Any advantages to retirement over marriage visa?

[arick]

On 9/12/2024 at 8:16 PM, Colonel_Mustard said:

Thanks for the reply.  Is that for the retirement visa? 

 

It seemed to me that the retirement visa would require more paperwork - police clearance, medical cert, health insurance etc.  Whereas the marriage visa only appears to require marriage proof in addition to funds in the bank.

If you're on an income letter it's one letter from your embassy and that said none of the immigration office within a few minutes. So retirements a lot easier than marriage.

[DrJack54]

8 minutes ago, arick said:

If you're on an income letter it's one letter from your embassy and that said none of the immigration office within a few minutes.

The OP is from the UK.

That embassy does not provide income letter. Nor does UK and AU

[Finlaco]

4 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Yes, already answered by @DrJack54

It's an extension of your permission of stay, a permit, not a visa.

@Liquorice

Then another reason to favour retirement over marriage visa.   Rather demeaning to have to produce your spouse imho

Edited September 14 by Finlaco

[Liquorice]

20 minutes ago, Finlaco said:

@Liquorice

Then another reason to favour retirement over marriage visa.   Rather demeaning to have to produce your spouse imho

Pros and Cons.

My wife has her own business, but for 2 hours once a year she closes to attend Immigration for my application.
She doesn't have to return when I get the stamp after the under consideration period.

The financials are less and not forced to lock funds in a Thai bank account throughout the year.
Legally allowed to work if desired, just apply for the work permit.

[sometimewoodworker]

23 hours ago, Irish star said:

I was sitting in Udon immigration , they hate the marriage visa too much paperwork 

This is your interpretation. I too use Udon immigration. They do not hate the marriage extension. It is quite possible that they hate those who do not have all the correct papers organised. the IOs may well reflect the applicant’s feelings. My wife has been complimented on the fact that we were so well sorted out.
 

I have had everything organised and signed, they just needed to put the stamp over our signatures. There is occasionally an extra document added in but that is the same for any application not exclusively the marriage extension.

[sometimewoodworker]

20 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The only thing that annoys me slightly is the time it takes to sign all the documents.

@GroveHillWanderer You can do that before you go to immigration, I do, then they just stamp over the signatures

[Liquorice]

2 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

@GroveHillWanderer You can do that before you go to immigration, I do, then they just stamp over the signatures

That depends on the Immigration office's preferences.
Mine have a large 4" x 3" stamp they put on each document you have to sign within, so they stopped pre signing documents.

[OJAS]

7 hours ago, bigt3116 said:

 

Do you know why the embassy letters stopped?

 

 

By no means did all embassy letters stop - only those issued by the AU, UK & US embassies. To the best of my knowledge, all remaining 75 embassies listed in the Wikipedia link below still issue letters for their nationals:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Thailand

 

Draw your own conclusions about the (un)willingness of the renegade Anglo trio to go the extra mile in complying with the Immigration Bureau's IMHO not unreasonable verification demands, which their remaining 75 counterparts have presumably somehow managed to accomplish with minimal extra effort!

 

[sometimewoodworker]

7 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

That depends on the Immigration office's preferences.
Mine have a large 4" x 3" stamp they put on each document you have to sign within, so they stopped pre signing documents.

The stamp size is the same, it is the preference of the immigration office as to the acceptance of pre signed documents Udon office will, it is also sensible to sign in an area that is easy to stamp.

[Liquorice]

6 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

The stamp size is the same, it is the preference of the immigration office as to the acceptance of pre signed documents Udon office will, it is also sensible to sign in an area that is easy to stamp.

The problem being the stamp isn't translucent, so they can't stamp, so your signatures falls directly on the line it should.
Whether you can sign them in the comfort of your home or at the Immigration office is immaterial - they all have to be signed regardless.

[GroveHillWanderer]

29 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

@GroveHillWanderer You can do that before you go to immigration, I do, then they just stamp over the signatures

It takes the same amount of time to sign them, whether you do it beforehand or not.

