Immigration officer complaining about my visa exemption

[Pattaya57]

56 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

The legal/formal definition of tourist in Thailand is the one who's coming on a tourist visa or visa exempt.

My definition of a tourist is "are you a 2 week millionaire in heaven". If not you've stayed too long and no longer a tourist ???? 

[JoseThailand]

53 minutes ago, AustinRacing said:

No, that is not the definition. It is a person who fits the definition. ???? 

If you came on a tourist visa or visa exempt, you are considered a tourist for all legal and formal purposes, regardless of how long you've stayed in Thailand.

[AustinRacing]

34 minutes ago, JoseThailand said:

If you came on a tourist visa or visa exempt, you are considered a tourist for all legal and formal purposes, regardless of how long you've stayed in Thailand.

How’s that relevant to my feedback?

[oMega69]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:59 PM, UWEB said:

Was traveling to Thailand 12 years on NON O retirement extension while working Onshore and Offshore, never have had any problem with IO. Best way to go.

Same here. . .  19yrs mostly as a tourist and not a singel time had an issue with an IO , also did over 20 visa runs.  

[Yewbzee]

On 6/13/2023 at 12:47 PM, n00dle said:

Has she made remrks in your passport or done anythng to suggest that you cannot renter the country on your exemption after you go?

If not, ignore and business as usuaul until you hear different,

No there are no remarks on the passport itself. Not sure if they have the means to doe that on their database when they scan the passport as you enter.

 

Anyway as I already had the required funds in my Thai bank account I applied for the Non O retirement visa at Jomtien to be on the safe side. She got her way and earned the Kingdom some extra visa income!

[Liverpool Lou]

On 6/10/2023 at 11:17 AM, Yewbzee said:

She actually tried to make it sound like she was doing me a favour by saying the visa exemption "is not good for you". 

 

I tried to point out in a  friendly manner that it was actually ideal for me.

Fairly obvious that she meant that it is "not good for you" because it attracts the unwanted attention of IOs, as you (and many others have) found out.  She was trying to give you reasonable advice.

[Jaggg88]

On 6/13/2023 at 12:06 PM, DrJack54 said:

The embassies websites are wrong.

There is no such rule. 

Briefly existed ages ago when Adam was a lad

I started post by saying THERE USED to be a rule but thanks for repeating

[Yewbzee]

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Fairly obvious that she meant that it is "not good for you" because it attracts the unwanted attention of IOs, as you (and many others have) found out.  She was trying to give you reasonable advice.

Except it hadn't been attracting any attention at all from the IO's for the previous 10 years. She was the first which statistically makes her the outlier.

 

Clarity and consistency is all we need.

[jacob29]

On 6/12/2023 at 5:20 PM, JoseThailand said:

When denying someone entry, they need to specify a reason, e.g. insufficient funds. This reason will be stated in the documents.

What reason do you think they would put for being abusive? You aren't seriously suggesting someone abusive wouldn't face high risk of being denied.

 

That aside, suspected breach of visa conditions is a reason (e.g. not a tourist, which is very broad).

[JoseThailand]

19 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

What reason do you think they would put for being abusive? You aren't seriously suggesting someone abusive wouldn't face high risk of being denied.

 

That aside, suspected breach of visa conditions is a reason (e.g. not a tourist, which is very broad).

You think there is a lack of abusive and arrogant tourists? They're used to it. As long as they don't break the law, they should be let in. But if they do break the law while being abusive, it's a sufficient reason to deny them entry.

[BritTim]

46 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

What reason do you think they would put for being abusive? You aren't seriously suggesting someone abusive wouldn't face high risk of being denied.

 

That aside, suspected breach of visa conditions is a reason (e.g. not a tourist, which is very broad).

They might decide to deny under Section 12 [7]:

Quote

1. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

 

[Dexxter]

On 6/10/2023 at 12:32 PM, Regyai said:

This was the precise scenario that the Multi-entry Tourist Visa was concocted for. (As opposed to facilitating  Multi-Entry Tourists).

I have been using the 6 month METV to enter Thailand for the past 7-8 years and traveled to Thailand for perhaps 5-6 months each year. Just before covid I was pulled aside by the immigration officer at Don Muaeng Airport when returning from Cambodia. He told me that was using too many METVs and that I should use a more appropriate long term visa if I wanted to be in Thailand for more than a few short periods. It seems that even the METV won't save you from all the immigration officers.

