Notarized Letter From Us Embassy Stating Income

[InterestedObserver]

Guess my confusion is that Police Order 777/2551 sec.2.22 In the case of a retiree: First item states: (1) The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM). Help me understand what is associated with that process, and please believe me that I am sorry if I seem to be dense about this whole matter.

You would normally go to a Royal Thai Embassy or Consulate and apply for a non-immigrant visa, enter Thailand with said visa, and then apply to immigration for your 1 year extension of stay based on retirement - provided you meet the requirements.

[tropo]

did my retirement extension today and my income letter was all I needed. Had other proof just in case.

What's your nationality? Which immigration office?

Yes, we would really like to know this.

[Jingthing]

did my retirement extension today and my income letter was all I needed. Had other proof just in case.

What's your nationality? Which immigration office?

Yes, we would really like to know this.

Indeed, and for future posters doing reports so we can track this potential change, perhaps this template will help us get the info we need to come to some kind of conclusion.

Used income letter: If no, no need to report

Nationality: If not American or any another nationality that doesn't require income verification to get an income letter, no need to report

Date of application: (change it by a few days if you don't want to identify yourself)

Immigration office:

First extension or later one:

Retirement or marriage:

Combo method or all income letter based:

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[TacoBoy]

The rules for consideration by immigration are the same for all Nationalities.

Officers can ask anyone to provide proof at their discretion regardless of natinonality. So it is improper to imply that because a person is of a certain Nationality they are subject to additional scruitny.

The officer can ask you for any documentation above and beyond posted critera at their discretion.

As I have said before, be polite, either comply, go back again or to another office, ask to speak with a supervisor, or if necessary consult an attorney.

The test of whether or not one qualifies is in immigration's own "required Documents". Read them carefully and do not try to read something into this that is not there.

There are a few sources to find what they require.

One is the immigration's own web site and policy. the other is the Police order.

Here again, is the Immigrations own requirements from their own web site for a Retirement Visa Extension.

List of documents for extension of stay in case of Retirement

1. Application Form ( TM 7) with one photograph (size 4x6 cm.)
2. Passport and its photocopy with certified true copy by the alien
3. Application fee: 1,900 Baht
4. Documents required are as follows;
   • The account deposit with the bank in Thailand of not less than 800,000 Baht.
     The proof of such evidence is the updated bank passbook with the certified letter from the bank showing the money in the account of not less than 800,000 Baht which has been deposited in the account for the previous 3 months. OR
   • Income from pension/social welfare of not less than 65,000 Baht per month.
     The proof of such evidence is a letter from the applicant's Embassy or Consulate in Thailand to certify that the applicant receives pension or other income of not less than 65,000 Baht per month. OR
   • A combination of the account deposite in the bank plus income (from pension or other source per yearX witha combined total of not less than 800,000 Baht.

Thailand has had a long standing special Diplomatic and Investment ties with the USA since 1833. Doubtful they would discrimminate or treat American's any differnet.

The Marriage and Visa things are small potato's compared to long standing Diplomatic and Economic ties and Treaties.

Just sayin

Sorry, but I don't see this issue as discrimination. If they do change to this new enforcement policy, it is based on the proof different embassies require to grant income letters. That has nothing to do with harassing based on nationality, rather it is about variant embassy policies. If the French did it like the Americans, one would assume eventually immigration would learn that and add French to the list of countries to apply to the extra proof needed policy. I am still not asserting this is a real enforcement policy change and if so, what the office range is. Just find this talk of "discrimination" way off base. Immigration already had the legal right and did sometimes use their power to ask for further information whenever they liked.

Edited March 29, 2011 by TacoBoy

[Jingthing]

The rules for consideration by immigration are the same for all Nationalities.

Officers can ask anyone to provide proof at their discretion regardless of natinonality. So it is improper to imply that because a person is of a certain Nationality they are subject to additional scruitny.

No, sir. It is completely proper, and actually quite on point, to discuss an issue that we have credible recent reports from posters here, that immigration officers have EXPLICITLY told AMERICAN applicants using income letters that there is now a NEW ENFORCEMENT POLICY CHANGE for Americans because immigration knows that the US embassy does not require any documentation for their income letter claims. Why are you pursuing this totally absurd line of argument when you know full well there is a rational reason behind a new enforcement policy for Americans only (and potentially any other nationality that immigration learns about that also don't require proof for letters)?

This is a big deal for some Americans trying to be confident about their applications; what is your motivation in trying to discourage this relevant discussion?

Again, even if this potential new enforcement policy turns out to be real, either at one office or nationally, don't ever expect it to be written into the global official rules. The reason is obvious, enforcement policies are not the same thing as permanent rules.

