Denied entry.

[paulikens]

Just now, Dan O said:

Immigration has the discretion to refuse entry to anyone deemed inappropriate with or without a visa. Its written in the regs even though some believe they have to show a "valid" reason. Im not saying I agree with that position. There's usually more to most of these stories than are told by the posters.  Im sure there is in this case also. 

I can assure you there isn't.  I'll tell you  what the story is its IO on a pathetic little power trip flexing his muscles.  

[Chivas]

There's more to this story rest assured

[Pattaya57]

19 minutes ago, paulikens said:

I can assure you there isn't.  I'll tell you  what the story is its IO on a pathetic little power trip flexing his muscles.  

But you've lived in Thailand for years and now caught pretending to be a tourist.  How is that an IO on a power trip flexing his muscles?

 

I'm imagining you, on a tourist visa, responding to IO "but I live here" therefore sealing their case

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Pattaya57

[Caldera]

5 minutes ago, Chivas said:

There's more to this story rest assured

Like what?

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

Immigration has the discretion to refuse entry to anyone deemed inappropriate with or without a visa. Its written in the regs even though some believe they have to show a "valid" reason. Im not saying I agree with that position. There's usually more to most of these stories than are told by the posters.  Im sure there is in this case also. 

The legal framework controlling entry and departure from Thailand is described in Sections 11 through 22 of the Immigration Act (primarily Section 12 and Section 22). You can read a good translation of the entire relevant part of the Act at https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/.

 

This is Section 12:

Quote

Section 12

 

Aliens which fall into any of the following categories are excluded from entering into the Kingdom:

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances. Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against small pox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court; or by a lawful injunction; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country, except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. 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.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution, the trading of woman of children, drug smuggling, or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him.
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

The examination and diagnosis of disease of a physical or mental nature, including protective operations as against disease, shall be conducted by the Immigration Doctor.

This is Section 22:

Quote

Section 22

 

In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12, the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order, he (alien) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final.

Appealing cases are not allowed under Section 12 (1) or (10), but if the Minister does not have an order within seven days beginning from the date of submitting the appeal, it is considered that the Minister has ordered that said alien is not forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under Section 12. Appeal must be submitted the competent official within forty-eight hours beginning from the time of received said order from the competent official and must comply with the pattern (and a fee must be paid) an provided in the Ministerial Regulations. When appeal is submitted by the alien concerned, the competent official shall delay deportation of said alien until an order for said case is receive from the Minister. While processing under order of the competent official or while waiting for an order from the Minister, as the case may be, the provisions of Section 20 shall not be applied.

The Thai laws differ markedly from those of almost all other countries. Most important, the discretion of officials controlling entry into the country is severely constrained. They are told the conditions under which entry should be denied, and can only deny entry based on them. It is made clear that only the Minister has the power to depart from the written regulations.

 

It should be noted that Police Orders issued by the Minister since the Act was promulgated qualify the provisions surrounding visa exemptions. For those with valid visas, the law has not been amended.

[Dan O]

30 minutes ago, BritTim said:

The legal framework controlling entry and departure from Thailand is described in Sections 11 through 22 of the Immigration Act (primarily Section 12 and Section 22). You can read a good translation of the entire relevant part of the Act at https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/.

 

This is Section 12:

This is Section 22:

The Thai laws differ markedly from those of almost all other countries. Most important, the discretion of officials controlling entry into the country is severely constrained. They are told the conditions under which entry should be denied, and can only deny entry based on them. It is made clear that only the Minister has the power to depart from the written regulations.

 

It should be noted that Police Orders issued by the Minister since the Act was promulgated qualify the provisions surrounding visa exemptions. For those with valid visas, the law has not been amended.

Tim you and I have discussed this before and disagree about how you read the regs. The imm officials have the ability to use discretion and it is in the regs. You interpret them different and always claim the officers have to use one of the reasons for denial listed but ignore the fact it says clearly the officers can use their discretion. Believe what you want but its clearly listed

[Dan O]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

I can assure you there isn't.  I'll tell you  what the story is its IO on a pathetic little power trip flexing his muscles.  

Read the regs and they clearly say io can use discretion based on what they see. They were right that you are trying to stay long term in thailand using exempt entries and tourist visa and you got caught. Get a proper visa for staying long term and avoid what the io's discretion on your "visits" based on the manner you were using 

[paulikens]

Just now, BritTim said:

The legal framework controlling entry and departure from Thailand is described in Sections 11 through 22 of the Immigration Act (primarily Section 12 and Section 22). You can read a good translation of the entire relevant part of the Act at https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/.

 

This is Section 12:

This is Section 22:

The Thai laws differ markedly from those of almost all other countries. Most important, the discretion of officials controlling entry into the country is severely constrained. They are told the conditions under which entry should be denied, and can only deny entry based on them. It is made clear that only the Minister has the power to depart from the written regulations.

 

It should be noted that Police Orders issued by the Minister since the Act was promulgated qualify the provisions surrounding visa exemptions. For those with valid visas, the law has not been amended.

