Denied entry.

[wmlc]

15 minutes ago, 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. ????

????????

Lol was waiting for one of the guys to point this out. Wow  ????????????Hallf of us would be refused entry. ????☹️☹️

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[Dexxter]

1 minute ago, BritTim said:

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.

My comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek hence the emojis. Obviously there is no way an IO would know of a person's intention to visit those places.

[Digitalbanana]

17 hours ago, paulikens said:

Well I presume I will be getting a denial stamp as that's what's happened.  I don't know yet as I haven't had my passport back( I'm actually still in the detention room, I'm supposed to fly back tomorrow to penang) but i already had a form saying thats what it is, a denial of entry. 

Did you get a denial stamp in pp and the Penang visa cancelled also? Not heard of this before when a visa is issued.

[BritTim]

Just now, Digitalbanana said:

Did you get a denial stamp in pp and the Penang visa cancelled also? Not heard of this before when a visa is issued.

He will get the denied entry stamp in his passport. Immigration would not dare to try to cancel the visa which they have no power to do, and where any attempt to do so would be obvious.

[BusyB]

42 minutes ago, BritTim said:

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.

But surely nowadays you only get a visa if you've shown means of support (bank statements the last 3 months etc ...)?

[bigt3116]

22 minutes ago, 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. ????

????????

NOPE, not at all, because the crime that the customers commit is solicitation , not "being involved in prostitution".

[bigt3116]

1 minute ago, BusyB said:

But surely nowadays you only get a visa if you've shown means of support (bank statements the last 3 months etc ...)?

But borders, unlike embassies, want to see cash, not bank statements.

[Paul Catton]

51 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.

Denial under Section 12 article(10)

Which then incorporates the embodiment of Section 16, providing ample grounds of discretion.

 

The House always wins.

[Scouse123]

The OP originally stated he'd been refused at Phuket after being granted a tourist visa in Penang.

 

I am not implying anything sinister or that he is a bad person or anything but he has attempted to drip feed the board by what actually happened.

 

By this I mean after board members queried him, up pops the three day overstay when first stating he had absolutely nothing wrong in the passport.

 

Then he mentioned further down the line in another post the IO was suggesting he didn't have funds to support himself, then there was the suggestion that he was living here, which he probably is to all intents and purposes.

 

Furthermore, there is the situation of members asking him to post the actual refusal in the passport on here, so that it can be looked at, he has chosen to swerve this request made by multiple posters which suggests he obviously doesn't want you to see the visa and reasons for refusal.

 

So it's obvious asking advice on here and not telling the whole story that posters will become suspicious.

 

Moving next what he himself says, about why was he granted a visa in the first place, as though it is now the fault of the Thai Embassy in Penang?

 

Well a visa can be double checked at immigration points, the same applies to those granted visas to the UK or Europe if an IO is suspicious. In the UK, and I have known it happen, where a person has been turned around and sent back basically accused of obtaining a visa by deception/under false pretenses OR obtaining a visa not used for its intended purpose.

 

I wouldn't start waving the rules, regulations and Thai law around to an IO.

 

AFAIK, An IO can refuse you at the border regardless of the fact you have a visa. I wouldn't personally attempt to be a smart-ass by trying a different immigration point in a day or so. I would stay away and have a month in Cambodia.

 

Two refusals would not look good in a passport. But as they say, up to you!

[Caldera]

32 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

Furthermore, there is the situation of members asking him to post the actual refusal in the passport on here, so that it can be looked at, he has chosen to swerve this request made by multiple posters which suggests he obviously doesn't want you to see the visa and reasons for refusal.

In fairness, the OP was due to be detained overnight and has explained that he wasn't in possession of his passport.

 

That isn't unusual when someone is denied entry, in fact his passport might be given to the crew of the flight he departs on and he might not get to see it again until he's back in Penang.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, BusyB said:

But surely nowadays you only get a visa if you've shown means of support (bank statements the last 3 months etc ...)?