One thing I would like to add that's a bit sensitive. There may indeed be OTHER nation's embassies other than the US that have similar policies to the US to grant income letters. Perhaps this is not widely known by immigration in the same way the US embassy policy is well known there. That said, for the sake of discretion, perhaps it would not be a good idea to publicize the names of any other countries that have similar non-proof policies as the US embassy.

Here is an example from the past. Some years ago, there was an enforcement policy change in at least some offices where people were being asked to prove that the money in their Thai bank accounts was foreign sourced. In some cases, they wanted proof going back many years. This went on for awhile, and then it was dropped. It never changed any official rules, but it was of great interest and concern to many people making extension applications.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[bkkharry]

The rules for consideration by immigration are the same for all Nationalities.

Officers can ask anyone to provide proof at their discretion regardless of natinonality. So it is improper to imply that because a person is of a certain Nationality they are subject to additional scruitny.

No, sir. It is completely proper, and actually quite on point, to discuss an issue that we have credible recent reports from posters here, that immigration officers have EXPLICITLY told AMERICAN applicants using income letters that there is now a NEW ENFORCEMENT POLICY CHANGE for Americans because immigration knows that the US embassy does not require any documentation for their income letter claims. Why are you pursuing this totally absurd line of argument when you know full well there is a rational reason behind a new enforcement policy for Americans only (and potentially any other nationality that immigration learns about that also don't require proof for letters)?

This is a big deal for some Americans trying to be confident about their applications; what is your motivation in trying to discourage this relevant discussion?

Again, even if this potential new enforcement policy turns out to be real, either at one office or nationally, don't ever expect it to be written into the global official rules. The reason is obvious, enforcement policies are not the same thing as permanent rules.

One thing I would like to add that's a bit sensitive. There may indeed be OTHER nation's embassies other than the US that have similar policies to the US to grant income letters. Perhaps this is not widely known by immigration in the same way the US embassy policy is well known there. That said, for the sake of discretion, perhaps it would not be a good idea to publicize the names of any other countries that have similar non-proof policies as the US embassy.

Here is an example from the past. Some years ago, there was an enforcement policy change in at least some offices where people were being asked to prove that the money in their Thai bank accounts was foreign sourced. In some cases, they wanted proof going back many years. This went on for awhile, and then it was dropped. It never changed any official rules, but it was of great interest and concern to many people making extension applications.

I think you are in a big panic over a small thing. I really don't think there are that many Americans living here, either married or retired. We are a minority here, a lot more Brits, Germans, Europeans live here than us Americans. If more documention is required so be it, not much we can do,just provide it. It might be a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. Man lighten up and relax. Its all speculation now, what do we have, one person who was told he will have to provide more documentions next time. No big deal.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bkkharry

[TacoBoy]

Q. Why pursue this argument when you know full well there is a rational reason behind a new enforcement policy ?

A. Because there does not need undue attention brought upon certian nationalities and their Embassies or Consulates or to imply there is anything improper going on.

Paraphrased; you answered your own question below:

One thing I would like to add that's a bit sensitive. There may indeed be OTHER nation's embassies that have similar policies to grant income letters. Perhaps this is not widely known by immigration in the same way.

That said, for the sake of discretion, perhaps it would not be a good idea to publicize the names of any other countries that have non-proof policies.

Why then would anyone even need to pay additonal fees to get a certified income statement from an Embassy if all they have to do is overload immigration with all their proof of income.

As said by so many, they can ask for whatever they want from any nationality. It is not nation specific rules or enforcement.

So why continue to question if a policy is written or unwritten, or by office or region to apply a certain standard that only applies to a particular nation.

If it is a policy then it is discrimination and violation of Human Rights.

There is nothing in your posts to suggest any policy change specific to one's nationality is truly in effect.

Just rumors and statements of a few people being asked to provide proof.

Many others from the USA here have said nothing more than a proper Embassy letter or proper Bank Documents and Certified Letter was required by immigration for income.

My friend from the us just today got his retirement vsa extended in the north. Immigration accepted the letter and did not ask for anything else to support it.

Edited March 29, 2011 by TacoBoy

[Jingthing]

The difference is we have recent reports of at least two posters reporting they were explicitly told there is a POLICY CHANGE for yes, AMERICANS. It is not news that some people are asked as that has happened for years; it is news if an ENFORCEMENT POLICY CHANGE is being explicitly communicated. I never said this is official yet. It is something to watch, and no, I personally am not in any kind of panic. I don't even use income letters personally. As far as the number of Americans, what does that matter? If you're not American (or another nationality this may potentially impact), don't read the thread! All this other stuff I think is semantical BS about trivial fine points; to Americans who are using income letters or will be later, they do need to know what's going on so that they can be prepared.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[Mrjlh]

I think you are in a big panic over a small thing. I really don't think there are that many Americans living here, either married or retired. We are a minority here, a lot more Brits, Germans, Europeans live here than us Americans. If more documention is required so be it, not much we can do,just provide it. It might be a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. Man lighten up and relax. Its all speculation now, what do we have, one person who was told he will have to provide more documentions next time. No big deal.

