Extention Based On Rule 7.17(5)

[coventry]

It now appears that to get this extention of stay you either have now to be divorced, or a widower according to Korat Immigration Office. Also Bangkok Immigration say you have to show money. Where as in Bangkok they actually issue this extention without a show of monies, or has this been stopped ? Sorry if this sounds confusing but rule 7.17(5) is just that.

Edited October 7, 2008 by coventry

[Mario2008]

I saw another posting saying it requires sole custody over the child. That they want to see some money in the bank is also not unusual, although not in the rules.

[ubonjoe]

Thats the one to support a child correct.

If you can get it as married you should not need to do it.

Are you saying that you are married but not living together.

This particular clause is curently under discussion on this forum at the moment,

Or are you asking because when you read it. It appears to say that proof of income is not needed if you are able to use this clause. This has been a topic in the past. From my understanding immigration requires proof of income for this now.

[coventry]

I saw another posting saying it requires sole custody over the child. That they want to see some money in the bank is also not unusual, although not in the rules.

It doesn't stipulate that in the rule about "sole custody" or the money come to that.

[coventry]

Thats the one to support a child correct.

If you can get it as married you should not need to do it.

Are you saying that you are married but not living together.

This particular clause is curently under discussion on this forum at the moment,

Or are you asking because when you read it. It appears to say that proof of income is not needed if you are able to use this clause. This has been a topic in the past. From my understanding immigration requires proof of income for this now.

A guy that lives near me recently got this extention in Bangkok without a show of monies. He's married and they gave it him no problem. I would have gone to BKK but I'm told they're not issuing visas/extentions to anyone from outside the BKK area. I am married, happily thanks. Where on the forum is it under descussion as I'll post there. thanks Edited October 7, 2008 by coventry

[Mario2008]

I saw another posting saying it requires sole custody over the child. That they want to see some money in the bank is also not unusual, although not in the rules.

It doesn't stipulate that in the rule about "sole custody" or the money come to that.

That was the point, it isn't in the rules but (at least some) immigration offices seem to require it.

[ubonjoe]

I have been reading and re-reading the police act and think 7.17 (4) is for supporting a child and (5) is to support a parent.

(4) In the case of a child, adopted

child or child of his/her spouse,

the said person must not be

married, must be living with the

family, and must be less than

20 years of age; or

(5) In the case of a parent, the said

person must be 50 years of age

or over

The other topic is: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Non-Immi-Visa-t216405.html

[coventry]

I have been reading and re-reading the police act and think 7.17 (4) is for supporting a child and (5) is to support a parent.

(4) In the case of a child, adopted

child or child of his/her spouse,

the said person must not be

married, must be living with the

family, and must be less than

20 years of age; or

(5) In the case of a parent, the said

person must be 50 years of age

or over

The other topic is: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Non-Immi-Visa-t216405.html

Ubonjoe you read the same as me. But go to the Immigration office regarding extention 7.17(4) and they will say "how can you support a child if you have no money in the bank ?" Go to Immigration for extention 7.17(5) and they will say "how can a 6 month old child support you?" My answer is "you make the rules, farang didn't".

[ubonjoe]

I think its an error and they are doing it the way it should be done and not following whats written.

They goofed up and didn't put (4) in the money clause.

(5) shouldn't be in there at all there's another clause that can be used to get a parent a visa.

That the way I see it.

[coventry]

I think its an error and they are doing it the way it should be done and not following whats written.

They goofed up and didn't put (4) in the money clause.

(5) shouldn't be in there at all there's another clause that can be used to get a parent a visa.

That the way I see it.

I agree once again Ubonjoe. Someone cocked up big style and no one in Thai Immigration is prepared to own up. So to save face they make things as awkward as possible so as to deter the farang for asking for this extention. If I'd shown 800,000 Baht I'd have got a retirement extention in 30 minutes. Where as, just applying for the 7.17(5) extention took 2 hours. Plus it will require a return visit in one month. They do not issue this extention straight away, the papers are sent to BKK for authorisation.

