Denied entry.

[wmlc]

What everyone here, including the red moded accounts that are answering don’t understand is this. Whether you have a visa of any kind, tourist or non immigrant, immigration can deny you entry. Your visa does not guarantee you entry. In this case, it was very simple. The OP was denied entry because immigration did not believe he is a legitimate tourist. If you enter often like this on a tourist visa, it is advised to use an agency entering over a land border. An agency that takes you to the Thai consulate in Savanaket on a visa run would be the best. However, if you insist to fly in, there are things you can do to prove you are a legitimate tourist as follows: 

 

1. Provide a return or onward flight if asked. 
2. Prove travel funds if asked 

3. Prove paid up hotel accommodation if asked. 

4. Provide the name and contact details of your girlfriend if that’s why you visit often. 

 

How does the OP support himself while he is here so often during a calendar year? That’s what immigration is concerned about people working illegally. The officer was absolutely correct because with the op’s next duration of stay, that would have brought  him to staying over 180 days in Thailand during one calendar year. That then makes the OP a resident for tax purposes. Tourist don’t live  6 months per year in another country. Thailand has visas in place for this. Elite visa, LTR, you can legitimately study Thai, you can legitimately work for a foundation or a company. You can get married to a Thai. Go find yourself a reliable visa agent and sort yourself out with a more long term sustainable visa if you want to stay longer. 

 

There is no reason to be quoting laws here or referring people to expensive law firms. We need things explained in easy ways so everyone understands. 
 

1. Why were you refused entry in simple tens ?

2. What can you do to avoid it? 
 

3. what other visa options are available that are more sustainable?

 

4. Who can help me if I can’t do it myself ?

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc
Add more info

[freedomnow]

21 minutes ago, wmlc said:

Tourist don’t live  6 months per year in another country.

Quite globally all-encompasing, no way out that statement.

 

I'd say they do, and all over the world.

 

and in Thailand its called METV...specifically for that scenario.

Edited July 28, 2023 by freedomnow

[bigt3116]

14 hours ago, BritTim said:

That is distinct from the situation when someone enters with a visa where the qualification process and investigation has already been done by the consulate.

Except that consulates (run by the MFA not Immigration) require funds to be in a bank account, and immigration requires funds to be in cash. The most cited reason for denial of entry is 12.2 Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom. There is a good chance the OP did not have the required 20k in cash on him, and was legitimately denied entry.

[wmlc]

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

... 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.

That’s because the Thai embassy does not have a record of your travel history to Thailand. They look at want docs are required and if you can provide them they will issue the visa. In theory, a blacklisted individual could get a visa from a Thai embassy and then get refused entry to Thailand. Believe it or not but this happens. Some people don’t realize they are bak listed and actually go though this. 

[bigt3116]

10 hours ago, paulikens said:

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?

You fail to understand that the embassy is run by the MFA not immigration. Two totally seperate entities with their own set of rules

[travelerjim]

21 hours ago, paulikens said:

I am actually waiting now to be flown back to Penang

Your mistake was not using an experienced border/Visa run service company to take you to Penang and return by land.

 

Lucky to have been granted the New SETV single entry tourist visa in Penang.

 

Don't Fly into Thailand... period.

Only enter Thailand by land border crossing.

[wmlc]

15 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

Quite globally all-encompasing, no way out that statement.

 

I'd say they do, and all over the world.

 

and in Thailand its called METV...specifically for that scenario.

Sorry but you are wrong. They are not tourists. They are digital nomads. They are still doing some kind of work, remotely. A tourist is a tourist. Plain and simple. They don’t work at all. Period. 

[travelerjim]

21 hours ago, paulikens said:

I had a  valid tourist visa 

And with your recent history of staying in Thailand, The New Thai Visa is not a guarantee you will be stamped in Thailand on arrival.

[bbi1]

2 minutes ago, wmlc said:

A tourist is a tourist. Plain and simple. They don’t work at all. Period. 

Tourists don't work at all? Then how do they afford to fly and travel? How do families with kids afford to be tourists and travel for 2 weeks a year to a foreign country without working at all?

Edited July 28, 2023 by bbi1

[BritTim]

11 minutes ago, bigt3116 said:

Except that consulates (run by the MFA not Immigration) require funds to be in a bank account, and immigration requires funds to be in cash. The most cited reason for denial of entry is 12.2 Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom. There is a good chance the OP did not have the required 20k in cash on him, and was legitimately denied entry.