[Parker2100]

On 6/14/2023 at 8:34 AM, AustinRacing said:

Some people just can’t accept being wrong even when presented with facts. 
 

Thai Tourism Law

TOURISM AUTHORITY OF THAILAND ACT,
B.E. 2522 (1979)
_______________

BHUMIPOL ALULYADEJ, REX.
Given on the 30th day of April, B.E. 2522;
Being the 34th Year of the Present reign.

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased to proclaim that:
Whereas it is deemed expedient to have the law on the Tourism Authority of Thailand;
Be it, therefore, enacted by the King, by and with the advice and consent of the National Legislative Assembly acting as the National Assembly as follows:
Section l. This Act is called the “Tourism Authority of Thailand Act, B.E. 2522”.

 

Which part of LAW don’t you get buddy. The “A” in TAT is Authority not a lobby group. They don’t set immigration laws of course. But you were asking about formal/legal definition of tourist. This is defined by TAT under law. 

That establishes TAT but it does not give them effective control of Thai Immigration.

 

Countless times, in my experience, TAT says one thing and Thai Immigration ignores them.

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, Yewbzee said:

On 6/15/2023 at 10:58 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

Fairly obvious that she meant that it is "not good for you" because it attracts the unwanted attention of IOs, as you (and many others have) found out.  She was trying to give you reasonable advice.

Expand  

Except it hadn't been attracting any attention at all from the IO's for the previous 10 years. She was the first which statistically makes her the outlier.

Except that she definitely is not the first IO to raise that subject, it may be the first time that it's been an issue with you but it has been a frequent IO comment for a long time, she is not an outlier for mentioning it. 

The last few years have been tainted with Covid procedures so they are hardly representative and before that is a long time ago, a period in which regulations can easily change, to expect what happened 10 years ago to still be in force now is a little unrealistic.

[brianthainess]

Marry 

[jacob29]

10 hours ago, JoseThailand said:

You think there is a lack of abusive and arrogant tourists? They're used to it. As long as they don't break the law, they should be let in. 

 Never seen a tourist get abusive towards an immigration official, so yes it's fair to say there's a lack of tourists being abusive in this environment. They know the stakes are too high. What should happen is not the question, it's what can happen.

 

In a neighbouring country I've seen someone denied entry for less, and I have little reason to believe Thailand would be different. I imagine those denied for having dodgy volunteer visas, didn't have that as the official reason either (as that would admit wrongdoing, and potentially trigger investigations).

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, jacob29 said:

 Never seen a tourist get abusive towards an immigration official...

Really? I can't say it common, but I have certainly seen it any number of times at any number of airports tourists hollering at rudely at immigration officials. 

 

That said, in the hundreds (thousands?) of encounters I have had with them, I have never had an immigration official get abusive towards me. 

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That said, in the hundreds (thousands?) of encounters I have had with them, I have never had an immigration official get abusive towards me. 

I have not experienced this either, or even seen it happen at an airport. However, I have twice seen Immigration officials become verbally abusive in both English and Thai (not to me). Once was at a land border crossing, and once was years ago at an immigration office. In the latter case (which was unprovoked) when the abusive official was no longer in earshot, his colleagues apologised. I have heard third hand of rare occasions of officials blowing up at Don Muang.

[SAFETY FIRST]

10 hours ago, jacob29 said:

Never seen a tourist get abusive towards an immigration official

You need to spend some time at Jomtien immigration, it's a weekly event. 

 

Some of the foreigners are unbelievably nasty, rude and arrogant. 

 

[Parker2100]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

I have not experienced this either, or even seen it happen at an airport. However, I have twice seen Immigration officials become verbally abusive in both English and Thai (not to me). Once was at a land border crossing, and once was years ago at an immigration office. In the latter case (which was unprovoked) when the abusive official was no longer in earshot, his colleagues apologised. I have heard third hand of rare occasions of officials blowing up at Don Muang.

All my problems (3) have been at Don Muang.  I have not experienced them being abusive but I have had them get hard-headed and jump to conclusions even though they cannot speak English enough for me explain something.  Then, if you get through to them, they want to stick to their original opinion and they get angry the closer they get to having to reverse course.