I was told they will not issue me this extention next year. I said that if BKK is still doing the same extention next year, no show of money, then I will be back and apply for it again.

[ubonjoe]

So you managed to get it based upon (5) and showed no income?

The 30 day wait is the same as the married clause requires.

What immigration office did you use?

[coventry]

So you managed to get it based upon (5) and showed no income?

The 30 day wait is the same as the married clause requires.

What immigration office did you use?

I had to show money. I had read on other forums that the office in Korat would accept a money show of 100,000 Baht. When I phoned prior to going I was told that 200,000 Baht would be acceptable. I mentioned the BKK Immigration not wanting to see money. The responce was laughter.

When I arrived and said I was married I was told I couldn't get 7.17(5) extention. I either had to be a widower or divorced. I argued the toss that it doesn't say that in the rules. The officer agreed but said he'd been to a meeting recently in BKK and this was now the norm. I refused to accept this as my neighbour has recently got this extention in BKK and he's married. The officer then phoned someonein BKK who varified as to what he'd said and also money was required to be shown. My Thai wife, bless her, went on the phone and argued my case. The person in BKK backed down and said I can have the extention but had to show the money.

For a single person over 50 you have to show 800,000. For a married person you have to show 400,000. For a divorced person, with children, you don't have to show <deleted> all in BKK. Where's the logic in that ?

Edited October 8, 2008 by coventry

[ubonjoe]

Some good info in your post. Sometimes persistence and knowing what the writen rules say helps. But in the end they hold all the cards.

I kind of like the reduced amount for married. But for the divorced/widowed it really makes no sense. But like I said I think its an error.

Edited October 8, 2008 by ubonjoe

[digitalchromakey]

Some good info in your post. Sometimes persistence and knowing what the writen rules say helps. But in the end they hold all the cards.

I kind of like the reduced amount for married. But for the divorced/widowed it really makes no sense. But like I said I think its an error.

In Phuket they ask for sole legal custody of supported childeren with 7.17 extensions, if you are under 50.

[CMguy]

Some good info in your post. Sometimes persistence and knowing what the writen rules say helps. But in the end they hold all the cards.

I kind of like the reduced amount for married. But for the divorced/widowed it really makes no sense. But like I said I think its an error.

In Phuket they ask for sole legal custody of supported children with 7.17 extensions, if you are under 50.

I spent the better part of today at my local immigration office. I have sole legal custody and I showed the money, and I still have to return tomorrow to interview for my extension....this is my 4th extension based on supporting a child, the last 3 went through without a hitch...I will update this tomorrow, whatever happens.

Edited October 8, 2008 by CMguy

[astral]

I do know of an American lady, her Thai husband died, so now she is now supported by her daughter for her visa.........

Perhaps that is what Immigration had in mind??

[coventry]

In Phuket they ask for sole legal custody of supported childeren with 7.17 extensions, if you are under 50.

I know a guy who was under 50, had 2 sons and sole custody but he had to go back home, as the rule only applies to someone over 50.

[digitalchromakey]

In Phuket they ask for sole legal custody of supported childeren with 7.17 extensions, if you are under 50.

I know a guy who was under 50, had 2 sons and sole custody but he had to go back home, as the rule only applies to someone over 50.

Not the case in Phuket.

[coventry]

Not the case in Phuket.

I don't live in Phuket so I can't say your wrong or right. But the under 50 age limit was scrapped in Oct 2006 and was changed to over 50. It could be that all those that were under 50 at that time were allowed to continue getting that extention. But anyone applying after that date it is over 50.

[Maestro]

I have been reading and re-reading the police act and think 7.17 (4) is for supporting a child and (5) is to support a parent.

(4) In the case of a child, adopted

child or child of his/her spouse,

the said person must not be

married, must be living with the

family, and must be less than

20 years of age; or

(5) In the case of a parent, the said

person must be 50 years of age

or over

...

Always remember that “in the case of...” refers to the person applying for the extension of stay:

(4) If the applicant is a child...

(5) If the applicant is a parent...

--

Maestro