Retirement Visa

[JGV]

Could you clarify the situation regarding money in the bank to get this retirement visa. I have obtained this visa now for 3 years and will renew again shortly. I read on this site some months back that the 3 month before date of visa request was only necessary for first request. Subsequent visa requests didn't stipulate this. Is this correct or not as a friend recently said that someone was turned down for a year visa as the account had dropped just below 800.000 three months before although on the day of request was back up to the 800,000 requirement. Obviously he had used some of the money for urgent expenses.

It is all rather confusing and irritating for those of us who have been here a long time and don't want to leave because of an admin change by the authorities. And also is this Credit Card to be shown happening in Pattaya - i understand that this idea was dropped.

Thanks

JGV

[Jingthing]

A number of reports (including for me) that at the Jomtien office only, the money does NOT have to be in the bank for three months prior for the SUBSEQUENT applications. I was told this directly and clearly. However, we still do not have one case of someone reporting actually trying this out, in other words, topping up a week before, and successfully getting the extension. Outside Jomtien, I would say definitely season the money. This does not apply to combo method users, you don't need to season.

Did the report you heard about denial occur at Jomtien?????

Credit cards? I don't think this is generally being asked for. However, officers are free to ask you for anything extra from anyone if they want more support for a specific application.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jingthing

[JGV]

I heard about this refusal from a friend about Jomtien Office.

Who advised clearly that 3 month doesn't apply for subsequent requests?

And any chance of getting an official comment from the office itself. Without this it becomes farcicle as to try to guess where the goal posts are. I don't enjoy this notion that my security is in the lap of the gods or should it be fortune tellers.

JGV

[Jingthing]

I heard about this refusal from a friend about Jomtien Office.

Who advised clearly that 3 month doesn't apply for subsequent requests?

And any chance of getting an official comment from the office itself. Without this it becomes farcicle as to try to guess where the goal posts are. I don't enjoy this notion that my security is in the lap of the gods or should it be fortune tellers.

JGV

That is bad news but good info. If this is a legit report that someone was denied at Jomtien for not having the money seasoned for a SUBSEQUENT extension, then that would be evidence that previous reports of what they have been TELLING people (including me) are not in reality, being enforced that way at present. Oh well. To cofirm, this denial was a SUBSEQUENT extension, not a first one, correct?

Good luck finding totally reliable info, thats why we have a forum. An officer is free to say one thing one day, and another the next. This is the way it is! TIT

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jingthing

[mcgriffith]

My personal experience, and understanding of the law regarding the 90 day requirement for the 800K (for a retirement extension) is the exact inverse (my emphasis) of the above.

Here in Chiang Mai, 2 years ago I was told that for an applicant's first time extension, the 90 day rule is waived.

Let me restate that in different terms so it is perfectly understood.

You are here on a 90 day Non-Imm Cat O single entry. When it is about to expire, say 2 weeks before, you go to your local Immigration office; you are applying for your first 1 year extension (a retirement extension). The 90 day rule is not applied for this first application.

On subsequent renewals of your 1 year retirement extension, the 90 day prior rule does apply. They look at your bank passbooks, not just the bank branch manager letter (stating that on X date Khun Y had Z amount of Thai baht in his accounts).

This is not only what I have been told, it is my actual experience.

Think about this logically.

If you are applying for your first extension, they know that oftentimes you have just arrived, are moving money, setting up house, etc. That is why it is waived the first year.

In subsequent years, you are here, have been here, and should be able to manage your cash flow, etc. to accommodate this legal requirement.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding in Jomtien Imm about this.....

[Jingthing]

Well, different immigration offices do things differently.

But I am very clear that overall in Thailand, the 90 day rule for FIRST time extensions is strictly enforced. Perhaps CM is an exception, or was for a time, but I think the policy and enforcement record on that is very clear.

This isn't about logic, but policy and enforcement. I wouldn't presume to find the logic about immigration policies.

Interesting that you are saying that in CM they waive the seasoning requirement for SUBSEQUENT extensions as we think Jomtien may be doing, at least in theory. That is the first time I have heard reports of this other than at Jomtien.

On the first time thing, I really think you are incorrect about the general policy.

Remember, we are talking about people using the bank account to qualify only, not COMBO people.

About my perception about the general consistency of enforcement for FIRST TIME 800K baht retirement extenders, can we possibly call in an authority, like the great Dr. Pong, or some such dignitary?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jingthing

[mcgriffith]

No, as I stated- the 1st extension I applied for, I was not only told the 90 day requirement was waived, but in my personal case, I did not have the 800K in my account for the full 90 days. They still issued me a retirement extension.