When immigration started wanting to deny entry to those with tourist visas, that is correct. They were seeking legitimate reasons under Section 12 for denying entry. One of the easiest was a failure to satisfy the prescribed 20,000 baht cash (or travellers' checks). When you could not show that, the officials could (and did) deny entry under Section 12 [9]. Today, officials will generally avoiding asking for that. They absolutely do not want those they deny entry to be able to claim that they demonstrated their ability to support themselves during their visit. Officials now almost invariably deny under Section 12 [2] which is less specific than not having the money specified by the Minister.

[BritTim]

3 minutes ago, travelerjim said:

Don't Fly into Thailand... period.

Only enter Thailand by land border crossing.

With a visa, some airports have historically been safe.

[bigt3116]

11 minutes ago, wmlc said:

That’s because the Thai embassy does not have a record of your travel history to Thailand. They look at want docs are required and if you can provide them they will issue the visa. In theory, a blacklisted individual could get a visa from a Thai embassy and then get refused entry to Thailand. Believe it or not but this happens. Some people don’t realize they are bak listed and actually go though this. 

Actually Penang will have had his passport to affix his visa - so yes, they most certainly did have a record of his travel history.

[wmlc]

5 minutes ago, BritTim said:

When immigration started wanting to deny entry to those with tourist visas, that is correct. They were seeking legitimate reasons under Section 12 for denying entry. One of the easiest was a failure to satisfy the prescribed 20,000 baht cash (or travellers' checks). When you could not show that, the officials could (and did) deny entry under Section 12 [9]. Today, officials will generally avoiding asking for that. They absolutely do not want those they deny entry to be able to claim that they demonstrated their ability to support themselves during their visit. Officials now almost invariably deny under Section 12 [2] which is less specific than not having the money specified by the Minister.

Ok Tim, but the guys don’t care about section this and that. They care about the 4 things I listed above in my previous post. 

[BritTim]

10 minutes ago, wmlc said:

That’s because the Thai embassy does not have a record of your travel history to Thailand. They look at want docs are required and if you can provide them they will issue the visa. In theory, a blacklisted individual could get a visa from a Thai embassy and then get refused entry to Thailand. Believe it or not but this happens. Some people don’t realize they are bak listed and actually go though this. 

As you say, if there is a legitimate reason as specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (such as you being blacklisted from entering Thailand) the possession of a visa will not allow you to enter. No one disputes that. What is under debate is whether Thai immigration officials have discretion to deny entry for any reason, specifically for a reason not given in Section 12 of the Act. In almost every country, the answer is that the officials have full discretion. In Thailand the law says directly that they do not.

[HighPriority]

Just now, wmlc said:

Ok Tim, but the guys don’t care about section this and that. They care about the 4 things I listed above in my previous post. 

We all do... ????

[bigt3116]

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Officials now almost invariably deny under Section 12 [2] which is less specific than not having the money specified by the Minister.

That is what I said

[wmlc]

1 minute ago, bigt3116 said:

Actually Penang will have had his passport to affix his visa - so yes, they most certainly did have a record of his travel history.

The embassy does not check this stuff and what you failed to mention was a previous passport. They can’t check your travel history if you change your passport. I’ve told you the embassy does one thing only and that’s make sure the applicant can satisfy the docs required. It’s not their job to screen entry to Thailand. That is for immigration. Would you like your visa processing time to increase to 6 months? Always guys arguing but not giving solutions. 

[bigt3116]

11 minutes ago, BritTim said:

When you could not show that, the officials could (and did) deny entry under Section 12 [9].

I can't find a single instance of refused under 12.9

 

Loads of 12.2 dating back at least 5 years

[wmlc]

4 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

We all do... ????

Most only care about this :

 

Why were you refused entry in simple tens ?

2. What can you do to avoid it? 
 

3. what other visa options are available that are more sustainable?

 

4. Who can help me if I can’t do it myself ?

 

[wmlc]

14 minutes ago, BritTim said:

As you say, if there is a legitimate reason as specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (such as you being blacklisted from entering Thailand) the possession of a visa will not allow you to enter. No one disputes that. What is under debate is whether Thai immigration officials have discretion to deny entry for any reason, specifically for a reason not given in Section 12 of the Act. In almost every country, the answer is that the officials have full discretion. In Thailand the law says directly that they do not.

