saint.

[Tanoshi]

37 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is only the wording created by the person writing the announcement on the immigration website.

This is what the ministerial order states.

Basically if you are stuck here and cannot leave the country to get a new entry you fall under the order.

You can read the entire order here. Ministeral Order for Emgency Situation.pdf  But you also need a copy of the immigration act understand the rest of the order.

I agree with you.

It's the varying interpretations and requirements displayed by Immigration offices that again come into question and cause confusion.

[JimGant]

23 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The reason it was done is due to the high numbers of people needing to do extension due to the border closures that was causing overcrowding at immigration offices. 

The number of people needing to do their annual extensions of stay is not near as high as others.

I think you have to closely read this in the image on the immigration website. Note where it says visa category.

 

Joe, for the life of me I can't connect the dots of your logic. The embassies have already done their interpretation of this amnesty, and it does not jive with yours, particularly in differentiating between 'visa categories':

 

Quote

 FROM A US EMBASSY EMAIL OF 7 APRIL:

The measure applies to all immigration [Visa] categories including visa exemption (i.e., tourists who entered Thailand and received a 30-day visa), the category typically received by U.S. citizen tourists.  If you have a valid visa, you do not need to visit an immigration office in order to benefit from the automatic visa extension.

Here they're using the shorthand term "visa" for "permission of stay." Certainly their interpretation of 'valid permissions of stay' includes 'extensions of stay', i.e., where you pay 1900 baht to get an in country 'permission of stay' (for either 30, 60,or 365 days) Joe says 365 day extensions of stay don't qualify -- but he says 60 or 30 extensions of stay do. I just can't see where the Thai guidance differentiates between long and short term..... And, if the logic is that long term residents renewing their extensions of stay are just too few to cause a Covid19 crowding moment -- just take a snapshot of CM Immigration on a normal day.....

 

Quote

You will likely have to a apply for a special 30 day extension by getting a letter from your embassy.

Advice given to someone on the short end of the stick re long term extension. However, for an Aussie, such advise would be meaningless, because Australia has interpreted the new guidance on amnesties to include long term extensions, thus no longer needing to issue those letters needed for special 30 day extensions:

Quote

For many of you this will save a visit to your local Immigration office which I am sure you will welcome. Given this, the Australian Embassy will no longer be providing letters to support visa extensions for Thailand.

Yeah, a lot of confusion. And I'm sure the individual IOs are scratching their heads too. Eventually it will all come out in the wash. Meanwhile, we can all keep guessing at the nuances.

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Quote from Ubonjoe:

Basically if you are stuck here and cannot leave the country to get a new entry you fall under the order.

Yeah, that's me. I can't renew my retirement extension of stay because it's attached to an old Non O-A visa, and I can't get Thai medical insurance 'cause I'm too old. So I looked at going the marriage extension route, and thus getting my US marriage license translated into a Thai Kor Ror 22 marriage certificate -- but I need a notarized statement from my consulate -- but they're closed indefinitely. If the border was open, I could do a border run -- but it ain't open. And if I was Australian, I couldn't even get a letter to allow a special 30 day extension (not that 30 days buys enough, so being a Yank doesn't mean much).

Edited April 12, 2020 by JimGant

[ubonjoe]

12 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Joe, for the life of me I can't connect the dots of your logic. The embassies have already done their interpretation of this amnesty, and it does not jive with yours, particularly in differentiating between 'visa categories':

Maybe they only read what was on the immigration website.

As posted before this explains it is only for those that cannot leave the country to stay longer in the country.

How would a one year extension fit into what is written above.

 

[Tanoshi]

Would this help your understanding @JimGant

 

 

Notification from the Minister of Interior.

Subject: Special permission of stay in the Kingdom for a certain groups of foreigners.

 

Article 2. Aliens permitted for a temporary stay (including Visas on arrival), aliens permitted for a temporary stay under Visa exemption. (Phor. 30 / PhorPhor. 14 / PhorPhor. 30 / PhorPhor. 90) which the permitted duration of stay is ended from 26th March onwards.

Ministerial Order for Emergency Situation..pdf

 

[JimGant]

11 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Would this help your understanding

No.

 

Quote

Article 2. Aliens permitted for a temporary stay (including Visas on arrival), aliens permitted for a temporary stay under Visa exemption. (Phor. 30 / PhorPhor. 14 / PhorPhor. 30 / PhorPhor. 90) which the permitted duration of stay is ended from 26th March onwards.

