automatic corona visa extension does not apply to non-immigrant visa says Integrity Legal

[Olmate]

25 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

@Tanoshi is 100% correct.

I am not 'fishing' for info on agents. 

Just providing some advice for those that want to extend their 1-year permissions of stay on the basis of their original Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of retirement.  They are since October 2019 confronted with the $%^& thai IO-approved health-insurance requirement and LMG Insurance is the cheapest option for such - otherwise worthless - policy.

The better advice is of course to apply for a 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa and subsequently apply for the 1-year extension on the basis of that Visa.  The requirements/conditions for such 1-year extension are exactly the same for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa and the Non Imm O-A Visa (for reason of retirement), but a 1-year extension on the basis of a Non Imm O - retirement Visa does not require that health-insurance scam.

However, with borders being closed at the moment, those whose permission to stay based on their original O-A Visa is almost due for extension, might consider 'biting the bullet' and applying this year for that health-insurance.  And in that case I would recommend going for the dirt-cheapest option being the LMG Insurance policy.

That’s great, many on this type of topic do. Your advice on the non Imm O insurance option is well received I,m sure. Won,t work for many tho as you acknowledge. Agents are an option also.Cheers

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

Sounds like a lawyer trying to scare people so they become his clients.

He doesn't provide any evidence for what he says, and just gives one very vague example. At which immigration office was the guy on the ED visa allegedly fined?

 

Shame on you, thinking such unworthy thoughts about lawyers.

[doctormann]

24 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Are you 75 years old, or younger? If so, I'll explain in a message why I asked.

76 next birthday.

[BritTim]

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Of course he is incorrectly calling extensions of stay a visa. That causes confusion. If on an extension of stay the automatic extension does not apply to you since it it does not require you to leave and reenter the country to keep your stay valid.

I still do not understand this justification of saying a permission to stay based on entry with a visa is different from an extended permission to stay. In both cases, you would normally have a choice between leaving the country before the end of your permission to stay or requesting an extension. I understand why some senior officials in Immigration want to force as many people as possible to apply for certain classes of extensions of stay, but the argument that people's ability to leave the country depends on your immigration history lacks logic.

[Maestro]

Just for the record (highlighting in bold is mine):

 

Topic title: automatic corona visa extension does not apply to non-immigrant visa says Integrity Legal

 

Lawyer in the video: ...does not appear to apply...

[ubonjoe]

38 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I still do not understand this justification of saying a permission to stay based on entry with a visa is different from an extended permission to stay. In both cases, you would normally have a choice between leaving the country before the end of your permission to stay or requesting an extension. I understand why some senior officials in Immigration want to force as many people as possible to apply for certain classes of extensions of stay, but the argument that people's ability to leave the country depends on your immigration history lacks logic.

It is stated the first paragraph of the ministerial order that states the reason for the order.

This is the last 3 lines of it.

 

That has been discussed before in other topics on this forum. Those on extension of stay are not affected by the closure of border and entry point into the Kingdom.

[jackdd]

24 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It is stated the first paragraph of the ministerial order that states the reason for the order.

This is the last 3 lines of it.

 

That has been discussed before in other topics on this forum. Those on extension of stay are not affected by the closure of border and entry point into the Kingdom.

I still see "including the stay in the Kingdom" written there, even if you might not see it.

If they wanted to express that it's only affecting people who have to cross a border they would not have written these words.

[ubonjoe]

14 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I still see "including the stay in the Kingdom" written there, even if you might not see it.

If they wanted to express that it's only affecting people who have to cross a border they would not have written these words.

A entry to the country with a visa or visa exempt allows a stay in the country. Makes sense to me.

[BritTim]

 

 

  

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

It is stated the first paragraph of the ministerial order that states the reason for the order.

This is the last 3 lines of it.

 

I understand that the order states that some people will find it hard to leave while others will not. The argument that this depends on whether your permission to stay is based on recent entry into the country or an extended permission to stay is what I dispute. Note that I fully understand that people must comply with rules whether they are logical or not. However, the attempt to justify irrational rules designed purely to protect the income of senior immigration officials really aggravates me.

[pbrock]

8 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

There is a significant difference between someone on 'permission of stay' from a Visa entry, and someone on 'permission of stay' from an extension.

What's the difference?