And how do you appeal to the minster? because immigration wouldn't tell me and there's literally nothing on google. who is the minster is it one person or a governing body?     it's totally vague on the form they give you.  

[paulikens]

Just now, Pattaya57 said:

But you've lived in Thailand for years and now caught pretending to be a tourist.  How is that an IO on a power trip flexing his muscles?

 

I'm imagining you, on a tourist visa, responding to IO "but I live here" therefore sealing their case

 

yeah right! I'm gonna be that brain-dead <deleted>

[paulikens]

Just now, Caldera said:

Like what?

exactly.

[DrJack54]

1 minute ago, paulikens said:

yeah right! I'm gonna be that brain-dead <deleted>

Ignore button works for me.

Please update thread with the process of your experience tomorrow.

Return to Penang.

A report of holding room at BKK airport would be a bonus. 

[paulikens]

Just now, Dan O said:

Read the regs and they clearly say io can use discretion based on what they see. They were right that you are trying to stay long term in thailand using exempt entries and tourist visa and you got caught. Get a proper visa for staying long term and avoid what the io's discretion on your "visits" based on the manner you were using 

I'm only doing what I'm allowed to do.   If they don't want people to use these visas more than once then make that the rule.  And also what you're forgetting is my annoyance is the Thai embassy in penang allowed me the visa.   fair enough if rules are rules but surely everyone in immigration has got to follow the same rules,  So, why is the embassy not following the same regs?  I should have never got as far as phuket if it is across the board same rules/regs,     I wouldn't have minded so much if in penang they said you can't have a visa, but to let me go to phuket and then say you're refused entry is wrong.

[DrJack54]

13 minutes ago, paulikens said:

I wouldn't have minded so much if in penang they said you can't have a visa, but to let me go to phuket and then say you're refused entry is wrong.

I feel your pain. 

Ignore many rubbish posts in your thread.

The problem is Thai consulates have nothing to do with Thai immigration at airports and land border entries.

Your case is rare as you actually have a visa.

 

Thinking your visa is still valid so you can still enter with that at another entry point.

Suggest a land entry point would be best option. 

 

Your current tourist visa will have a "enter by date"

Some time spent out of Thailand would be a bonus.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by DrJack54

[Caldera]

54 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Tim you and I have discussed this before and disagree about how you read the regs. The imm officials have the ability to use discretion and it is in the regs. You interpret them different and always claim the officers have to use one of the reasons for denial listed but ignore the fact it says clearly the officers can use their discretion. Believe what you want but its clearly listed

The question that you and others that read it the way you do can never answer is this: If IOs in fact have the discretion that you claim they have and exercise it lawfully, then why do they see the need to pick a bogus reason from section 12 for their denial of entry stamp?

 

They could just write something like "None, denied using my discretionary powers" instead. That never happens.

 

For me, that's proof enough that you're wrong.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

You interpret them different and always claim the officers have to use one of the reasons for denial listed but ignore the fact it says clearly the officers can use their discretion. Believe what you want but its clearly listed

I have provided a link to the relevant part of the Immigration Act. Please point out the Section that gives them this "discretion". Do not just fall back on "it is obvious that they have this power" when reading Section 12 and Section 22 specifically indicates that to deny for other reasons is specifically proscribed.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

And how do you appeal to the minster? because immigration wouldn't tell me and there's literally nothing on google. who is the minster is it one person or a governing body?     it's totally vague on the form they give you.  

The appeal is made using form TM11, and informing the official that you are making an appeal pursuant to Section 22 of the Immigration Act. Sure, they do not tell you that. They might even try to refuse to accept the form and payment for making the appeal. That is why the involvement of a lawyer is preferable, as is often the case when dealing with Thai police officers (especially rogue ones).

[Dan O]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

I'm only doing what I'm allowed to do.   If they don't want people to use these visas more than once then make that the rule.  And also what you're forgetting is my annoyance is the Thai embassy in penang allowed me the visa.   fair enough if rules are rules but surely everyone in immigration has got to follow the same rules,  So, why is the embassy not following the same regs?  I should have never got as far as phuket if it is across the board same rules/regs,     I wouldn't have minded so much if in penang they said you can't have a visa, but to let me go to phuket and then say you're refused entry is wrong.

The embassies are not part of immigration. They have disclaimers on their site indicating they can refuse a visa without explanation.  The imm o's have the same discretion. They allowed to use their discretion and make judgment calls if they think people are abusing the system. They have specific reasons they can deny entry and they also have the ability to use their discretion if they see fit. I don't agree with it but uts not being abused or you would be hearing about it. 

 

Inevitably a few get caught out and denied out of the millions of travelers or it would be front page news, which its not. when you do hear their history is obvious they have a history of long stay on tourist visas and visa exempt. They always whine and claim they same, Im allowed cause its not against the law. Well its not written anywhere that you can do that even if they have allowed it in the past. Given the heighten issues with bogus visa and banking issues surrounding the Chinese grey business they crackdown is inevitable. 