99% of us are here on "temporary stay." The other 1% have obtained permanent residency status. Are you confusing 'temporary stay' folks as the tourists, while us long term extendees are not on temporary stay?

[ubonjoe]

15 minutes ago, JimGant said:

99% of us are here on "temporary stay." The other 1% have obtained permanent residency status. Are you confusing 'temporary stay' folks as the tourists, while us long term extendees are not on temporary stay?

The ministerial order is only for those that have to be able to leave the country.

I have highlighted this in the first paragraph of the order that sums it up.

You are not part of that group.

You can still apply for a special 30 day extension since they are still in effect for those not in that group.

[JimGant]

24 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

How would a one year extension fit into what is written above.

Someone here on a one year extension that expires on 1 April, but who does not plan to renew that extension, but instead plans to leave the country (imagine!). I say that after, say, another 3 months of amnesty, that individual will not be hit with an overstay when he goes thru immigration at the airport on July 31st. I also say the same when he finally is allowed to go to Immigration to renew his extension, as logic would dictate that reducing the crowds at Immigration to the greatest extent today is part of this amnesty program.

 

Pulled over by a policeman? Sir, your permission of stay emanates from an extension of stay, thus you're on overstay. Let's go to jail. Naaaaa. There's got to be some logic in some of this, even for the Thais.

 

 

[JimGant]

4 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You can still apply for a special 30 day extension since they are still in effect for those not in that group.

Not if I was Australian -- because the believe the amnesty is blanket, they no longer issue the required letters for the special 30 day extension.

[JimGant]

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You are not part of that group.

You can still apply for a special 30 day extension since they are still in effect for those not in that group.

But that group could also have applied for normal 30 day (or 60 day family) extensions....what's the dif?

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, JimGant said:

But that group could also have applied for normal 30 day (or 60 day family) extensions....what's the dif?

The intent of the order was so that those in that group did not have to go to an immigration office to apply for them. That group was the majority of those packing immigration offices for extensions.

[Peter Denis]

@JimGant

Hi Jim,

I was also confused at first having only read the Amnesty Announcement posted on the IO website.

It's message as I understood it at first, was that all foreigners with a permission to stay expiring after 26 March would be eligible for the amnesty.

However, it appears that IO limited the amnesty only to those foreigners that would normally leave the country by the end of their permission to stay, and are now unable to do so because of border-closures. 

As a result the 'certain group of foreigners' eligible for the amnesty only consists of those that entered Thailand Visa Exempt, on a Tourists Visa (SETV or METV) or a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides a 90-day permission to stay. 

The implicit thinking behind the exclusion is that those foreigners on long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa or extensions of those, do not need to exit the country at the end of their permission to stay, as they can apply for a 1-year extension based on their present Visa.  And so they are excluded from the amnesty, and are required to apply for their 'normal' 1-year extension of stay at their local IO at the end of their permission to stay.

So those that had planned to exit the country - like yourself - to 'kill' their present O-A Visa and then apply for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, are now stuck and will probably be forced to apply for the 1-year extension. 

Note: Your case is special and might invoke an IO exception because at your age you are not able to meet the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance requirement.  The 'standard' advice by IO for those that could not get thai IO-approved health-insurance was 'to exit the country and apply for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa' (which is now not possible due to border-closure).

[JimGant]

2 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The intent of the order was so that those in that group did not have to go to an immigration office to apply for them. That group was the majority of those packing immigration offices for extensions.

Joe, I don't mean to belabor this, as I know you're just calling it as the Thais are confusingly pitching it. But keeping everyone out of immigration for covid19 purposes that don't need to go there via this amnesty decree -- certainly should include those going for special 30 day extensions....

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The implicit thinking behind the exclusion is that those foreigners on long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa or extensions of those, do not need to exit the country at the end of their permission to stay, as they can apply for a 1-year extension based on their present Visa.  And so they are excluded from the amnesty, and are required to apply for their 'normal' 1-year extension of stay at their local IO at the end of their permission to stay.

That may well be the logic, but it is deeply flawed. Someone who entered on a Non O, without any previous extensions, can often more easily apply for a one-year extension than someone who decided to extend the previous year but had planned to leave this year.

