No Tourist Visa For You!

[GungaDin]

Hey fellers, continue your spat by PM.

PLEASE!

[tropo]

Liar.

You've been spouting that it is fact that it will be a problem... not that it can be.

Readers deserve the truth.

You seem to have great difficulty comprehending anything you read, but alas.. we do agree: There CAN be problems and the more visas in your passport the greater the chance.

[thomo]

Hey fellers, continue your spat by PM.

PLEASE!

Is that at tropo and me, or tropo and passport220?

Anyway, humour aside. People deserve informative truth. Not lies about nonsense 'facts'.

No one can say what a Thai immigration official is going to do. All we can give is our experiences, and experienced views on how we think things will be in the future.

There's no need for lies on here.

[thomo]

Liar.

You've been spouting that it is fact that it will be a problem... not that it can be.

Readers deserve the truth.

You seem to have great difficulty comprehending anything you read, but alas.. we do agree: There CAN be problems and the more visas in your passport the greater the chance.

So you were lying that it is a problem to go with 4 TRs. Okay then, good.

Seems an odd lie though as your GF had gotten 6. Looks like I could go for another 2 times without issues. Quite probably more as I'm not Asian.

[tropo]

Readers deserve the truth.

Again. For any readers. It is not.

You really should read what you're replying to. Or at least not lie about it.

Are you even aware that this thread is about a person who was refused a tourist visa in Vientiane after 4 (2 years in Thailand on tourist visas)?

Let me help you out with a quote from the OP:

"They refused me a visa on Wednesday. They made no notation in my passport just handed me back my application (!) and said I had been here too long and needed to get a different type of visa.... I haven't been here all that long. A couple of years this time"

By all indications he was refused a 5th visa. He's from the USA.

There are many reports of refusals in Vientiane. I suggest you use the search function and update your knowledge.

[passport220]

...Which part was "pure nonsense"?...

Pure nonsense to say they should be allowed to deny your visa for a reason outside of the law as I explained in my post. There are rules I am expected to follow as a visa applicant and it is pure nonsense to expect the visa issuing agency does not have to follow the same rules. They are the rules of the issuing agency after all.

What exactly is "pigheaded" about showing up to the Embassy with all of my paperwork in order and applying for a visa I am entitled to apply for? Did I "frustrate" them by asking them not to waste my two days of travel and expense and process my visa by their published guidelines? How exactly was I "arrogant" by asking them to honor to their published rules (broadcast on their website) on how tourist visas applications are to be prepared and processed?

A substantive reply to these questions is conspicuous by its absence.

[lopburi3]

End this food-fight now or you will be receiving official warnings for disrupting discussion.

[moe666]

I think the discussion is long over

[Maestro]

...The burden of proof to prove what? ...

I alluded to it in this post. A person applies at a consulate for a tourist visa. On the application form, he writes "purpose of visit: tourism". In rejecting the application, the consulate does not have to prove that the applicant would travel to Thailand for purposes other than tourism. It is for the applicant, if challenged, to prove that tourism is indeed the purpose of his visit, that he has "appropriate means of living following entry into the Kingdom", etc. The applicant can then, if he wishes, ask for information regarding what would be acceptable proof or he can use his own imagination to supply appropriate evidence and then see if it is accepted by the consulate. In the case of the first post in this topic, which this thread is all about, this could for example be

-- list of past periods of touristic stays in Thailand and places visited

-- copies of transportation tickets, hotel bills, etc.

-- itinerary for the new touristic stay in Thailand, for which he applies for a visa

-- copies of hotel reservations if available

-- copy of transportation ticket out of Thailand prior to the expiration of the period of stay he will be allowed based on the tourist-visa entry

-- evidence of sufficient funds for the duration of his stay in Thailand

-- etc

There is no "legal right" to be granted a visa. If we want to talk about rights, the only right a person has is to apply for a visa and supply any information and/or documentation he wishes in support of his application. The issuance of a visa is always at the discretion of the consulate. If a person whose application is rejected by a consul wanted to take it further, his recourse would be a complaint to Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or to the equivalent ministry of the country whose passport he used for the application.

--

Maestro

[crazydrummerpauly]

Situations like your visit to Vientiane are frustrating, I'm sure. But visa issuance has always been at the discretion of the immigration officer handling your case. There have been many cases noted here of Vientiane issuing "red stamps" for those whom it deemed had too many tourist visas. It's not a big leap to imagine them tightening this even further, particularly if those tourist visas had 30-day extensions.

If you wish to remain in the country for a long time, then a non-immigrant visa is what you need. It's just that type of situation they were designed for. But as with any country in the world, long-term stays are only allowed for specific purposes. In Thailand's case, that's retirement, marriage, support of a child, being a dependent, education, investment or business.

If you don't fit into any of those categories, then Thailand is really not willing to have you stay here.

If you are not married or have Thai children, do not or want to work or invest here, or attend school, then retirement remains your only bonafide recourse. If you do choose to pursue a non-immigrant O visa based on retirement and then obtain the 1-year of extension of stay, there is no getting around the financial requirements. But, remember, it need not only be 800,000 baht in the bank. If you can demonstrate monthly income of 65,000 baht or more, then you can leave your money in the U.S.

There is one other possibility in that there have been cases where overseas Thai consulates have issued 1-year, multiple-entry retirement (O-A) visas without the requirement that the money be deposited in a Thai bank. Bank statements showing you had such money was generally all that was needed.

