If I go for a Non-O visa based on retirement, at the time of my first one year extension will they accept 2 initial 65k bank transfers for the one year extension?

You will need to use money in bank method.

Showing 2 months of transfers for income method won't work.

Does your embassy provide income letter? 

The written rules do state 2 or 3 months of transfers can be accepted for the first extension application but many offices will insist on having 12 months of transfers.

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

You will need to use money in bank method.

Showing 2 months of transfers for income method won't work.

Does your embassy provide income letter? 

No I'm American. We just pay taxes on worldwide income. We don't get anything for it. 555

12 minutes ago, night_rider said:

No I'm American. We just pay taxes on worldwide income. We don't get anything for it. 555

As stated earlier you will need to obtain the non O retirement and subsequent extension using money in the bank method. 

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The written rules do state 2 or 3 months of transfers can be accepted for the first extension application but many offices will insist on having 12 months of transfers.

Do you have a link to the written rules for this please? I'd like to show it to my IO who insist on 12 months of transfers.

9 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Do you have a link to the written rules for this please? I'd like to show it to my IO who insist on 12 months of transfers.

You are optimistic.

Won't do any good.

 

14 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Do you have a link to the written rules for this please? I'd like to show it to my IO who insist on 12 months of transfers.

 

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Revising clauses 2.18 and 2.22 to include options for proof of income  

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Thai text

FWIW at the same time I made this post I asked Chiang Mai Immigration on Facebook.

They responded they want 800k or 12 monthly transfers for the first extension.

Chaiyaphum immigration say the same thing. But I will try to change their mind when I go next month with the document from Ubonjoe in hand.

40 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Do you have a link to the written rules for this please? I'd like to show it to my IO who insist on 12 months of transfers.

Do not do that! Best case, it will make no difference. If you pick a sensitive official, you will make an enemy who will not forget you.

 

If you were not in Thailand during any of the period when there were no qualifying transfers, you could very deferentially and quietly, ask if it was really necessary to transfer money into Thailand before your arrival in the country, or could your boss make an exception (which they are empowered to do, but probably will not).

9 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Chaiyaphum immigration say the same thing. But I will try to change their mind when I go next month with the document from Ubonjoe in hand.

Up to you as they say.

 

I haven't read one report  for first extension retirement ....where couple of month transfers have been accepted. 

35 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Do not do that! Best case, it will make no difference. If you pick a sensitive official, you will make an enemy who will not forget you.

 

If you were not in Thailand during any of the period when there were no qualifying transfers, you could very deferentially and quietly, ask if it was really necessary to transfer money into Thailand before your arrival in the country, or could your boss make an exception (which they are empowered to do, but probably will not).

Thanks for your concern, but I know how to be diplomatic.

39 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Thanks for your concern, but I know how to be diplomatic.

Good luck, as @DrJack54 has said when you put the I/O on the spot, no matter how diplomatic you try and be, it never works out.  I used the 800K in the bank method for my first extension years ago, and it only had to season for 2 months.  Had I not done that I would have had to show 12 months of monthly transfers via bank statements that were stamped by the bank.

9 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The written rules do state 2 or 3 months of transfers can be accepted for the first extension application but many offices will insist on having 12 months of transfers.

yeh written rules that are ignored. maybe big job could sort it LMFO 

4 hours ago, roquefort said:

Thanks for your concern, but I know how to be diplomatic.

Just tell them, Big Joke said it was O.K 

Just now, brianthainess said:

Just tell them, Big Joke said it was O.K 

Help ! i'm laughing at my own joke, known to me as  ....up to you  ' it could b a big one' if only those emojis were back. : )

And of course don't ever forget rule # 14

/// 

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Revising clauses 2.18 and 2.22 to include options for proof of income  

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Thai text

Who reads, any Amendments in any Government office ?, apart from the local councils, they always seem on the ball with their 'Central  computer system '.

8 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Revising clauses 2.18 and 2.22 to include options for proof of income  

Amendment to police order 138/2557 Thai text

I didn’t see anything in that link referencing 2/3 months of transfers………have I missed something?

14 hours ago, roquefort said:

Do you have a link to the written rules for this please? I'd like to show it to my IO who insist on 12 months of transfers.

Rules are flexible... generally doing what the IO officer asks gets you a visa.

Shoving that under their nose will get you nothing... except grief.

13 hours ago, roquefort said:

Thanks for your concern, but I know how to be diplomatic.

You may know how to be diplomatic.. but the IO officer who you've just peed off will not be.

7 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

I didn’t see anything in that link referencing 2/3 months of transfers………have I missed something?

From page 3 of the order.

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

From page 3 of the order.

 

Thank Joe, read that, but still don't see any general reference to 2/3 months.

 

Your earlier post suggested that the written rules applied to ANY first application. I think 2/3 months comment can give the wrong impression and is not specifically mentioned.  The rule is very specific about retirement and pension payments. Obviously, if someone has retired less than 12 months before their application they can only show less than 12 x 65k. 

 

"The written rules do state 2 or 3 months of transfers can be accepted for the first extension application but many offices will insist on having 12 months of transfers."

 

. 

 

Most people applying for a retirement extension already have pension/other income in payment.

4 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Thank Joe, read that, but still don't see any general reference to 2/3 months.

That is how i interpret what is in the order.

For example if you entered on a non-o visa you would be applying the first extension 2 or 3 months after arriving.

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is how i interpret what is in the order.

For example if you entered on a non-o visa you would be applying the first extension 2 or 3 months after arriving.

 

Yes, I agree with that, but I do not interpret the rule in the same way. 

 

There is no mention of 2/3 months evidence being acceptable - unless the applicant had retired within 12 months of arrival. 

 

If I were to enter now on a 90 day single entry , I believe that I would have to evidence 12 x 65k payments because my retirement was not within the previous 12 months.

 

Something of a 'catch 22' for a first time applicant who may well not have been able to open a bank account and make the required transfers.

 

I believe that is why the replies above suggest that the only option available to the OP is 800k in the bank.

4 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

I believe that is why the replies above suggest that the only option available to the OP is 800k in the bank.

Correct. 

4 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Yes, I agree with that, but I do not interpret the rule in the same way. 

There is no mention of 2/3 months evidence being acceptable - unless the applicant had retired within 12 months of arrival. 

It was discussed a lot when the order first came out in 2019. There is some reasoning in what is written in the order but not easy to get a immigration office to agree.

22 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It was discussed a lot when the order first came out in 2019. There is some reasoning in what is written in the order but not easy to get a immigration office to agree.

 

I do try to look for logic and fairness in rules..............................

 

In this case rule ONLY helps a new retiree who has also been able to previously set up a bank account and start making pension payments into it.

 

That makes it pretty pointless as the rule will only apply to a tiny percentage of applicants.

 

Much fairer, and logical, is to permit 2/3 payments for any first application - with evidence of 12 x 65k required for subsequent applications.

2 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

Much fairer, and logical, is to permit 2/3 payments for any first application - with evidence of 12 x 65k required for subsequent applications.

Indeed! Especially as being in receipt of a pension (or not) is an unreliable indication of whether you are retired. As written, the rules seem to suggest that you can never receive a retirement extension unless you can show 65k per month specifically from a pension transferred into Thailand each month. That would be unfair and illogical, but is not the first time Thai immigration rules can be so described.