[johnny1966]

45 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

@JimGant

Hi Jim,

I was also confused at first having only read the Amnesty Announcement posted on the IO website.

It's message as I understood it at first, was that all foreigners with a permission to stay expiring after 26 March would be eligible for the amnesty.

However, it appears that IO limited the amnesty only to those foreigners that would normally leave the country by the end of their permission to stay, and are now unable to do so because of border-closures. 

As a result the 'certain group of foreigners' eligible for the amnesty only consists of those that entered Thailand Visa Exempt, on a Tourists Visa (SETV or METV) or a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides a 90-day permission to stay. 

The implicit thinking behind the exclusion is that those foreigners on long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa or extensions of those, do not need to exit the country at the end of their permission to stay, as they can apply for a 1-year extension based on their present Visa.  And so they are excluded from the amnesty, and are required to apply for their 'normal' 1-year extension of stay at their local IO at the end of their permission to stay.

So those that had planned to exit the country - like yourself - to 'kill' their present O-A Visa and then apply for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, are now stuck and will probably be forced to apply for the 1-year extension. 

Note: Your case is special and might invoke an IO exception because at your age you are not able to meet the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance requirement.  The 'standard' advice by IO for those that could not get thai IO-approved health-insurance was 'to exit the country and apply for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa' (which is now not possible due to border-closure).

referring to long stay non imm o visa holders in your post, this means those on multi entry non imm o visas who leave the country every 90 days and whose permission to stay ends after march 26th are NOT included in the Amnesty as they can go to immigration to apply for a 1 year extension or 60 day extension? This means they will be overstay after their permission to stay ends if they do not extend at immigration? This is how I read your post. Excuse me if I'm wrong.

Edited April 12, 2020 by johnny1966

[Tanoshi]

@JimGant

From what I conclude, your currently on a 1 year permission of stay based on entry from an O-A Visa, OR a 1 year extension based from entry of an O-A, therefore requiring the Health Insurance.

 

Your intention was to leave the Country after your current permission of stay expires due to issues with obtaining a further Insurance Health certificate.

 

Your category of Visa is not included in those of the Ministerial Order granting an automatic extension of your permission of stay.

 

If the above is correct, you still qualify for an extension under clause 3 of the original Memo. It is not automatic, you will have to apply at your local office explaining your situation. Under the current emergency situation nobody should be in a position of overstay or subject to fines.

 

I stand to be corrected, but that is my interpretation based on the above circumstances.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Tanoshi

[Peter Denis]

18 minutes ago, BritTim said:

That may well be the logic, but it is deeply flawed. Someone who entered on a Non O, without any previous extensions, can often more easily apply for a one-year extension than someone who decided to extend the previous year but had planned to leave this year.

HI Tim,

That's not fully correct, or rather there is also a different side to the above. 

When again applying for a 1-year extension of your Non Imm O Visa, you were expected to have been in compliance with its requirements during the previous year, and it is on that basis that they approve your extension again for the coming year.  The fact that you planned to stop extending the permission to stay of your present Non Imm O Visa, does not mean that you can stop meeting its requirements (e.g. not meeting the 800K / 400K tressholds or doing the monthly income transfers of 65K). 

So meeting the requirements for the 1-year extension of stay is - according to thai logic - actually quite easy as you just need to provide evidence that you were in compliance the previous year (as you were expected to).

I agree that the evidence they require you to provide to prove that you were in compliance is somewhat (under-statement) over the top, and as a result that it is indeed often easier to re-apply from scratch than just extending your permission to stay.

[Tanoshi]

37 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The implicit thinking behind the exclusion is that those foreigners on long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa or extensions of those, do not need to exit the country at the end of their permission to stay, as they can apply for a 1-year extension based on their present Visa.  And so they are excluded from the amnesty, and are required to apply for their 'normal' 1-year extension of stay at their local IO at the end of their permission to stay.

Peter, with respect I'm puzzled by your constant term of 'long stay Non O'.

I assume your referring to the ME type, which is valid for one year.

Each entry though is valid for 90 days.

 

The Ministerial specifically includes this Visa type, not by it's validity, but by the permission of stay granted by entry of a Non O. An automatic extension is applied to 90 day entries (PhorPhor 90) in the Ministerial order.

 

Yes, they could apply for an annual extension as an option, provided they can meet the financial requirements.