Did you know that over 500,000 Americans live in Thailand? Number via the US Embassy. Small community....huh?

[Jingthing]

I find the 500,000 number hard to believe. But not very relevant to this topic. There are enough who would care about this issue.

[TacoBoy]

might be a bit more appropriate to ask on the forum if anyone, regardless of national origin has been asked to provide supporting documentation of income versus specific to cetain countries

Everyone, regardless of nationaltiy should always be prepared to "answer" if an officer questions details about any required submitted documents for consideration of visa or extension.

Nothing new. They always had the right to "ask" anyone regardless of nationality. This does not make it a new enforcemtn or policy change.

As said many times, a person can then either overload immigration every time with supporing documents and "paper trail", Go back later or to another office or speak with a Supervisor to help clarify one's position, or seek assistance of a Thai Immigration Attorney if one feels wronged.

Always be polite, and not get angry, or argue.

Edited March 29, 2011 by TacoBoy

[vont]

I think you are in a big panic over a small thing. I really don't think there are that many Americans living here, either married or retired. We are a minority here, a lot more Brits, Germans, Europeans live here than us Americans. If more documention is required so be it, not much we can do,just provide it. It might be a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. Man lighten up and relax. Its all speculation now, what do we have, one person who was told he will have to provide more documentions next time. No big deal.

Did you know that over 500,000 Americans live in Thailand? Number via the US Embassy. Small community....huh?

Mrilh

It is not the policy of the U.S. Embassy to disclose the number of the U.S. citizen living in Thailand.

Are you telling us that our new chief decides otherwise?

Do you see the average of 6,494 Americans living in each of the 77 provinces in Thailand?

Have any primary source for substantiation?

Whimsicality?

Much obliged.

[Jingthing]

It is a policy change if immigration officers start to SAY it is a policy change (already happened according to our reports) AND if this policy change is actually consistently enforced upon the nationality (Americans) that was reported to be the target of this possible enforcement policy change. Some of us want to use this forum to keep track of these kinds of possible but not yet fully proven enforcement policy changes. If you don't, fine, but I am starting to feel a certain poster is actively advocating suppression of free communication about one of the obvious main functions of the visa forum. Rumors without any evidence should be crushed, but there is enough credible evidence now that this is above a rumor, but below a verified fact.

So rather than people relying on barroom gossip, at least on this forum we can share relevant true life reports about this potential enforcement policy change, and hopefully eventually come to an informed description of what's actually happening. We aren't even close to that yet. (Also keep in mind such things can and usually do vary office to office.)

The most powerful confirming evidence (if this is real) will be more reports from people being explicitly told by immigration that this is indeed a new enforcement policy for Americans. Just being asked for more info could be a random coincidence.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[TacoBoy]

Wow, somebody has really gone to outer space.

Be sure to cover the windows with Tin Foil and wear a Tin Foil Cap when venturing outside.

To say or imply a immigration policy or enforcement change by "heresay" is bar room talk and rumor only.

As said so many times. Immigration can ask ANYONE for additional details to satisfy the applicant's application.

This is nothing new. And you are correct that they will not publish such nonsense even if some officers are asking more from any particular country to verify the documents.

As the Boy Scouts say:

"Always Be Prepared"

The rules and regulations apply to all. Either meet them, or not.

Everyone is entitiled to their opinion, but not try to say certain natinalities or embassies are doing things improper.

I have never tried to stymie anyone's opinion other than to counter another's opinion with verifiable supportable facts. Not rumors

Edited March 29, 2011 by TacoBoy

[Jingthing]

Wow, your really gone to outer space.

Be sure to wear a Tin Foil Cap

Note to readers, time for me to put TB on ignore.

You know my position. I hope people keep posting reports and I hope people aren't feeling discouraged from talking openly about this just because one or a few posters don't want us to and/or think we should speed dial a lawyer if we feel we are "discriminated" against based on nationality rather than just learn the enforcement policies and comply with them.

