Phuket immigration-- Need to show 12 months of transfers from abroad for Non O married to Thai

[steelepulse]

Regardless of what the law and  actual order state, it seems Phuket immigration can make up their own rules.

 

I had someone I know tell me about this 12 month rule, but I was skeptical that the order can be interpreted to go from 2 month to 12 months.  A few days ago I contacted Phuket immigration volunteers to inquire.  They confirmed that indeed you need to show 12 months of transfers from abroad to meet the monthly income rule.

 

[Moonlover]

2 months if it's the first application and 12 months thereafter. Nothing has changed to my knowledge.

[khunyod]

9 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

2 months if it's the first application and 12 months thereafter. Nothing has changed to my knowledge.

Not correct for Chiang Mai immigration. They do NOT have a "2 month" option (even if the first extension year). Confirmed in person on 18 August 2020. Apparently this is a local issue of interpretation province-by-province or even perhaps immigration officer-by-immigration officer.

[steelepulse]

18 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

2 months if it's the first application and 12 months thereafter. Nothing has changed to my knowledge.

Not according to the Phuket volunteers and people I know that have gone in person to get their first Non 0 married to a Thai.

[Matzzon]

As @Moonlover states above, there has been no changes in anything regarding the 2 month transfers for the first year applying for an extension. The years after, the applicant needs to show full 12 month transfers for every yearly extension.

What they are clamping down on is the people that have been going to Savannakhet and stayed in Thailand 1 year already on a Non-O-ME, which they see to rightfully compare as same as that the applicant had already had a one year extension. In those cases they usually asks to see 12 month transfers.

Edited August 20, 2020 by Matzzon

[PST]

Don't forget too, there is also the option to show 400k in a Thai bank for 2 months before applying for a one year extension.

 

PST

 

 

[CHAZ1]

As far as I know there is no mention of 2 months transfers in the Police orders. 

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, khunyod said:

Not correct for Chiang Mai immigration. They do NOT have a "2 month" option (even if the first extension year). Confirmed in person on 18 August 2020. Apparently this is a local issue of interpretation province-by-province or even perhaps immigration officer-by-immigration officer.

 

1 hour ago, steelepulse said:

Not according to the Phuket volunteers and people I know that have gone in person to get their first Non 0 married to a Thai.

I am stating what the official rules are, not how various Imm officers choose to misinterpret them. 

[john terry1001]

It's widely reported that, for an 'initial' extension, only needs proof of two months 40K transfers. But I think refusal of using the 'two month income' can have various reasons but they're just reported on places like TV  without the full reasons given.

 

For example, a lot of people who have been on repeat extensions have, for various reasons, recently changed and obtained a non O visa. (want change from O-A to non O, temporary lack of funds, etc).

 

When they then try to get a 'new' extension they will offer just two months income transfers.

 

But, in Si Racha for example, the IO will look through the persons passport. If, prior to the current non O, there are extensions covering previous years the two month option will be refused and twelve months bank statements is required. The IO will deem that it's not an initial application but a continuation of previous extensions.

 

They say, changing from 'retirement' to 'marriage', (with or without a change of actual visa) doesn't count either.

 

Don't know if this is the same elsewhere.

[khunyod]

46 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

It's widely reported that, for an 'initial' extension, only needs proof of two months 40K transfers. But I think refusal of using the 'two month income' can have various reasons but they're just reported on places like TV  without the full reasons given.

 

For example, a lot of people who have been on repeat extensions have, for various reasons, recently changed and obtained a non O visa. (want change from O-A to non O, temporary lack of funds, etc).

 

When they then try to get a 'new' extension they will offer just two months income transfers.

 

But, in Si Racha for example, the IO will look through the persons passport. If, prior to the current non O, there are extensions covering previous years the two month option will be refused and twelve months bank statements is required. The IO will deem that it's not an initial application but a continuation of previous extensions.