The conditions applied by embassies and consulates for issuing visas varies. Some (for instance, Manila) are extremely strict in the documentation they need before issuing you a tourist visa. Others issue you a visa more easily. In the end, it does not matter. If a rogue official wants to refuse to honour your visa (and their superior turns a blind eye to the practice) it is very difficult to achieve due process.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Paul Catton said:

Denial under Section 12 article(10)

Which then incorporates the embodiment of Section 16, providing ample grounds of discretion.

 

The House always wins.

An interesting possibility. It is true that the Minister might have secretly instructed immigration at certain airports to deny people entering under certain conditions. I think that would be legal. I think some other countries (including the US) have employed such secret orders. I have never before seen suggestions that Thailand has done this ... but maybe. Still, I do not think this is the same as giving officials discretion. It seems the Minister does not have the power to do that.

[wmlc]

14 minutes ago, BritTim said:

An interesting possibility. It is true that the Minister might have secretly instructed immigration at certain airports to deny people entering under certain conditions. I think that would be legal. I think some other countries (including the US) have employed such secret orders. I have never before seen suggestions that Thailand has done this ... but maybe. Still, I do not think this is the same as giving officials discretion. It seems the Minister does not have the power to do that.

What Brit Tim and others do not know about,  as Siam Legal won’t post them for Brit Tim to quote, there are internal memos  and Ministerial regulations  issued by immigration and the Ministry of Interior that give immigration officers full discretion on allowing people to enter Thailand or not. This will be based on the content of the internal memo or the approved and documented Ministerial regulation after it gets published in the government gazette.  The memo is not law and does not get published in the government gazette but Ministerial regulations do. Memos are usually issued to instruct the officers to be more strict on certain things due to a recent issue that has caused problems,  such as crimes being committed by the Chinese with dodgy volunteer and ED visas. Immigration was instructed to scrutinize almost everyone entering on those types of visas. 

[paulikens]

Just now, travelerjim said:

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.

As i said before I thought i was alright to fly in as I had the SETV 

[paulikens]

Just now, 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.

They didn't even ask if i had any cash on me.   

[paulikens]

Just now, wmlc said:

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. 

But if digital nomads are coming in on a tourist visa then you're contradicting yourself. if they work they're not tourists.  make ya mind up.  

[paulikens]

Just now, wmlc said:

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. 

 

Actually i didnt want the answers to any of them.  all i wanted to know was when it was safe to go back to thailand after getting denied entry

[paulikens]

Just now, Scouse123 said:

The OP originally stated he'd been refused at Phuket after being granted a tourist visa in Penang.

 

I am not implying anything sinister or that he is a bad person or anything but he has attempted to drip feed the board by what actually happened.

 

By this I mean after board members queried him, up pops the three day overstay when first stating he had absolutely nothing wrong in the passport.

 

Then he mentioned further down the line in another post the IO was suggesting he didn't have funds to support himself, then there was the suggestion that he was living here, which he probably is to all intents and purposes.

 

Furthermore, there is the situation of members asking him to post the actual refusal in the passport on here, so that it can be looked at, he has chosen to swerve this request made by multiple posters which suggests he obviously doesn't want you to see the visa and reasons for refusal.

 

So it's obvious asking advice on here and not telling the whole story that posters will become suspicious.

 

Moving next what he himself says, about why was he granted a visa in the first place, as though it is now the fault of the Thai Embassy in Penang?

 

Well a visa can be double checked at immigration points, the same applies to those granted visas to the UK or Europe if an IO is suspicious. In the UK, and I have known it happen, where a person has been turned around and sent back basically accused of obtaining a visa by deception/under false pretenses OR obtaining a visa not used for its intended purpose.

 

I wouldn't start waving the rules, regulations and Thai law around to an IO.