[JimGant]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

I still do not understand this justification of saying a permission to stay based on entry with a visa is different from an extended permission to stay. In both cases, you would normally have a choice between leaving the country before the end of your permission to stay or requesting an extension.

I'm with you. It almost sounds like Immigration is saying that everyone in country courtesy of a Non Imm visa are NOT covered by the amnesty: Because they're afforded the capability to extend in country for 365 days (tourist visas, of course, can only extend for 30 days), whether that's off a brand new 90-day entry from a Non Imm -- or off the tenth extension of stay off a long ago expired Non Imm. But that logic is nuts! The guy here on a 90 day entry may not: Be married to a Thai; be over age 50; or have the necessary in-country financials. And the guy here on his tenth extension may not have the required medical certificate, or maybe he sent his financials back home, with the intent to NOT extend but to beat feet. In both situations, leaving the country will be required and thus should be subject to the amnesty.

 

No, I like Joe's observation:

Quote

If you do not do your extension based upon retirement due to not qualifying for one you would technically fall under the automatic extension and could stay in the country until the emergency situation is over since you cannot get a new permit to stay unless you are able to leave and re-enter the country.

Makes sense to me -- thus, probably not an option.

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, pbrock said:

What's the difference?

All you need to do to get a permission of stay when you enter using a visa is your passport to show your visa and a TM6 to get the stay it allows.

A extension of stay requires supporting documents when you apply for it. That includes financial proof when applying based upon retirement, marriage or being the parent of a Thai.

[JimGant]

16 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

All you need to do to get a permission of stay when you enter using a visa is your passport to show your visa and a TM6 to get the stay it allows.

A extension of stay requires supporting documents when you apply for it. That includes financial proof when applying based upon retirement, marriage or being the parent of a Thai.

But say you enter on a Non Imm O-A, receiving it based on over age 50 and home country financials, then receive a 365 day permission of stay at the border. Now, for the extender, he has to show he's over 50 and prove in-country financials amazingly similar to the O-A application. Then he receives a 365 day permission of stay. So, what's the diff at the end of the day? In both situations Immigration seems to be implying you don't qualify for amnesty because in both situations you can renew in-country for another 365 days -- but only if you meet the financial requirement and maybe a medical requirement -- and if you don't, maybe then you qualify for amnesty.

What a mess.

[ubonjoe]

20 minutes ago, JimGant said:

In both situations Immigration seems to be implying you don't qualify for amnesty because in both situations you can renew in-country for another 365 days -- but only if you meet the financial requirement and maybe a medical requirement -- and if you don't, maybe then you qualify for amnesty.

I think what they are saying is that you should not intentionally skip your extension of stay application due to the emergency situation.

But if you cannot qualify for it due to not meeting the requirements you have no choice but to stay if you cannot leave the country. If you can't leave then you fall under the "amnesty".

[JimGant]

12 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I think what they are saying is that you should not intentionally skip your extension of stay application due to the emergency situation.

But if you cannot qualify for it due to not meeting the requirements you have no choice but to stay if you cannot leave the country. If you can't leave then you fall under the "amnesty".

So, even if you know you don't qualify for an extension, should you go to Immigration anyway to get proof of "denied" to use in your proof of subsequent amnesty? And what sort of proof might that look like? thanx.

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, JimGant said:

So, even if you know you don't qualify for an extension, should you go to Immigration anyway to get proof of "denied" to use in your proof of subsequent amnesty?

I did not write that or even intend to imply it. I doubt it would be needed.

What I worry about is people that could qualify for one thinking they could skip it and find our their extension was lost when they went later to apply for it.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

All you need to do to get a permission of stay when you enter using a visa is your passport to show your visa and a TM6 to get the stay it allows.

A extension of stay requires supporting documents when you apply for it. That includes financial proof when applying based upon retirement, marriage or being the parent of a Thai.

The problem with this argument is that the granting of various viisa require supporting documents

[Wongkitlo]

13 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That has been stated on this forum many times. 

Of course he is incorrectly calling extensions of stay a visa. That causes confusion. If on an extension of stay the automatic extension does not apply to you since it it does not require you to leave and reenter the country to keep your stay valid.

If on a multiple entry non immigrant visa of any kind it does fall under the automatic extension. You are affected due to not being able to leave the country and re-enter for a new entry.

My  entry on non O multi entry runs out next week. The guy on the video does say we are not covered by the amnesty. My wife rang Jomtien Immigration on 1178  and they said the same as Joe. Am covered by the amnesty. 