 

They say, changing from 'retirement' to 'marriage', (with or without a change of actual visa) doesn't count either.

 

Don't know if this is the same elsewhere.

At CM Immigration the "reason" was that 2 months is not an option. Two printed pieces of paper were handed over with some highlighting. We asked if the rules had changed and the answer was "no".

[john terry1001]

20 minutes ago, khunyod said:

At CM Immigration the "reason" was that 2 months is not an option. Two printed pieces of paper were handed over with some highlighting. We asked if the rules had changed and the answer was "no".

Below your highlighted statement, the next line states:

 

'Exception in the case of foreigner who has just retired less than on year, in this case provide financial documents before retirement date'

 

Ubonjoe (amongst others) is always stating there is a 'two month option' on threads here, and he generally has all the legal quotes to back it up.

 

I might be wrong but I believe it has something to do with people not having a Thai bank account and/or being able to supply twelve months Thai bank income statements when they apply for their initial extension from their non O visa. Organised correctly, that person could supply two months of transfers and apply for an extension while on a 90 day non O visa.

 

Maybe he could post the actual ruling here to clarify for others.

Edited August 20, 2020 by john terry1001

[ubonjoe]

21 minutes ago, khunyod said:

At CM Immigration the "reason" was that 2 months is not an option. Two printed pieces of paper were handed over with some highlighting.

Not really. What about the words in parenthesis under the highlighted one.

That is more or less what the amendment to the police orders stated but it has and example for 2 months of transfers.

[trucking]

16 hours ago, steelepulse said:

A few days ago I contacted Phuket immigration volunteers to inquire.  They confirmed that indeed you need to show 12 months of transfers from abroad to meet the monthly income rule.

 

My experience also when making enquiries at Petchabun immigration yesterday.

[ubonjoe]

17 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

Ubonjoe (amongst others) is always stating there is a 'two month option' on threads here, and he generally has all the legal quotes to back it up.

As I wrote it is similar wording to what is in parentheses.

[john terry1001]

6 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Not really. What about the words in parenthesis under the highlighted one.

That is more or less what the amendment to the police orders stated but it has and example for 2 months of transfers.

I do understand what you're saying, but 'more or less' isn't really accurate enough to convince some IO's. People who have this problem really need something more exact.

 

I, for example, retired through ill health at fifty-four, with my company paying my reduced salary until I got my pension at sixty-five. How would I explain that in a 'more or less way'?

[time2093]

Its not just Phuket, Chang Mai Immigration that are denying the 2 month transfer from abroad option for first time extension of stay as I just been to Kalasin immigration and they also said to me that it doesn't matter if its my first time doing the 12 month extension they want to see one full year of 40k transfers from abroad.

 

I told them to double check and make some calls to be sure and after making their calls I can only assume to their regional or head office they said NO it has to be for one full year. So with that great news I am forced to go with the agent rout as I dont have a choice, the 400k in the bank is not an option for me as I got to pay up or leave Thailand.

Edited August 20, 2020 by time2093

[Bender Rodriguez]

easier to park 800k for immigration only, never touch it 

 

you might get 0.1 percent of interest on it

[thaibeachlovers]

Wow. Phuket imm. really hates foreigners, IMO. Having got rich, very rich off farangs for years they now reciprocate the favour, NOT.

 

2 hours ago, john terry1001 said:

I do understand what you're saying, but 'more or less' isn't really accurate enough to convince some IO's. People who have this problem really need something more exact.

Seems they can make up any old rubbish and get away with it, but no such leniency for farangs.

[john terry1001]

4 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

As I wrote it is similar wording to what is in parentheses.

So this doesn't mention anything about two months transfers are acceptable if this is the first extension application. 

 

This appears to say if you are applying for an extension less than a year after retiring, the monthly transfers need to start when the pension starts and continues on a monthly basis.

 

Unless I've misread them, many posts in various threads here on TV have suggested, if it's an initial first time extension application, it is only necessary to supply proof of two months of monthly transfers. 