 

AFAIK, An IO can refuse you at the border regardless of the fact you have a visa. I wouldn't personally attempt to be a smart-ass by trying a different immigration point in a day or so. I would stay away and have a month in Cambodia.

 

Two refusals would not look good in a passport. But as they say, up to you!

I'll tell you why i was drip feeding the info. because i wasn't sure id even get any response to my first post.  I didn't want to write out a long post and no-one even respond and also even if i had put most of the details i guarantee someone would want some other detail that i had forgotten.  On the passport point I still haven't got that back yet as i'm still in the detention room i fly out this evening.   And the final point which I keep having to repeat but has got lost in so many comments.  The only thing i EVER wanted to know was how long would or should it be before i attempt to come back to thailand?     Yes i believe it is unfair that the embassy grant you the visa but the immigration still can refuse you BUT my original post was only enquiring about how long before i should attempt to come back to Thailand.   everything else is irrelevant.    

Edited July 28, 2023 by paulikens

[paulikens]

Just now, bigt3116 said:

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

Well it seems it's not a very logical way to do it and by the sounds of it all countries are the same.  because thats like buying a ticket for a entertainment event ie football, concert, etc  online and then at the venue they deny you entrance.    

[freedomnow]

3 hours ago, wmlc said:

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. 

Hahahahahaha, I guess you never heard of passive income from property/Thai stocks etc. I wonder why ? Not in your wheelhouse ?

Anyone can invest in Thai stocks on any visa in or outside of Thailand....this has been covered before.

Your trying to globally categorize all people who don't have to work on tourist visas as 'digital workers' which is  'un-nuanced' and

                                                                          moronic.

[mancub]

37 minutes ago, paulikens said:

BUT my original post was only enquiring about how long before i should attempt to come back to Thailand

Have you asked the Immigration folk themselves ? ????

[paulikens]

Just now, mancub said:

Have you asked the Immigration folk themselves ? ????

Well as the common theme on this post is everything is to each IO discretion, I'd probably get a different answer from each one of them.  And from what i can gather legally i could try again tomorrow (i'm not going to)   And i guarantee they wouldn't tell me that.  Also it would be a loss of face if another immigration let me in. not that the actual IO that refused  me would ever know.  unless he's going to monitor my every move from now on in???? 

[Scouse123]

1 hour ago, paulikens said:

I'll tell you why i was drip feeding the info. because i wasn't sure id even get any response to my first post.  I didn't want to write out a long post and no-one even respond and also even if i had put most of the details i guarantee someone would want some other detail that i had forgotten.  On the passport point I still haven't got that back yet as i'm still in the detention room i fly out this evening.   And the final point which I keep having to repeat but has got lost in so many comments.  The only thing i EVER wanted to know was how long would or should it be before i attempt to come back to thailand?     Yes i believe it is unfair that the embassy grant you the visa but the immigration still can refuse you BUT my original post was only enquiring about how long before i should attempt to come back to Thailand.   everything else is irrelevant.    

I would stay out a month, but that's only what I would do personally.

 

I would let the dust settle.

 

It seems you have basically been playing the system, which many people do, but you unfortunately hit the wrong Immigration officer. It's a risk you take.

[wmlc]

1 hour ago, freedomnow said:

Hahahahahaha, I guess you never heard of passive income from property/Thai stocks etc. I wonder why ? Not in your wheelhouse ?

Anyone can invest in Thai stocks on any visa in or outside of Thailand....this has been covered before.

Your trying to globally categorize all people who don't have to work on tourist visas as 'digital workers' which is  'un-nuanced' and

                                                                          moronic.