When I went in the following year, they DID (my emphasis) look at the dates on my bank passbook account. I had more than the minimum 800K for 90 days prior to my application date, and a full year retirement extension was issued.

And I am not a "combo" as you term it; I use only the 800K as my qualification.

Who knows?

One added note: It helps to have more, maybe much more if you can afford it, in the account. Exactly 800K to the satang looks a bit suspect to them, IMO. The reason for the 90 day rule is apparent. They are trying to shut out the people who for many years "gamed the system", ie borrowed money from a friend right before the application, then returned it the day after the extension was granted.

There is no rule saying you can not disburse or spend these monies after the extension is granted. Your account can go down to 0 baht the day after....but you are expected to have the full 800K in the account, the following application time frame, 90 days before your subsequent application.

Hey, TIT. This was what I was told, and have personally experienced.

Other Thai Imm offices, and officers may apply different rules- Good Luck!

[Jingthing]

Thanks, I believe your account, but I really don't think it is very typical in other offices.

[mcgriffith]

Here's a slightly off-topic example, that supports my view on this.

A friend of mine entered Thailand about 3 months ago on a tourist visa (issued in the US at a Thai consulate; good for 30 days).

He did one visa run (allowed) to Mae Sai/Tachilek- got a 30 day extra.

When he got back to Chiang Mai, he transfered 900K to a Thai bank here in CM from the US.

He then gathered his documents (bank branch manager letter, passbooks, etc.) and went to Vientiane, Laos to the Thai Embassy there to apply for a single entry Non-immigrant Category O (which has the same money requirements as a retirement extension- either 800K, pension proof with consular letter, or "combo"). Mind you, his 800K+ was not even in the account here for 1 month when he left for Laos.

They issued him the visa (visas are issued outside of Thailand, extensions are issued inside Thailand, and for all intents and purposes are much the same), and did not question the fact that for this application, that he had not had the monies for 90 days prior.

In 90 days, he will go to Chiang Mai Immigration, and apply for a retirement extension. Of course by then, the monies will have been 90+ days in the account. But my point is that the Thai Embassy in Laos issued him this first-time visa 3 weeks ago, even though the monies had not "seasoned", as you term it.

[Jingthing]

Actually, that doesn't prove your point at all.

That is exactly as I would have expected.

The rule is for the EXTENSION, not the initial O visa. Totally different.

I got my initial single entry O visa in the US and all I had to do was show FIVE HUNDRED dollars in a US bank!

In his case, the money will have been seasoned when he goes for the EXTENSION.

Let me ask you this? What month and year did you get your first extension? It is possible you fell under the lax enforcement period we hear about where they cut some people slack? Or CM office is different, or your officer liked your face. In any case, I am pretty confident I know what I am talking about here in GENERAL across Thailand: FIRST EXTENSION, 90 days seasoned money if using the 800K and not combo.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jingthing

[mcgriffith]

We're getting pretty deep here, JT!

I used the (off-topic) example to show that 1st time visas and extension applications do not require "seasoned money" as you term it.

Are we agreeing, or at odds? Either way, I wish you the best of luck. I can only relate what I am told, and what was my personal experience, and the experience of others whom I've met, stated to me.

You might be entirely right, and I might be entirely wrong. Or I might be right for Chiang Mai, and you are correct for Jomtien, and the rest of Thailand!

You are basically saying that you need the 800K in the account minimum 90 days for the 1st extension.

I'm saying you don't need it for the first extension, but will need to show for subsequent extensions. And this was my personal experience; as I said above, for my 1st extension, they didn't look at my bank passbook history for "seasoned money" (your term).

They gave me a sheet after this 1st extension that clearly stated that for subsequent extensions I would need to have the monies in the account 90 days prior. My Thai lawyer reinforced this point to me also.

I think lopburi3, a mod on this forum, is truly more knowledgeable than I. Hopefully he will review this, and if he has the time, care to respond.

In any event, as I said before I truly wish you the best of luck- and I mean that sincerely.

BTW, I got my 1st extension here in CM after the flit hit the shan in Oct 06. My second (full year extension) was issued Sept 07. I'll be going in for my 3rd in about a month and a half....so no, I have been fully subject to the laws since they were changed.

[Jingthing]

It is really not that deep.