 

This appears to be complicated by the fact that some people think that, if they've been on extensions before changing to a non O visa, a subsequent extension application would be an initial, first time, and only require two monthly transfers.

 

This appears to have happened on more than one occasion in Si Racha. Extension applications have been refused because the IO considers previous extensions count as a continuation of permission of stay and not a new one, even when punctuated by the current non O visa.

 

I only know of the problem occurring with two people in Si Racha, I don't know if IO's elsewhere in Thailand use the same interpretation.  

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

So this doesn't mention anything about two months transfers are acceptable if this is the first extension application. 

Not directly since it is only a poorly worded example. But it does imply it is for the first extension since it only mentions 2 months which would be for a 90 day non-o visa entry.

Normally immigration considers the first extension as one from a new non-o visa entry.

I think many offices are saying no because they do not want to accept 2 transfers.

Also some seem to be considering a entry from a multiple entry non-o visa as not the first one. They seem to have the mindset that a person should of been sending the funds in already to live on. They apparently don't realize there are other ways to get their money sent to here.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

Not directly since it is only a poorly worded example. But it does imply it is for the first extension since it only mentions 2 months which would be for a 90 day non-o visa entry.

Normally immigration considers the first extension as one from a new non-o visa entry.

I think many offices are saying no because they do not want to accept 2 transfers.

Also some seem to be considering a entry from a multiple entry non-o visa as not the first one. They seem to have the mindset that a person should of been sending the funds in already to live on. They apparently don't realize there are other ways to get their money sent to here.

Joe the wording is specific in the extract you posted.

Evidence from the month of retirement.

Unfortunately the example provided is for retirement date 2 month prior to application.

 

The example cannot be taken as implying only 2 months is required as this would conflict with the actual criteria specified ( from month of retirement ).

[jackdd]

I just checked the latest police order regarding the extensions.

An extension for having a Thai spouse or Thai children as well as for reason of retirement, always requires 12 months of transfers, except if you retired less than 12 months ago. Seems a bit odd that the time when you retired matters when applying for an extension to stay with your wife, but that's what is written down.

So an IO who denies you an extension if you don't have 12 months of transfer is acting in accordance with the official orders given to him (if you don't provide any proof that you retired less than 12 months ago, of course they don't state what would be accepted as proof).

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by jackdd

[KarenBravo]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wow. Phuket imm. really hates foreigners, IMO. Having got rich, very rich off farangs for years they now reciprocate the favour, NOT.

 

Seems they can make up any old rubbish and get away with it, but no such leniency for farangs.

Do you use Phuket immigration personally?

[ubonjoe]

10 minutes ago, jackdd said:

An extension for having a Thai spouse or Thai children as well as for reason of retirement, always requires 12 months of transfers, except if you retired less than 12 months ago. Seems a bit odd that the time when you retired matters when applying for an extension to stay with your wife, but that's what is written down.

It may be something lost in translation. They state the same thing in for both types of extensions (number 2 for marriage and 1 for retirement).

I assume they mean from the day you arrive in the country.

[phutoie2]

8 hours ago, trucking said:

 

My experience also when making enquiries at Petchabun immigration yesterday.

They doing extensions based on income now?. 

I was turned down flat in March, 400K in bank is the only thing they would accept. 

 

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It may be something lost in translation. They state the same thing in for both types of extensions (number 2 for marriage and 1 for retirement).

I assume they mean from the day you arrive in the country.

I read the Thai version, it says this as well. It also doesn't say the day you arrive in the country, but the day you retire. The English translation is correct.

We don't know if it's on purpose, or if it's a mistake, but it are the current official rules. So showing the police order to an IO won't help, it just confirms the IO.

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by jackdd

[trucking]

1 minute ago, phutoie2 said:

They doing extensions based on income now?. 

I was turned down flat in March, 400K in bank is the only thing they would accept. 