 

Basically, there are 3 levels.  You have the counter IO who sometimes sends you to the second IO who speaks a little English and that is your best chance to talk your way out of it.

 

Then, he sends you to the office of 2-3 IOs.  Their job is to dot the I's and cross the T's because at that point they have already decided they are turning you back. 

 

BUT not all hope is lost!  Because, even though they don't speak English, they are trying to work on their official reason.  Which is usually lack of funds if you don't show them cash.  The law does not say you have to show cash so if you keep shoveling documents at them, like Bank Statements, showing them credit cards, or anything, it throws them off their game.  They may have to concoct a different reason and they have to try to translate and understand what you are showing them.  They will try to play dumb for as long as they can.  But if you just keep shoveling documents at them, they may just decide you are to much work and let you in (but scribble something in your passport to bias any future IO who looks at it.  As happened with me)

 

If you get to the 3rd level and are quiet, or worse angry,  you are going back to wherever you came from.  You need to push back, but respectfully.

[freeman01]

I wouldn't worry too much, next time make sure you can show all the requirements they might ask for, hotel reservation, 10k bath in cash (if i remember right, maybe 20k), and a flight out.

also if you can show a bank statement in paper with money on the balance they will backoff very quickly.

 

just make sure to stay polite and friendly and simply explain your situation making sure they understand you are not coming to work, this is their main concern in the end.

oh and dress a bit like pants and shoes so that you don't look like a hobbo, they will react to this.

maybe throw in a girlfriend in there ... ????

also maybe get a flight to another airport, the immigration ladies at Suvarnabhumi are the worst from my experience... 

 

this is the kind of cases where you have to understand the "not losing face" thing ... they need a way to change their mind without losing faces.

[KhaoYai]

Not that you would be in a position to argue with an I.O. on entry but:  I was given a similar warning a few years back and questioned the I.O. as to what the problem was.  Another, possibly higher ranking I.O. who spoke better English joined the conversation.  I asked him why they should be worried about someone visiting regularly and was told that the suspicion was that people who visited regularly were working in the country illegally.

 

In other countries you would simply provide proof of your employment and that should deal with the problem.  However, we are talking about Thailand and if the I.O. wants to refuse entry, there's not a lot you can do.  Apparently you can appeal but from what I'm told, you're locked up in an immigration jail whilst that's decided.

 

I don't see why you can't be considered as a tourist - you spend your time off work in Thailand, presumably relaxing. Is that not a holiday?  Next time you arrive (hopefully successfully) I would go to the immigration counter, with proof of your employment and ask for advice. They have the ability to add notes to the passport details they hold on you.  Its unllikely that they will help but they certainly won't if you don't ask.

 

If by any chance, you are already married to a Thai, you could travel to a neighbouring country and obtain a 12 month Multi Entry Non O. There are still a few consulates that offer that visa.

 

One point that may help: Prior to covid, quite a few people reported that they were either given a hard time on entry or were actually denied.  On the vast majority of the posts that I read on the subject, the I.O. concerned was female.  Perhaps being careful over which queue you join will have a bearing on your chances.

[kennw]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:47 AM, Yewbzee said:

I will concede that coming here 6 times a year is a stretch to classify myself as a tourist but my current passport is 8 years old and is totally peppered with visa exemption stamps so it's odd that none of the previous immigration officers have ever mentioned it.

 

On the last point by Regyai I did wonder if just ignoring it was an option or do they "mark" your passport in the system with a "visa required on the next visit" comment?

 

Can I obtain a tourist visa while inside Thailand or do I have to get one while I'm out of country? 

If you are working here you need a work permit and tax registration.

[jacko45k]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:11 AM, Yewbzee said:

Has anybody experienced this previously?

Very much so, many have. Visa Exempt is purely for tourists which you appear not to be. 

[KhaoYai]

I wish people would stop posting about how they've been entering Thailand visa exempt on multiple occasions for many years and never had a problem.  That's not very helpful is it?

 

Prior to covid there were often reports of people who'd been denied entry.  On each occasion that I saw on here, the I.O. had used the old - 'you don't have 20,000 baht in cash excuse' because there is no actual law that prevents multiple entries (at airports).

 

You may well have entered plenty of times on visa exempts - if someone's posting about a denial or a warning, what are you suggesting they do next time?  Enter exempt again and tell the I.O. its fine, plenty of other people have told me they do it all the time?