Then you would be a resident of Thailand for tax purposes as you would be living here for more than 180 days in one calendar year. Again then not a tourist but now a resident. Being a resident should mean getting a proper long term visa. Guess you just don’t know about the laws in Thailand do you. This is what the Thai government does not want. Long term tourists and digital nomads without the proper visa. If the people that you describe have all these investments, they would then qualify for the LTR visa right or an investment visa. Hence getting the proper visa to stay long time. Sorry but you are wrong in everything you said. The Thai immigration does not  want long term tourists without the proper visas. End of story. Anytime you want to debate about Thai law with me, you better educate yourself more than this before you comment. 
 

in summary, don’t use a tourist visa to stay long term. It’s not designed for that and it’s not sustainable like it used to be years ago when you could do unlimited visas, runs, border hops, combined with 30 extensions using agencies every step of the way.     

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[Paul Catton]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

An interesting possibility. It is true that the Minister might have secretly instructed immigration at certain airports to deny people entering under certain conditions. I think that would be legal. I think some other countries (including the US) have employed such secret orders. I have never before seen suggestions that Thailand has done this ... but maybe. Still, I do not think this is the same as giving officials discretion. It seems the Minister does not have the power to do that.

It is an interesting point due to its inclusion within Legislation.

With enforcement under Section 16, Does any person know if there is a current "Edict" with listing of published individuals and/or groups by the Minister, or is this an authority transferred unilaterally to the "Competent Officer" screening entry.

[wmlc]

15 minutes ago, Paul Catton said:

It is an interesting point due to its inclusion within Legislation.

With enforcement under Section 16, Does any person know if there is a current "Edict" with listing of published individuals and/or groups by the Minister, or is this an authority transferred unilaterally to the "Competent Officer" screening entry.

It’s not true what you say. There are internal announcements and ministerial regulations that have caused these entry refusals. Implemented by the Ministry of interior together with immigration . It is done  off and on to discourage illegal activities. Most foreigners in legal hot water are normally on overstay, have an improper visa in relation to their true intention, or a dodgy ED or volunteer visa. So, in summary, after these announcements and regulations are issued, the officers act on them. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc

[freedomnow]

41 minutes ago, wmlc said:

Then you would be a resident of Thailand for tax purposes as you would be living here for more than 180 days in one calendar year. Again then not a tourist but now a resident. Being a resident should mean getting a proper long term visa. Guess you just don’t know about the laws in Thailand do you. This is what the Thai government does not want. Long term tourists and digital nomads without the proper visa. If the people that you describe have all these investments, they would then qualify for the LTR visa right or an investment visa. Hence getting the proper visa to stay long time. Sorry but you are wrong in everything you said. The Thai immigration does not  want long term tourists without the proper visas. End of story. Anytime you want to debate about Thai law with me, you better educate yourself more than this before you comment. 
 

in summary, don’t use a tourist visa to stay long term. It’s not designed for that and it’s not sustainable like it used to be years ago when you could do unlimited visas, runs, border hops, combined with 30 extensions using agencies every step of the way.     

The METV visa is a 6-month visa designed for people to stay longer-term.

 

It would not be available according to your babble above.

 

 

[wmlc]

2 hours ago, paulikens said:

Actually i didnt want the answers to any of them.  all i wanted to know was when it was safe to go back to thailand after getting denied entry

I think you did, as those answers will help you solve your problem for good. Then next time you won’t run into the same issue again. If you live day by day then crack on mate. But if you want to come here and have a more sustainable visa and more comfortable life. Follow the advice I gave. Up to you mate. 

[freedomnow]

He could come in the same-day/next few days on the visa he had overland unless he has a more official stamp in his passport.

[wmlc]

13 minutes ago, freedomnow said:

The METV visa is a 6-month visa designed for people to stay longer-term.

 

It would not be available according to your babble above.

 

 

As you say my babble above, it’s referring to stays longer than 180 days in one calendar year. Not up to 6 months as you say but beyond that. Think again. Nice try but you can’t win the debate. The issue is the Thai government wants people who want to stay more than 6 months in any give. calendar year to get a proper long term visa. End of story. Maybe that it too difficult for you to understand???? if so, call Siam Legal to help you understand. ????????????

Edited July 28, 2023 by wmlc