[Liquorice]

37 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Draw your own conclusions about the (un)willingness of the renegade Anglo trio to go the extra mile in complying with the Immigration Bureau's IMHO not unreasonable verification demands, which their remaining 75 counterparts have presumably somehow managed to accomplish with minimal extra effort!

Impossible to 'verify' unless your pension provider breaches the Data protection Act.

Other Embassies don't and can't 'verify' incomes, and I wonder if you understand the legal term of the word.

Not ALL foreign Embassies issue Income letters.

 

After news of the cessation of Embassy letters, Immigration issued new orders stating Embassy Income letters only had to be 'certified', which the UK in particular had been doing.
That order was issued after the horse had bolted the stable.
They really expected the UK, US and Aus to resume services as normal after a merry dance for the previous 6 months.

 

Final word, as it's off-topic to the thread.

[flexomike]

3 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Pros and Cons.

My wife has her own business, but for 2 hours once a year she closes to attend Immigration for my application.
She doesn't have to return when I get the stamp after the under consideration period.

The financials are less and not forced to lock funds in a Thai bank account throughout the year.
Legally allowed to work if desired, just apply for the work permit.

Do the monthly deposit and you don't have to keep any funds in the bank

[DrJack54]

12 minutes ago, flexomike said:

Do the monthly deposit and you don't have to keep any funds in the bank

He can do that for second extension showing 12 months of monthly transfers using the 65k.

That would be a modest amount for himself and wife to live on. 

As you point out avoids locking up funds in bank (useless) 

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, Liquorice said:

The problem being the stamp isn't translucent, so they can't stamp, so your signatures falls directly on the line it should.
 

The IOs in my office don’t really care. The stamp so it’s roughly in the correct place. If I sign after the stamp the don’t care if it’s on the line. YMMV after all TIT.

[DrJack54]

Can we move on from signing pages.

Irrelevant. 

[Liquorice]

2 hours ago, flexomike said:

Do the monthly deposit and you don't have to keep any funds in the bank

Over the last 4 years, I've witnessed several expats passing and leaving their spouses, girlfriends up <deleted> creek without a paddle due to using the monthly overseas transfers.

 

Last one just a fortnight ago, leaving his wife to pick a substantial hospital bill, his cremation costs and deal with finance on a car.
His account had just over 30,000 BHT in it, and she's now waiting to obtain a court order to release the funds, which will go towards paying off her debts she's now incurred to pay his bills. Add to that the loss of a monthly income.

 

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Over the last 4 years, I've witnessed several expats passing and leaving their spouses, girlfriends up <deleted> creek without a paddle due to using the monthly overseas transfers.

 

Interesting.

I'm in a defacto and to avoid the up creek scenario I'm currently changing from funds in bank for extension retirement to income method.

I transfer 120k every month and goes straight out and into partner account.

In other words when I'm eventually on income method there will never be funds in my account.

Only outlining detail for others as access to the farang partner/husband can prove to be difficult. 

 

 

[Rob Browder]

10 hours ago, Liquorice said:

That information was correct.
Both the 'Stat Dec' and 'Affidavits' used by the Aus and US Embassies were always only valid and enforceable in their respective Countries.

For the UK Embassy letter proof of pension statements were supplied, but even that wasn't infallible.

 

Regarding 'verification', if Mr Somchai from the British Embassy contacted any of my pension providers to confirm my income, he'd be told where to go.
Under Data protection laws, personal information cannot be provided to third parties.

Correct. it is Illegal under USA Law for the USA State Dept to investigate Americans, including financial probing into other agency data (IRS, Social Security, etc.  

But, if Immigration had evidence anyone was supplying false information in applying for extensions of stay, they could be charged under Thai Law.   And, if the foreigner used a falsified affidavit to do this, Immigration (RTP) could refer the case to the FBI office in Bangkok.  No such cases were ever reported - in Thai courts, or with the FBI - with regard to "false" income affidavits. 

 

This indicates that no such abuses were ever documented by the authorities.  In fact, this entire made-up story about "false" affidavits was only hearsay, used to justify a strategic goal - targeting a large group of expats (= potential market for their agents), using a legal-technicality of USA/UK/AU law.