1. You do not need to season money to get an O visa OUTSIDE Thailand. You can then use this O visa LATER to get a retirement extension in Thailand. (Not talking about an O-A, which you also do not need seasoned money.)

2. The standard rule is that you DO need to season the money for three months when using the 800K when applying for the FIRST extension in Thailand. You have cited an exception at one office.

3. The standard rule is ALSO that you DO need to season the money for three months when using the 800K when applying for SUBSEQUENT extensions in Thailand. However, a number of people have reported that at Jomtien that they have been TOLD that this rule is enforced differently, in other words, for this one office, you MAY not need to season the money. I have never heard of anyone at Jomtien being given the letter you report you got at CM. However, there is a recent report of a rejected application that meets the criteria that we have been told is OK: subsequent extension, 800K, money not seasoned. So trying this even at Jomtien should still be considered At Your Own Risk.

Look, we are dealing with a moving target with different offices, different officers, leniency periods, etc. BTW, I suspect you experienced a LENIENCY period at CM for your first extension based on the date you gave.

This is a great function of this forum, to share ACTUAL experiences. However, there are still are some GENERAL rules that can be accepted, and the need to season the money for the first (and usually subsequent) extensions is such a case. Anyway, I am happy you reported your case, it should be of interest to people in Chiang Mai, that is, assuming what you report about first time extensions is not dated. After all, you are well past needing a first time extension, yes?

To repeat something I was told loud and clear by an officer at Jomtien (late last year), about the need to season the money for three months.

THAT IS ONLY FOR FIRST TIME EXTENSIONS!

Edited July 31, 2008 by Jingthing

[Sophon]

BTW, I got my 1st extension here in CM after the flit hit the shan in Oct 06. My second (full year extension) was issued Sept 07. I'll be going in for my 3rd in about a month and a half....so no, I have been fully subject to the laws since they were changed.

Your particular experience doesn't really say much about the general policy for first time extensions in Chiang Mai, as it happened two years ago just after the new rules were introduced. At that time people hadn't had time to season their bank deposit, so many immigration offices used their discretion to give extensions anyway.

I'm pretty sure that if Chiang Mai didn't require seasoning on the first extension, it would have been reported here before.

Sophon

[Jingthing]

Yes, Sophon, makes sense to me.

I wish I didn't know as much as I do about this.

[Maestro]

After the 3-month seasoning for money in the bank was introduced with Royal Thai Police Order No. 606/2549 in October 2006 many members reported that immigration offices in various parts of the country accepted applications for retirement extensions, both first-time applications and renewals, even if the money had not been in the bank for 3 months but were told – and sometimes had to sign a statement that they understood – that for subsequent years the 3-month seasoning would be enforced. It is possible that immigration headquarters had issued a directive or guideline to grant this unofficial leniency for the first year after the new rule took effect. Jomthien appears to be the only office that apparently understood these instructions wrong and verbally gave the exact opposite information, and the post by JGV seems to indicate that Jomthien is not following through on the wrong information they gave.

--

Maestro

[Jingthing]

Jomthien appears to be the only office that apparently understood these instructions wrong and verbally gave the exact opposite information, and the post by JGV seems to indicate that Jomthien is not following through on the wrong information they gave.

Yes, Maestro, but based on the number of people who have reported about Jomtien subsequent extensions being OK without seasoned money, I don't think one report about a denial (which for all we know may have had extenuating circumstances, for example suspicious activity in the bank book that appeared to be a loan) proves anything definitely yet.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Jingthing

[eyebee]

However, we still do not have one case of someone reporting actually trying this out, in other words, topping up a week before, and successfully getting the extension.

Hi Jingthing,

Can I refer you to a post I made last September (here), about my experiences at Jomtien. Just to reiterate it was my 4th extension, and I was using toe 800k route only, as I was not getting a pension.

eyebee

[Jingthing]

However, we still do not have one case of someone reporting actually trying this out, in other words, topping up a week before, and successfully getting the extension.

Hi Jingthing,

Can I refer you to a post I made last September (here), about my experiences at Jomtien. Just to reiterate it was my 4th extension, and I was using toe 800k route only, as I was not getting a pension.

eyebee

Very good, but not that recent (it was LAST year). We have now a much more recent report of a DENIAL at Jomtien based on non-seasoning. But thanks though for the reminder. We need more RECENT reports.

[Maestro]

...based on the number of people who have reported about Jomtien subsequent extensions being OK without seasoned money...

