90 Days In Which 6 Month Period?

[Chaang]

Hello,

I am a bit unsure about my situation so I thought that I would ask the experts.

I travel on a New Zealand passport and have been travelling in and out of thailand using the 30 visa exemption rules a few times since October 2006. I am aware that I am permitted to stay in thailand for 90 days (max 30 days at a time) in a 6 month period using this method.

My question is: how is the 6 month period calculated?

My actual situation is as follows.

I first arrived in thailand on 13th October 2006, and spent 55 days here between then and the end of Janurary 2007.

I came back to thailand on 25th June 2007, and intend to use up my 90 days (through visa runs) thus staying until approx. the end of September 2007.

So basically here is my real question. Do I get another 90 days to use up from the 13th October 2007 (the start of my 3rd 6 month period)?

If this is the case it would mean that I have pretty much stayed in Thailand on a visa exemption for pretty much 180 out of 180 days. Is this possible?

Like I said I need help from the experts.

Thanks in advance ... Chaang!

[jbaldwin]

You cannot be in Thailand for more than 90 days in ANY six month period. So if you arrived on 25 June 2007 you get 90 days until 24 December.

[cali4995]

Chaang, you seem to understand the rule:" Foreigners who enter the Kingdom under the Tourist Visa Exemption category may re-enter and stay in Thailand for a cumulative duration of stay of not exceeding 90 days within any 6-month period from the date of first entry." the key words being tourist visa exemption. the more calculations you give them to perform, the more 6 month periods they have to analyze, the more chances there are for something to go wrong. what seems correct in theory or on paper might not fly when you show-up at the immigration counter.

i think jbaldwin has given you the correct info: your 3rd period will commence on your first entry after 24 december

but if you get a tourist visa you won't have to worry about this stuff or providing proof of onward travel.

[wasabi]

Say you arrive in Thailand and receive a visa on arrival January 1st 2007, do three visa runs and leave after the 90 days on March 31st. After this do you have to wait to return until September or by then would the first month be cleared as soon as July since July is 6 months after January? Thus freeing up another 1 month window. Or does the 6 month reset clock not start ticking until the last of the 90 days are used in a year?

[sjaak327]

You don't really have to wait, you could get three stamps starting January 1st, this will take you to march 28th or so (depending on how many days in February), remember the first and last days count fully.

Now you have your 90 days on exempt stamps, but in theory you can get a tourist visa to "bridge" the remaining period (+ one month extension + staying away a few days to end the period).

Your period will end on July 1st, at which time you may receive a new exempt stamp, up until you have reached the maximum of 90 days, at which time, you could go for another tourist visa again.

[tropo]

Hello,

I am a bit unsure about my situation so I thought that I would ask the experts.

I travel on a New Zealand passport and have been travelling in and out of thailand using the 30 visa exemption rules a few times since October 2006. I am aware that I am permitted to stay in thailand for 90 days (max 30 days at a time) in a 6 month period using this method.

My question is: how is the 6 month period calculated?

My actual situation is as follows.

I first arrived in thailand on 13th October 2006, and spent 55 days here between then and the end of Janurary 2007.

I came back to thailand on 25th June 2007, and intend to use up my 90 days (through visa runs) thus staying until approx. the end of September 2007.

So basically here is my real question. Do I get another 90 days to use up from the 13th October 2007 (the start of my 3rd 6 month period)?

If this is the case it would mean that I have pretty much stayed in Thailand on a visa exemption for pretty much 180 out of 180 days. Is this possible?

Like I said I need help from the experts.

Thanks in advance ... Chaang!

No one has really answered your question yet, and the answer has a lot to do with what immigration deem to be "date of first entry".

At first (last year after they introduced the new rules) we all thought it was a rolling 6 month (or 180 days...still not known) period which really made a lot of sense, but requires quite some mathematical ability for accurate calculations.

then....

Sometime around March this year someone got a shock when they were only stamped for a few days when they expected a full 30 days, which heralded the "6 month block" theory for calculations...which of course seems ludicrous because if a person stays for 90 days at the end of a 6 month block, you'll get a futher 90 days at the start of your next 6 month block adding up to a total stay of 180 days straight in 6 months, and against the rules which state that only 90 days are allowed within a 6 month period.

then....

The forum (until now) seemed to have gone mysteriously quiet on this topic. It's like we all just threw up our arms in total disbelief and gave up thinking about it because it had been causing more than a few headaches after months spent discussing the possibilities of how this new rule would be enforced only to discover we were all wrong.

Theories abound.

Actual case histories are still limited.

Logical enforcement by Immigration Officials has not been in evidence so far.

A lot of people have just given up and suggest getting a tourist visa just to eliminate any problems/worries.

I would be really interested to hear what our resident experts, Lopburi3 and Maestro have to say about this.

[lopburi3]

My advise was and is to obtain a tourist visa and be done with the uncertainty and delays that visa exempt cause.

[tropo]

My advise was and is to obtain a tourist visa and be done with the uncertainty and delays that visa exempt cause.

And there you have it from the man himself.

It's just too much of a headache to work it out and even when you think you have, the Immigration Officers will prove you wrong.

[Chaang]

Tropo - thanks for the extended post.

You get the jist of what I am confused with.

You are right "First Date of Entry" is the key phrase. Is that the first entry after 01 October 2006, or first date of entry since your last 6 month period ended.

Last time I came through the airport I remember seeing a sign on the immigration desk, in english, trying to explain the new rules, and I think that is where I got the feel for the possibility it was a 6 month block, ie first date after 01 October 2006, things were based on.