 

This action followed the same pattern seen throughout Big Joke's term as head of Immigration - blow up a story out of whole-cloth or an isolated incident demonizing foreigners, then change policy to suit the story - with the result always leading to more agent-use.

[DrJack54]

5 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

Correct. it is Illegal under USA Law for the USA State Dept to investigate Americans, including financial probing into other agency data (IRS, Social Security, etc.  

But, if Immigration had evidence anyone was supplying false information in applying for extensions of stay, they could be charged under Thai Law.   And, if the foreigner used a falsified affidavit to do this, Immigration (RTP) could refer the case to the FBI office in Bangkok.  No such cases were ever reported - in Thai courts, or with the FBI - with regard to "false" income affidavits. 

 

This indicates that no such abuses were ever documented by the authorities.  In fact, this entire made-up story about "false" affidavits was only hearsay, used to justify a strategic goal - targeting a large group of expats (= potential market for their agents), using a legal-technicality of USA/UK/AU law.

 

This action followed the same pattern seen throughout Big Joke's term as head of Immigration - blow up a story out of whole-cloth or an isolated incident demonizing foreigners, then change policy to suit the story - with the result always leading to more agent-use.

Absolute nonsense. 

[sandyf]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:16 AM, Liquorice said:

Although you weren't previously clear with what in particle you were referencing to, I assumed it was this little nugget from clause 2 of orders amending order 138/2557 regarding transfers of income to a Thai bank account. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Unless you had an existing Thai bank account in order to commence overseas transfers from the date of retirement, then you are not in compliance with that clause.

 

I previously dismissed your first post on the subject as the OP is only 58, not in receipt of a pension and does not have a Thai bank account.

If you were referencing something different, then please be clearer.

When people have dug themselves into a hole they start making things up based on their interpretation of the translation wording, for example using the literal because it suits. Differnent scenario when it doesn't suit.

The order amending requirements for income based extensions is quite clear. If you arrive in October the first transaction would need to be in November, you get a month to open a bank account. Why would the OP be unable to open a bank account within a month?

In the interest of simplicity, Immigration has a tendency when referring to "income" to use the word pension, you are however perfectly free to believe that only those with a "pension" can use the income method.

You disputed my posts because you thought you knew better, referring to "leniency" when in  fact there was an official order in effect. I said in the beginning that I tried this option and had a protracted conversation with the senior IO on the issue. Entirely up to you what you want to believe but you cannot try and make it fact.

If the "exception" has not been rescinded then it is a perfectly valid option for the OP and up to him if he wants to look into it.

[Liquorice]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

In the interest of simplicity, Immigration has a tendency when referring to "income" to use the word pension, you are however perfectly free to believe that only those with a "pension" can use the income method.

From personal experience, Immigration always request proof of receipt of a pension(s) from the pension provider(s) when using the monthly overseas transfers.
I'm also informed by expats of different nationalities that in order to receive the Embassy Income letter, they are now required to provide proof of pension statements to obtain the letter.

 

Just how do you prove your retired the previous month if you can't provide a letter stating when your pension started.

Would you expect Immigration just to take you at your word that you only retired a 'month' ago?

[DrJack54]

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

The order amending requirements for income based extensions is quite clear. If you arrive in October the first

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

If you arrive in October the first transaction would need to be in November, you get a month to open a bank account. Why would the OP be unable to open a bank account within a month?

transaction would need to be in November, you get a month to open a bank account. Why would the OP be unable to open a bank account within a month?

In the interest of simplicity, Immigration has a tendency when referring to "income" to use the word pension, you are however perfectly free to believe that only those with a "pension" can use the income method.

Please post ONE report of UK, USA, AU citizen being able to obtain 12 month extension based on retirement, for first or any extension using income method 

After all the OP is UK. 

 

Also some (not all) immigration offices are asking for proof of "income stream" and not accepting income from eg rents.