Indeed, many people have posted about being told at Jomtien that subsequent applications would not need 3 months seasoning of the money in the bank but like you I have not seen a single report about somebody having applied for and received an extension after September 2007– ie after what appears to have been an unofficial grace period applied by many immigration offices in the country – without the 3-month seasoning.

Nobody else seems inclined to act as a guinea pig to test the spurious information given out by the Jomtien office. Will you dare test it when the time comes for your next application for extension?

--

Maestro

[Jingthing]

Actually there was one more recent successful report but it was a little ambiguous. The money would have been seasoned by the time of his extension expiry, but he was still UNDER the three months at the date of application, and he was approved. What we would like to hear is a recent report, with the topping up very close to the appointment date. I see why people don't want to be a guinea pig, but is conceivable that people have a situation where this just happens, or they spend under the 800K due to an unexpected need, so it must happen for sure that people apply that way.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Jingthing

[Maestro]

...which goes to show that not all immigration officers are as difficult and unaccommodating as some members would have us believe.

--

Maestro

[Guderian]

Actually there was one more recent successful report but it was a little ambiguous. The money would have been seasoned by the time of his extension expiry, but he was still UNDER the three months at the date of application, and he was approved. What we would like to hear is a recent report, with the topping up very close to the appointment date. I see why people don't want to be a guinea pig, but is conceivable that people have a situation where this just happens, or they spend under the 800K due to an unexpected need, so it must happen for sure that people apply that way.

OK, if someone were to agree to be a test case, what exactly would be the repercussions if their retirement extension was denied as they had only had the 800K Baht in their account for, say, 1 week (and I'm not talking about a first extension here)? I've seen plenty of posts about people getting 30-day stamps, upgrading these to a Non-Imm O in Thailand, and then subsequently getting a retirement extension. Couldn't one simply follow that route if refused a 1 year retirement extension? Would it be as simple as a visa run to Cambo when you were refused, and then following that upgrade process?

Edited August 1, 2008 by Guderian

[Jingthing]

You would have to start all over again. Before I had heard you could enter on a 30 day stamp and do the whole thing in Thailand, including the O visa but I am not sure you can do anymore. If not, you could go to Penang and get a single entry O if you showed them your bank book, and by the time of your next extension appointment you would have seasoned the money. Not horrible, but really no fun either, so nobody would rationally choose to do that without having to.

[Guderian]

I'm not sure this "let's-wait-for-recent-experiences" approach will work, will it JT? If people are smart enough to read this forum and prepare properly for their extension, then nobody will try to apply without the 90-day seasoning. On the other hand, people who don't follow this forum, and who have not seasoned the 800K Baht, will go to Jomtien and may or may not get extensions, but we are unlikely to ever find out about it as they couldn't be bothered in the first place to read the advice here. Hence they are unlikely to post their experiences, are they? We seem to be relying on friends-of-friends reporting these positive or negative experiences to guide us. And to judge by the rate of replies, we will never have enough "recent" responses to feel in any way confident.

Is it not possible for someone at ThaiVisa (or yourself, or whomever) to write a nice letter in Thai to the Head of the Immigration Police here in Pattaya asking him to clarify the situation? Then we could all have a copy of the letter if it said something like "no seasoning necessary for subsequent extensions" and feel (maybe) 90% confident that we would be OK.

[JimGant]

Nice to see that at least one Immigration Office (CM) has got it figured out, both for initial and subsequent retirement extensions.

One other reason why CM (and maybe others) doesn't require seasoning for initial extensions is the Catch-22 aspect of the initial extension *AND* a related 3-month (90 day) seasoning requirement:

Joe Blow gets his Non Imm O, grabs his bags, and heads to Thailand to retire. Under the old rules (no seasoning), he'd open an account with 800k, then head to Immigration in his last 30 days of permitted to stay -- and apply for his retirement extension. No can do now under the new rules -- unless someone uses a little common sense (as does, apparently, CM) and waives the seasoning requirement:

Even if Joe Blow opens an account the day he arrives, his permitted to stay will expire before this account meets the 3-month critieria. Well, duh, the new rule wasn't made with the intent of requiring all new retirees, entering with a Non Imm O and using the 800k bank only route, to not be able to get from A to B.

Cm has apparently figured this out. I bet there are others too.

[JimGant]

Would it be as simple as a visa run to Cambo when you were refused, and then following that upgrade process?