 

Well, this was yesterday. They laughed at the 2 months suggestion and told me only 12 monthly deposits acceptable. I now have the 400,000 in my UK bank and will transfer it into my Bangkok Bank account tomorrow for 2 months seasoning.

[engamann]

2 days ago i did my yearly exstension as marrid to Thai at Jomtien imigration , I have always used the income statment i get from my embassy and this was year 10 i came whit the same paper as always but this year the officer just shake his head and say can not !!!! need 12 month bank statment him say , so i go get the stament at the bank and get back to him but the problem was that since i never had to show this before i dont transfer every month but can be 2 -3 month between since i transfer much when first do it but im not sure if him now what to look for because him just tell me to mark the transfers my self , i did get the under consideration stamp so hopefully it will be okay but always something new and this people at the marrid desk at Jomtien have never been very friendly and seam to hate there job maybe thats why them always come up whit something. 

 

Ps. after 8 year whit no home visit i had to day a home visit from imigration for the second year in a row. 

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, trucking said:

Well, this was yesterday. They laughed at the 2 months suggestion and told me only 12 monthly deposits acceptable. I now have the 400,000 in my UK bank and will transfer it into my Bangkok Bank account tomorrow for 2 months seasoning.

You are lucky that you did not yet use up your 60-day extension of stay, which will allow you to season the 400K funds-in-bank for 2 months and then apply for the 1-year extension of stay.

But for those in same situation (Me Non Imm O marriage Visa holders) that already used up their 60-day extension of say, it is dead-end.  And certainly for the US, UK and Australian citizens as the last remaining regular option 'the Embassy issued foreign income statement' is not available for them.

So for these unfortunates there are only 2 Last Resort options left:

1 - Engaging a fixer agent that can take care of the 400K requirement, with quoted prices of 25K for an agent to fix the need for the 400K.

2 - Temporarily/administratively relocating to a nearby province with a more accomodating IO that still applies the 'regular' 2-months monthly income transfer method for a first time extension application.

 

It seems a nation-wide change of policy, because it cannot be a co-incidence that suddenly this insistence on 12 months of transfers did pop up in Phuket, CM, Jomtien, Kalasin, Khon Kaen, Petchabun, SiSaKet and possible also other IOs.

The timing of that change is also very unfortunate (or was this deliberate?).

And it is in fact a change, because there are many reports of applicants successfully applying for their first 1-year extension of stay with 2 months of monthly income transfers as evidence of meeting the financial requirements for such application.

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, engamann said:

2 days ago i did my yearly extension as married to Thai at Jomtien immigration , I have always used the income statement i get from my embassy and this was year 10 i came whit the same paper as always but this year the officer just shake his head and say can not !!!! need 12 month bank statement him say , so i go get the statement at the bank and get back to him but the problem was that since i never had to show this before i don't transfer every month but can be 2 -3 month between since i transfer much when first do it but I'm not sure if him now what to look for because him just tell me to mark the transfers my self , i did get the under consideration stamp so hopefully it will be okay but always something new and this people at the married desk at Jomtien have never been very friendly and seam to hate there job maybe that's why them always come up with something. 

 

Ps. after 8 year whit no home visit i had to day a home visit from immigration for the second year in a row. 

Hi Engamann,

When being from a different nationality than US, UK or Australian (whose embassies don't issue it anymore), the Embassy issued foreign-income statement is still accepted when applying for the 1-year extension of stay, and it is actually IOs preference that applicants use that option as it is easiest to check for them.

But IO does have the right to ask for some evidence on how you are able to cater for 'your living expenses'.  They cannot require evidence of 12 monthly income transfers, but if you can show evidence that during the past year you did some transfers from abroad that's sufficient (when on a work-permit also evidence of domestic income will be accepted).

And that's exactly what you did, and they accepted that (as they should) and you are now 'under consideration' which is a pure administrative matter, so you can consider your 1-year extension' approved.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Peter Denis