[Maestro]

Removed an incomprehensible post (f#№###)

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

So, even if you know you don't qualify for an extension, should you go to Immigration anyway to get proof of "denied" to use in your proof of subsequent amnesty? And what sort of proof might that look like? thanx.

Whatever your interpretation of that virtually indecipherable ministerial order, do not attend immigration and ask for a denied extension. If they are kind, they may tell you to go away. If irritated, they are liable to take your 1,900 baht and give you a stamp giving you seven days to leave the country, at which stage I do not believe you would be covered by any automatic extensions.

[JimGant]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

Whatever your interpretation of that virtually indecipherable ministerial order, do not attend immigration and ask for a denied extension. If they are kind, they may tell you to go away. If irritated, they are liable to take your 1,900 baht and give you a stamp giving you seven days to leave the country, at which stage I do not believe you would be covered by any automatic extensions.

Good point.

[jacko45k]

21 hours ago, jackdd said:

What is the difference?

1900 baht.

[jaffas21]

So what happens in this situation, according to my visa its called an "extension of sta"y, its a visa expiring 30th april due to work as my contract officially ends on that date, it also has a 90 day report slip at the back when i am supposed to report to cancel my visa, I have to go to immigration on the 30th? correct?

 

Then the most I would be able to get it 7 days to leave the country is that correct?

 

So an automatic extension throughout May would not cover me in this situation?

 

thats what it appears, from what everyone is saying. Is that correct?

 

 

 

 

[jaffas21]

Obviously this situation will affect hundreds of teachers, maybe thousands who need to laos  for a tourist visa to find a new job or to get their non b for the job they already have.

 

Many will have had visas expire  30th March (on 11 month contracts and probably think they didnt have to go to immigration with the amnesty. I know a few people for whom this is the case.

 

So according to what im reading these guys will be hit with overstay fees for not going to immigration on the 30th march. Many are waiting to see if the laos border will re open and then you would need to be able return to thailand again easily without all these documents which will be difficult to get in laos.

 

that video doesnt cover this type of visa/situation, apart from the fact they are talking about general no imm

[jackdd]

26 minutes ago, jaffas21 said:

Many will have had visas expire  30th March (on 11 month contracts and probably think they didnt have to go to immigration with the amnesty. I know a few people for whom this is the case.

They had permission to stay until after 26th March, so they are automatically extended until 30th April: https://immigration.go.th/content/visa_auto_extension

[jaffas21]

46 minutes ago, jackdd said:

They had permission to stay until after 26th March, so they are automatically extended until 30th April: https://immigration.go.th/content/visa_auto_extension

Yes, but what happens after  30th April? as everyone is asking? are expiring non b's for teachers being extended to allow them to remain to take on a new job once the laos border is open. Or not? Not all schools even do renewal paperwork so many legitimate teachers who have to go to laos due to school policy will be unable to get new paperwork.

 

Basically these people with expiring non bs due to work need either an visa extension or the laos border to open and the thai border to allow them to come back in with the appropriate visa.

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, jaffas21 said:

Yes, but what happens after  30th April? as everyone is asking? are expiring non b's for teachers being extended to allow them to remain to take on a new job once the laos border is open. Or not?

Currently they are extended until 30th April, we can just speculate on what happens after this. Me and many other people here think that they will extend it for another month. What happens at end of Mai is again just speculation.

[DrJack54]

@jaffas21 The amnesty has to be extended. All of May would be popular guess. At some point while amnesty is still in operation you would imagine there would be an announcement prior to let folk know of "end date" of amnesty giving them time to exit Thailand for border bounce or visa. 

Of course this can only occur when borders are open. 

Only to demonstrate here is wild GUESS.

Amnesty extended for all May.

Towards end of may (or earlier) announcement that amnesty will have final extension June 1 to 14. 

[jaffas21]

so speculation then

 

Teachers with expired non b's will be included in this amnesty? or will they need to go to immigration? the american guy doesnt mention those people in his video and they number a lot

[ubonjoe]

20 minutes ago, jaffas21 said:

Teachers with expired non b's will be included in this amnesty? or will they need to go to immigration? the american guy doesnt mention those people in his video and they number a lot

The are included since they are unable to leave the country to get a new visa or entry to the country.