 

In terms of the total amount of daily visa exempt entries, I'm pretty sure the number of denials is very low but it can and does happen.  The last thing an enquirer wants to read is how you've never had a problem, he/she's got one!

[DrJack54]

5 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

In terms of the total amount of daily visa exempt entries, I'm pretty sure the number of denials is very low but it can and does happen.  The last thing an enquirer wants to read is how you've never had a problem, he/she's got one

Thinking your post is on the money.

How many threads do we have every day about asking about chances entering visa exempt with ongoing stay in Thailand .

 

Thailand has some of most flexible options available.

 

 By contrast for example I'm Oz and only option for me to Vietnam is SETV providing 30 day stay. 

 

 

[KhaoYai]

5 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Thailand has some of most flexible options available.

It certainly does but could it be that that flexibility is the root cause of the problem?  There is, as far as I know, no limit to the amount of entries one can make to Thailand and likewise to the total amount of time that can be spent in the country - other than in most cases, a stay has a maximum time limit of 90 days + potential extensions. Nevertheless, it is possible to leave and enter again immediately.

 

That leaves Immigration Officers with the possiblity of refusing entry to anyone they see fit.  Not that I'm suggesting they would do that for no reason but in the past, when, in the I.O.'s opinion, someone has entered too many times, they have found a reason to deny them entry that fits with the rules they do have (usually not having the required 20,000 baht).  However, I suspect that far more people have been warned to get a visa (as is the case with the OP) than have been denied.

 

I don't know the rules in all countries but certainly the UK for example, has a total time spent limit of 6 months in 12. Further, once that limit has been reached, the entrant must stay out of the country for 6 months. 

 

It would be much better if Thailand had a written policy with limits - it must be a hell of a disappointment to be denied entry and no doubt a lot of money has been lost, but knowing how things are in Thailand, I can't see that ever happening.

[Umlungu]

Get a non-O, then a retirement extension, as you have done previously. Then get an unlimited multiple re-entry visa for one year, and there won't be any future hassles along the lines described.

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, Umlungu said:

Then get an unlimited multiple re-entry visa for one year,

Yes multiple reentry Permit.

3800b

[Parker2100]

On 6/22/2023 at 4:18 AM, KhaoYai said:

Not that you would be in a position to argue with an I.O. on entry but:  I was given a similar warning a few years back and questioned the I.O. as to what the problem was.  Another, possibly higher ranking I.O. who spoke better English joined the conversation.  I asked him why they should be worried about someone visiting regularly and was told that the suspicion was that people who visited regularly were working in the country illegally.

 

In other countries you would simply provide proof of your employment and that should deal with the problem.  However, we are talking about Thailand and if the I.O. wants to refuse entry, there's not a lot you can do.  Apparently you can appeal but from what I'm told, you're locked up in an immigration jail whilst that's decided.

 

I don't see why you can't be considered as a tourist - you spend your time off work in Thailand, presumably relaxing. Is that not a holiday?  Next time you arrive (hopefully successfully) I would go to the immigration counter, with proof of your employment and ask for advice. They have the ability to add notes to the passport details they hold on you.  Its unllikely that they will help but they certainly won't if you don't ask.

 

If by any chance, you are already married to a Thai, you could travel to a neighbouring country and obtain a 12 month Multi Entry Non O. There are still a few consulates that offer that visa.

 

One point that may help: Prior to covid, quite a few people reported that they were either given a hard time on entry or were actually denied.  On the vast majority of the posts that I read on the subject, the I.O. concerned was female.  Perhaps being careful over which queue you join will have a bearing on your chances.

Yes, in the que I was in last time, it was a female IO and almost everyone who came to her counter was sent to secondary screening.  I was so sure that I was doing everything correctly, that I stayed in that que even though it was going very slowly.

 

Oddly, a husband and wife were just before me.  She let the wife in but was having problems with the Husband.  She did eventually let him in though.

 

I thought about changing ques just because it was so slow, but I thought that would make me look suspicious.

 

Sure enough, I was sent to a 2nd and 3rd screening and -almost- got denied entry.

 

Only thing that saved me was rapid firing documents (financial, travel, etc.) at them.  It was very hard to get them to reverse course on what they already decided to do.