In theory, yes. Haven't seen anything showing Immigration refusing to issue a Non Imm O to retirement eligible folks entering on a tourist visa or visa exempt stamp. And, there's NO requirement to have a 3-month seasoned bank account to get such a Non Imm O.

Ironically, entering in such a fashion would allow you to open a bank account, then go to Immigration for your Non Imm O -- whence your 90 day clock would start to tick -- and your permitted to stay would still be valid when the 3-month seasoning matures.

So, for Immigration Offices requiring seasoning for initial retirement extensions, coming to Thailand per above, and not on a Non Imm O, would seem preferable.

[Jingthing]

Nice to see that at least one Immigration Office (CM) has got it figured out, both for initial and subsequent retirement extensions.

One other reason why CM (and maybe others) doesn't require seasoning for initial extensions is the Catch-22 aspect of the initial extension *AND* a related 3-month (90 day) seasoning requirement:

Joe Blow gets his Non Imm O, grabs his bags, and heads to Thailand to retire. Under the old rules (no seasoning), he'd open an account with 800k, then head to Immigration in his last 30 days of permitted to stay -- and apply for his retirement extension. No can do now under the new rules -- unless someone uses a little common sense (as does, apparently, CM) and waives the seasoning requirement:

Even if Joe Blow opens an account the day he arrives, his permitted to stay will expire before this account meets the 3-month critieria. Well, duh, the new rule wasn't made with the intent of requiring all new retirees, entering with a Non Imm O and using the 800k bank only route, to not be able to get from A to B.

Cm has apparently figured this out. I bet there are others too.

Actually, we have established that the reported first extension without seasoning at CM was during the GRACE PERIOD. So whether or not CM has "got it right" as you put in with CURRENT POLICY is not definitely known.

[Sophon]

Nice to see that at least one Immigration Office (CM) has got it figured out, both for initial and subsequent retirement extensions.

One other reason why CM (and maybe others) doesn't require seasoning for initial extensions is the Catch-22 aspect of the initial extension *AND* a related 3-month (90 day) seasoning requirement:

Joe Blow gets his Non Imm O, grabs his bags, and heads to Thailand to retire. Under the old rules (no seasoning), he'd open an account with 800k, then head to Immigration in his last 30 days of permitted to stay -- and apply for his retirement extension. No can do now under the new rules -- unless someone uses a little common sense (as does, apparently, CM) and waives the seasoning requirement:

Even if Joe Blow opens an account the day he arrives, his permitted to stay will expire before this account meets the 3-month critieria. Well, duh, the new rule wasn't made with the intent of requiring all new retirees, entering with a Non Imm O and using the 800k bank only route, to not be able to get from A to B.

Cm has apparently figured this out. I bet there are others too.

Actually the majority of the people who retire in Thailand have been here many times before, and already have an account long before they finally retire. And if not, all you need to do is make a visa run to a neighbouring country after your Non O visa retires and get a new Non O or even just a tourist visa.

Sophon

[Jingthing]

Actually the majority of the people who retire in Thailand have been here many times before, and already have an account long before they finally retire. And if not, all you need to do is make a visa run to a neighbouring country after your Non O visa retires and get a new Non O or even just a tourist visa.

Sophon

Yes I agree with that as the subject was what happens to a long termer who messes up on their money seasoning and has to start over; of course, they already have a long standing Thai bank account.

[JimGant]

Actually the majority of the people who retire in Thailand have been here many times before, and already have an account long before they finally retire.

Maybe so (but not all.) But if they're smart, it doesn't contain 800K in it, earning .75% -- unless they're unfamiliar with the concept of opportunity cost (the whole reason these threads are looking for a silver bullet against the seasoning rule). And, even if they top it up to 800k the day they hit Thailand, the requisite 3-month period will play-out *after* their 90-day permitted to stay period. Hence, back to the Catch-22 situation. (But, yes, with an established account, you can wire the needed added money before heading for Thailand and retirement.....). My angle is, the 3-month rule was not meant to throw such a curve at retirees getting Non Imm O visas to come here and retire. And maybe CM, among others, has figured this out...

And if not, all you need to do is make a visa run to a neighbouring country after your Non O visa retires and get a new Non O or even just a tourist visa.

Or even just return on a visa exempt stamp...... But why would anyone go to the trouble of getting a Non Imm O if the quirky rules require a subsequent border run before he qualifies for a retirement extension? As pointed out, NOT coming in on a Non Imm O -- and subsequently getting one in-country -- is a way around this quirky rule's necessity for a border run.