These places are few and far between, but our legal advisors would be happy to assist you with this or other issues related to obtaining the visa you desire.

www.sunbeltlegaladvisors.com

26th Floor Fortune Town BR, 1 Ratchadapisek Rd, 10400 Bangkok

Tel: 02-642-0213 Fax: 02-641-1995

Follow us on:

This post is substantially factually wrong - please (especially if you are from the UK) do NOT believe the sections about who can qualify for a NON-IMMIGRANT 'O', 1-year Multiple Entry visa - I and others from the UK routinely get this visa with only ONE qualification from the many mentionned : being over 50, that's it. I'm looking at the visa in question in my passport as I write this - I did not DREAM it !

[spongeman]

I did multiple visa runs in the mid 90's, many times getting the why you have a long holiday etc at borders (mainly Malay/Thai), so why should it be different now. Its the same all over ther world. I had friends come to Dublin, Immigration always calls me in advance to check that they are bona fide.

However my main point is there is some smartarses on here being rude to expert contributors, do they know more ?

I do not think so.

[passport220]

...The burden of proof to prove what? ...

I alluded to it in this post. A person applies at a consulate for a tourist visa. On the application form, he writes "purpose of visit: tourism". In rejecting the application, the consulate does not have to prove that the applicant would travel to Thailand for purposes other than tourism. It is for the applicant, if challenged, to prove that tourism is indeed the purpose of his visit, that he has "appropriate means of living following entry into the Kingdom", etc. The applicant can then, if he wishes, ask for information regarding what would be acceptable proof or he can use his own imagination to supply appropriate evidence and then see if it is accepted by the consulate. In the case of the first post in this topic, which this thread is all about, this could for example be

-- list of past periods of touristic stays in Thailand and places visited

-- copies of transportation tickets, hotel bills, etc.

-- itinerary for the new touristic stay in Thailand, for which he applies for a visa

-- copies of hotel reservations if available

-- copy of transportation ticket out of Thailand prior to the expiration of the period of stay he will be allowed based on the tourist-visa entry

-- evidence of sufficient funds for the duration of his stay in Thailand

-- etc

There is no "legal right" to be granted a visa. If we want to talk about rights, the only right a person has is to apply for a visa and supply any information and/or documentation he wishes in support of his application. The issuance of a visa is always at the discretion of the consulate. If a person whose application is rejected by a consul wanted to take it further, his recourse would be a complaint to Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or to the equivalent ministry of the country whose passport he used for the application.

--

Maestro

Blah, blah, blah …..the Vientiane consulate is not processing the applications. A low level clerk who does an initial intake of documents is scanning a passport, if he sees a few previous visas he is handing the documents back to the applicant and telling him or her to get on their bike. It is what happened to the OP, it is what happened to me. No interview, no analysis, no findings made. They are just summary rejecting the applications for no other reason than previous visas in your passport. It is not within the law and it is an outrage.

There are reciprocal visa agreements between countries to process visa applications. If Thai citizens wish to have their visa applications processed to enter other countries, their government needs to honor those agreements and properly process applications.

[tropo]

My comment about reciprocal agreements is addressing the "right" to apply for a visa. Some Thailand apologists in this thread seem to feel immigration can deny applications for reasons outside the law and it should just be acceptable.

Let's see how reciprocal the agreements are when a Thai person (or any SE Asian) tries to get a tourist visa to enter Europe, US, Canada, Australia or NZ. They certainly won't be getting a double entry tourist visa in one short visit.

If double entry tourist visas for a Thai person to enter another country is not part of their agreement, not part of the immigration law for the country they are applying to, so be it. I am entitled to apply for a tourist visa under Thai law. Was your girlfriends application thrown out for a reason outside of the law at the front door without being looked at?

I think you're stumbling over what you call "law" when in fact it is "policy" we're really dealing with.

Let's use an example of a Thai person applying for a visa to visit Australia. He has the right to apply for a tourist visa. He applies, but he doesn't convince the Immigration officials in Australia that he has enough incentive to return to Thailand. The law is clear here - he must leave Australia after his visa entry period has expired. The Immigration officials make a judgement that he is in a high risk category of breaking the law therefore they refuse his visa. Their policy is that if a person doesn't convince them that he will leave they will reject his application. They will never know for sure if the person would in fact break the law and overstay. The law doesn't have much to do with the assessment of Immigration officials.

It's exactly the same in a Thai consulate when a person applies for a double entry tourist visa. The law is you must not work on a tourist visa. They assess the chances of you breaking the law and make a judgement on that assessment. It's easier than the above case because it's very likely a person living in Thailand on tourist visas is breaking the law and they make the judgement to refuse a further tourist visa.

My gf was refused a tourist visa because she had too many in her passport and they made the assessment that she is probably breaking the law and working. She wasn't thrown out before applying as we didn't know until the next day that she had been refused. The reason was quite clear why she was refused. They didn't know she was being supported by me as tourist visas don't have any provision for dependents. Their conclusion would probably have been right 99% of the time i.e. A Filipino on back-to-back tourist visas is probably working. The same would be true for a large percentage of applicants of any nationality.

Immigration officials in any country are not law enforcement personnel. They have to assess applications based on the risk factors of people contravening the law. There's no way around this.

As I said, go to another Thai Consulate next time where you can present your case. All Thai Consulates have different policies and operating guidelines.

Edited June 1, 2010 by tropo

[lopburi3]

Vacation for two posters. One dozen posts removed - topic closed.