The answer is yes they do have full discretion. I’d love to go and find the section of law for you but it’s a holiday and I’m done helping the op, which is what this thread was started for. The OP didn’t start the thread to witness people arguing about sent emails and laws. The op wants to know: 

 

 

1. Why was he refused entry in simple tens ?

2. What can he do to avoid it? 
 

3. what other visa options are available that are more sustainable?

 

4. Who can help him if he can’t do it himself ?

 

And that’s what I gave him the answers to in one easy post to understand. The rest should all be in a different thread. 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc
Clarify

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, bigt3116 said:

I can't find a single instance of refused under 12.9

 

Loads of 12.2 dating back at least 5 years

The denials under 12 [9] were occurring while airport immigration was still following the law. They switched away from that because it was too easy to refute. They switched to 12 [2] six or seven years ago because they believe it is the least precisely defined reason for denied entry in Section 12. Who is to say what "appropriate means of supporting yourself in Thailand" means? Sure, you might try to provide documents showing you are a billionaire, but those documents might be forged. Even if you have a million baht in cash, how do they know that money is yours? Maybe, you just borrowed it for a few hours.

[BritTim]

5 minutes ago, wmlc said:

The answer is yes they do have full discretion. I’d love to go and find the section of law

Let me help: https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/. You only need to read Section 12 and Section 22, but you can do a quick scan to see if anyone other than the Minister is allowed to depart from the terms of those two Sections.

[wmlc]

3 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Let me help: https://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-entering-and-departing-the-kingdom-sections-11-22/. You only need to read Section 12 and Section 22, but you can do a quick scan to see if anyone other than the Minister is allowed to depart from the terms of those two Sections.

Is this helping the OP Tim. No it’s not. He needs practical advice consolidated into one post. Take care. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, wmlc said:

Is this helping the OP Tim. No it’s not. 

I provided advice to the OP early in this thread. What I have (probably mistakenly) been doing since is laying out the official legal framework, and how you can best ensure that it is adhered to, and you do not become a victim of rogue officials.

[wmlc]

4 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I provided advice to the OP early in this thread. What I have (probably mistakenly) been doing since is laying out the official legal framework, and how you can best ensure that it is adhered to, and you do not become a victim of rogue officials.

Even if you are a victim, you can’t do anything about it except what I posted earlier. Simple easy advice is what the guys here want when they post. We are guests in the country and it’s not wise to tee up against any police officer, immigration or otherwise to prove them wrong. Worst advice you can give anyone. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, wmlc said:

Even if you are a victim, you can’t do anything about it except what I posted earlier. Simple easy advice is what the guys here want when they post. 

You and I can agree on one thing. For those who do not have time to fully research the matter, using visa run companies makes sense. If a good visa run company agrees to take you to the border, they know you can almost certainly successfully exit and re-enter. The visa run companies stay away from the lawless border crossings, and will refuse to take you if they know (or suspect) that your border bounce (or visa application) would be denied.

[Dexxter]

15 hours ago, BritTim said:

The IO has done their job when they stamp you in, or deny you entry subject to one of the legitimate reasons listed in Section 12 of the Immigration Act.

From Section 12...

8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution,[...]

 

This might apply to many gentlemen who come to Thailand to enjoy the facilities offered by Nana Plaza, Soi Cowboy or certain streets in Pattaya. ????

????????

[CecilM]

Looking for answers without sharing background info is like selling something without sharing the location. (Both can easily frustrate the reader.)

[wmlc]

7 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You and I can agree on one thing. For those who do not have time to fully research the matter, using visa run companies makes sense. If a good visa run company agrees to take you to the border, they know you can almost certainly successfully exit and re-enter. The visa run companies stay away from the lawless border crossings, and will refuse to take you if they know (or suspect) that your border bounce (or visa application) would be denied.

Thats fine Tim, but I would never advise anyone to argue laws with a Thai immigration officer while being questioned on entering Thailand. You don’t have access to the ministerial regulations do you ? And being polite and not trying to make the officer lose face goes a long way. You are wrong Tim. Sorry to say this. I’m here much longer than I wanted already. Happy to chat over a beer in bkk or Pattaya. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[BritTim]

Just now, Dexxter said:

From Section 12...

8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution,[...]

 

This might apply to many gentlemen who come to Thailand to enjoy the facilities offered by Nana Plaza, Soi Cowboy or certain streets in Pattaya. ????

????????

Actually, that was not the intended meaning of Section 12 [8] (though you are right that Immigration could try to twist the reason if they had evidence you engaged loose ladies). The intention was to deny entry to prostitutes, themselves, and traffickers.