I have to do a visa run next week so I may even try and ask someone at immigration on the way out to see if I can get a straight answer, at least from one official.

Thanks again for the help from all the posters.

Cheers,

Chaang.

[tropo]

Tropo - thanks for the extended post.

You get the jist of what I am confused with.

You are right "First Date of Entry" is the key phrase. Is that the first entry after 01 October 2006, or first date of entry since your last 6 month period ended.

Last time I came through the airport I remember seeing a sign on the immigration desk, in english, trying to explain the new rules, and I think that is where I got the feel for the possibility it was a 6 month block, ie first date after 01 October 2006, things were based on.

I have to do a visa run next week so I may even try and ask someone at immigration on the way out to see if I can get a straight answer, at least from one official.

Thanks again for the help from all the posters.

Cheers,

Chaang.

I'm very interested to hear from anyone who has first hand experience on this topic, but as you can see here, your post has garnered hardly any response in several days. If you'd posted this late last year, you'd have pages of responses by now.

I really believe that people are giving up on trying to work out how these rules are being enforced. Even Lopburi3 and Maestro seem totally uninterested in adding any thought to the topic other than "get a tourist visa". We're still in the dark, but I'm surprised there haven't been more reports on people with first hand experience.

[cali4995]

In an attempt to shed some more light on a muddled topic, I will tell you something troubling but true. I was making border runs to Ban Laem after a tourist visa. 1st 30 days no problem, 2nd 30 days no problem, then I got a 7-day extension, 3rd 30 days, problem. The very stern-faced immigration officer initially stamped me in for 30 days, but then grimly began re-examining my passport pages. Would you believe, he then took out a ball-point pen and wrote over the stamp giving me 24 days. Even the Thai guide with our bus was shaking his head in disbelief. I have to confess, Lopburi3 cautioned me that might happen. What's even more confusing in the previous 6 months I had got a 7-day extension added to my 90 days to put me over the 6-month hurdle. Now they're subtracting it? And of course as you might have guessed when I headed to Laos to get my next tourist visa this hand-written stamp got me pulled out of the line and into the main office. I can't swear they do this every time but it occasionally does happen. It's difficult to give black-and-white answers to some of these visa questions concerning the 90 days in 6 months because the biggest variable, Thai immigration, is the unknown.

Edited August 16, 2007 by cali4995

[tropo]

And of course as you might have guessed when I headed to Laos to get my next tourist visa this hand-written stamp got me pulled out of the line and into the main office. I can't swear they do this every time but it occasionally does happen.

What actually happened in the main office? Did you get your visa? What questions did they ask you? Did you get a warning stamp not to return to Laos for tourist visas?

[chrissimone]

Hi all, I am also unsure as to how 90 in 180 works. I posted before and was advised to just get tourist visa. I would need to fly to a different Island to get to the thai embassy, fairly pricey, or I could mail my passport, but still confused about price, and postage for return. Also I don't really like the Idea of mailing my passport away. But, the main reason I don't get tourist is that in my job I never know when I will have time off,and need to leave on short notice, and I am not sure If my passport will get back to me in time.

My first entry into los was 19 feb, and I have only spent about 35 days in 3 entries till now. So, I think I can go back after the 19 of august and start a new block, but now sure. Also If I don't go back untill say the 16 of next Feb., does that mean I will only get 3 days?

Anyways I figgure if I can't get in I will just go to Cambodia, or singapore or somewhere near there.

If it works out that I will know 2-3 weeks in advance when I can leave here (hawaii), then I will probably get tourist visa. Thanks for reading this, I know I am not a very coherent poster ( too much whiskey and stuff when I was younger), But just wanted to let people know that I have a reason for going visa exempt, and That I am still interested in 90 days in 180 days. Chris.

[lopburi3]

If you have only been in country 35 days you will not have a problem obtaining a visa exempt entry of 30 days. But you do need a ticket out within those 30 days or your entry could be refused at airport and airline could refuse to board you.

Consulates could tell you how to obtain visa and costs involved. If you have employment that prevents you mailing passport freely you could apply for a second passport.

The rule is 90 days in six months. As long as you stay below 60 days in any six month period you should be safe to obtain a full 30 day stamp. But immigration will have to count up the days and cause a delay for you and those behind you. And mistakes can happen. I still advise getting a visa whenever you have the time to do so.

[chrissimone]

lopburi3, thanks for the reply, I always get a round trip ticket, so I should be ok there. I called the consulate before my last trip in april, and I had trouble understanding them. It seemed like they were too busy to talk to me, so I emailed them,and didn't get a reply. The trouble with mailing my passport is that I have never known that I am leaveing, until just before I go, so I am nervous about getting it back in time.

And about the 90 in 6 months rule, I remember reading people a few months ago, saying that even though they didn't have near their 90 in 6 months, they only recieved the amount of days left in their 6 month block.

Any way I don't have a question,as I feel I am OK for now. I just wanted people to know that, I for one enjoy the posts about this, because I am still confused, and I would like to hear about some peoples experences, so I can get a better handle on this. I realize that you know way more about this than me, but am still unsure about coming back near the end of my 6 months, and when the 6 months start and stop, Chris.

[melmark]

I have noticed on my last 2 exit stamps on visa exemption entries the immigration officer has written the total number of days that I stayed right on the exit stamp. This should make it easier for them to count up total days stayed for future entries.

Am I correct in that if I would look back 5 months from my intended entry and I do not have more than 60 days stay that I should be able to get a full 30 day stay upon my arrival?

[lopburi3]

Yes. In most cases.