Some offices don't care just wish to see monthly transfers. Consistent date is advised. 

In any event all irrelevant to the UK OP that does not even have a Thai bank account. 

You seem unaware of current difficulties in opening a Thai bank account.

Would make it more easy if op obtained non O retirement in UK prior to entry.

 

 

[sandyf]

On 9/16/2024 at 9:11 PM, DrJack54 said:

Please post ONE report of UK, USA, AU citizen being able to obtain 12 month extension based on retirement, for first or any extension using income method 

After all the OP is UK. 

 

Also some (not all) immigration offices are asking for proof of "income stream" and not accepting income from eg rents.

Some offices don't care just wish to see monthly transfers. Consistent date is advised. 

In any event all irrelevant to the UK OP that does not even have a Thai bank account. 

You seem unaware of current difficulties in opening a Thai bank account.

Would make it more easy if op obtained non O retirement in UK prior to entry.

 

 

If you want to maintain the exception has been rescinded then some verification to that should be forthcoming.

Until then it is a perfectly valid option for the OP, obviously you don't realise it is only valid if the OP were to arrive on a Cat O visa.

Your views shouldn't be an impediment to the OP's options, it is the facts that count.

[sandyf]

On 9/16/2024 at 8:55 PM, Liquorice said:

From personal experience, Immigration always request proof of receipt of a pension(s) from the pension provider(s) when using the monthly overseas transfers.
I'm also informed by expats of different nationalities that in order to receive the Embassy Income letter, they are now required to provide proof of pension statements to obtain the letter.

 

Just how do you prove your retired the previous month if you can't provide a letter stating when your pension started.

Would you expect Immigration just to take you at your word that you only retired a 'month' ago?

If you had read my post properly you would have noted it was about 2.18, referring to "family members" not retirement.

All your talk about retiring and pension highlights how you fail to put things into perspective.

[Liquorice]

16 minutes ago, sandyf said:

If you want to maintain the exception has been rescinded then some verification to that should be forthcoming.

Until then it is a perfectly valid option for the OP, obviously you don't realise it is only valid if the OP were to arrive on a Cat O visa.

Your views shouldn't be an impediment to the OP's options, it is the facts that count.

Nobody has suggested the exception has been reminded, but it's literally unworkable.
The OP retired a long time ago, so it's not even an option.

[Liquorice]

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

If you had read my post properly you would have noted it was about 2.18, referring to "family members" not retirement.

All your talk about retiring and pension highlights how you fail to put things into perspective.

That same exception applies to both section 2.18 "family members" and section 2.22 "retirement", with the same requirements > evidence from Pension!

 

 

Rightly or wrongly, Immigration make the assumption if you apply for a 1 year extension based on Thai spouse, then you must have retired or be working in Thailand.

If you're young enough and not in receipt of a pension, then the assumption appears to be you have sufficient funds to deposit 400K THB in a Thai bank account.

 

At my IO, if using the monthly overseas transfers for an extension based on either retirement or Thai spouse, they regularly request proof of being in receipt of a pension.

 

[sandyf]

On 9/19/2024 at 10:38 AM, Liquorice said:

Nobody has suggested the exception has been reminded, but it's literally unworkable.
The OP retired a long time ago, so it's not even an option.

Garbage again.

As far as the exeption is concerned, the number of transactions required is from one month after arrival until the very first 12 month application. The same "exception" applies to those that want to extend based on marriage, or are you going to argue the toss on that as well. Of course you are.

Of course it's  an option for the OP but there are those that want to suppress options they do not favour.

It is the OP's decision, not yours.

Edited September 20 by sandyf

[Liquorice]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

As far as the exeption is concerned, the number of transactions required is from one month after arrival

That is not the wording.

It is one month after retirement was started, which is not the same as one month after arrival.

Quote

Except in the case where the applicant's retirement is less than 1 year, the evidence must be from the month of retirement.

Again, the OP retired some time ago.
He doesn't have a Thai bank account.

It is impossible for him to have started transferring funds the month after retirement.

Edited September 20 by Liquorice