[Dan O]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

The question that you and others that read it the way you do can never answer is this: If IOs in fact have the discretion that you claim they have and exercise it lawfully, then why do they see the need to pick a bogus reason from section 12 for their denial of entry stamp?

 

They could just write something like "None, denied using my discretionary powers" instead. That never happens.

 

For me, that's proof enough that you're wrong.

Well believe what you want, I really don't care.  They used to have a disclaimer on the US embassy site that receipt of a visa is not a guarantee of entry and the imm o's have the final say. It was removed when they went to the evisa system. It may have been on all the embassy sites. I've been coming to Thailand since 1984 and never had a problem and never been bounced for overuse of tourist and exempt entries or even questioned. Given the problems raised due to the Chinese grey market and visa issues don't be surprised if you dont see it more. 

 

I think its interesting as the talking heads that claim I'm wrong have themselves repeated told people on here with heavy entry history to spend time out between visits if they are concerned and even direct people to "friendly" check points. A little hypocritical on their part but it comes with posting on open forums. 

[Caldera]

23 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I think its interesting as the talking heads that claim I'm wrong have themselves repeated told people on here with heavy entry history to spend time out between visits if they are concerned and even direct people to "friendly" check points. A little hypocritical on their part but it comes with posting on open forums. 

That isn't hypocritical at all. Advice needs to be given based on what actually happens, and those denials do happen, whatever their legal basis may be.

[BritTim]

33 minutes ago, Dan O said:

If you want to know go look thru your emails if you still have them and my respones are there.. You can believe your view of the regs and I have mine and they don't align.

 

I rarely provide people my email address, and I haver certainly never given it to you. I have all my emails for the last three years, and the most significant ones for the last 20. Whoever you communicated with on email on this subject, it was not me. If you ask for my email address, I will refuse to give it to you, and tell you to PM me on this board instead.

[BritTim]

44 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I think its interesting as the talking heads that claim I'm wrong have themselves repeated told people on here with heavy entry history to spend time out between visits if they are concerned and even direct people to "friendly" check points. A little hypocritical on their part but it comes with posting on open forums. 

I might advise young women not to go down ill lighted streets at night. No doubt, you will consider this as hypocritical when I also claim that men raping them would be illegal.

[Elkski]

This happening would be quite a wrinkle in ones plans.   Carry on. 

[BritTim]

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I communicated with you and you messaged me thru this site. 

That is correct. We had an offline discussion via PM on August 29-30 2022 where you showed an inability to understand clearly written legal language. As you say, there is no point in discussing this further.

[41632584]

16 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Friend of mine (not imaginary) managed one.

Cost him 15k.

He didn't offer. Someone suggested. 

A friend of mine managed for 10k.

Gently kept asking for help. At some point one of the more entrepreneurial officers decided to help.

[Scott]

Inflammatory, abusive post reported and removed.  Continue and face a suspension.

 

[Ben Zioner]

18 hours ago, paulikens said:

they claimed that because i had already had 5 months here. that i wasn't any tourist anymore.  so couldn't come in as a tourist. 

This makes sense, and definitely so if those 5 months were continuous. I my younger  years the  maximum  I could achieve, on annual leave and OT credits, were 10 weeks  a year , in three increments.

[freedomnow]

18 hours ago, paulikens said:

they claimed that because i had already had 5 months here. that i wasn't any tourist anymore.  so couldn't come in as a tourist.

How does that work then with the clowns if METV is 6 months ?

[BritTim]

16 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

How does that work then with the clowns if METV is 6 months ?

... or, for a while, the special tourist visa that allowed a nine-month stay without even a border bounce, or the Thailand Elite Easy Access visa (a glorified tourist visa) that, in theory can allow you to be a tourist in Thailand for up to 20 years.

 

In fact, it has been known for airport immigration to refuse to honour newly issued METVs, where the embassy has already screened you for sufficient finances, claiming in the paperwork that you haver no visible means of supporting yourself during your 60-day stay. Some officials do not like the law as it is written, and feel empowered to try to create their own.

[bbi1]

 

11 hours ago, BritTim said:

I, unfortunately, am unfamiliar with Phuket based immigration lawyers.  A good one, for a price, could almost certainly file the appeal and get this decision reversed. It is easier if you can put the officials on notice that this will happen prior to being placed in the detention room.

Talking about immigration lawyers, are there any recommended ones based in BKK just "in case"? Could be useful for some people in the future to know a few good ones.

[BritTim]

4 minutes ago, bbi1 said:

Talking about immigration lawyers, are there any recommended ones based in BKK just "in case"? Could be useful for some people in the future to know a few good ones.

Not a recommendation, but one to investigate is Siam Legal who certainly have some lawyers who are well versed in Thai immigration law. It appears that they also have an office in Phuket. I do worry that being a big firm with English speaking lawyers they might be very expensive.