My suggested updated template for reports --

Used income letter?: If no, no need to report

Nationality?: If not American or any another nationality that doesn't require income verification to get an income letter, no need to report/If not American from a country that does not require verification for income letters, I suggest you write something like, Not American but from another country that doesn't require verification for income letters

Date of application?: (change it by a few days if you don't want to identify yourself)

Immigration office?:

First extension or later one?:

Retirement or marriage?:

Combo method or all income letter based?:

WAS TOLD BY IMMIGRATION THIS IS AN ENFORCEMENT POLICY CHANGE?: If yes, please state whether Americans were mentioned specifically or whatever wording that was used.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[tropo]

Q. Why pursue this argument when you know full well there is a rational reason behind a new enforcement policy ?

A. Because there does not need undue attention brought upon certian nationalities and their Embassies or Consulates or to imply there is anything improper going on.

Paraphrased; you answered your own question below:

One thing I would like to add that's a bit sensitive. There may indeed be OTHER nation's embassies that have similar policies to grant income letters. Perhaps this is not widely known by immigration in the same way.

That said, for the sake of discretion, perhaps it would not be a good idea to publicize the names of any other countries that have non-proof policies.

Why then would anyone even need to pay additonal fees to get a certified income statement from an Embassy if all they have to do is overload immigration with all their proof of income.

As said by so many, they can ask for whatever they want from any nationality. It is not nation specific rules or enforcement.

So why continue to question if a policy is written or unwritten, or by office or region to apply a certain standard that only applies to a particular nation.

If it is a policy then it is discrimination and violation of Human Rights.

There is nothing in your posts to suggest any policy change specific to one's nationality is truly in effect.

Just rumors and statements of a few people being asked to provide proof.

Many others from the USA here have said nothing more than a proper Embassy letter or proper Bank Documents and Certified Letter was required by immigration for income.

My friend from the us just today got his retirement vsa extended in the north. Immigration accepted the letter and did not ask for anything else to support it.

It would be great if we could just keep this thread moving along without all the analytical BS. A few Americans were asked to provide futher documentation to prove income. We merely want to find out if this is an across-the-board NEW policy at ALL immigration offices or just isolated incidents.

Now some people are twisting this into a human rights debate.

We really only need to hear from applicants about their recent experiences at various Immigration Offices. Jingthing is trying his best to keep it alive and simple, but it's an uphill battle with the likes of your (TacoBoy) ridiculous, argumentative posts.

[Jingthing]

Thanks Tropo. But I want to make it clear the news isn't that some Americans were asked for further proof, that has been reported in the past; the news is that some Americans have reported they were explicitly told that this is a new enforcement policy change for ALL Americans using embassy income letters. A big difference. The former would be status quo.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jingthing

[Mrjlh]

Mrilh

It is not the policy of the U.S. Embassy to disclose the number of the U.S. citizen living in Thailand.

Are you telling us that our new chief decides otherwise?

Do you see the average of 6,494 Americans living in each of the 77 provinces in Thailand?

Have any primary source for substantiation?

Whimsicality?

Much obliged.

Number was provided long ago posted in a news article by the Nation. Number stuck in my head. Besides it was meant as a rhetorical reply to a rhetorical answer. It's probably more like 150,000 my guess so we are not a small community by any means. As stated by JT a non issue for this thread. End of debate.

[retiredusn]

Its time to close this issue until we have the real stats so far this issue is starting too sound like a room full of school kids starting to yell at each other.

[jazzbo]

As I and most likely others have before stated, the documents for extension of stay based upon retirement as in Police Order 777/2551 are those that are required for CONSIDERATION of such stay as noted in the 777/2551 document header ... and upon being presented those documents, as let's say the 'ante up', the IMM Officer is then called upon to exercise his/her DISCRETION as to what if any additional documents might be required for them to render any decision.

[craigt3365]

A few off topic posts and associated replies (sorry!) were removed from view. Please stay on topic!

I'll leave it up to the OP, JT and you other guys if you feel this thread should be closed. Just PM me.

Edit: thought I would share this, if interested. Recently extended my "retirement" visa for the first time here in Pattaya. Had the income letter, residence letter, and copy of bank statement. I had sufficient income, but they wanted an "official" letter from the bank. Luckily, a new Bangkok Bank branch had just opened around the corner. Off I went and letter showed a balance of 326K Baht. I had over 400k a month earlier. But I did have more than enough income to support that method only.

No problems, got the extension. It actually was a fairly easy process. Even had newspapers to read while waiting...which took me less than 2 hours. The clerk was friendly and allowed me to cut out and back in to get the bank letter.

[pmarlin]

did my retirement extension today and my income letter was all I needed. Had other proof just in case.

What's your nationality? Which immigration office?

American and at chaengwattana, Immigration division 1

[Jingthing]

My understanding of existing (nothing new) policy at Jomtien for applicants using SOLELY the income method. In other words, applicants having income letters at least 65K per month (not combo method) --

also requiring evidence of Thai bank account, (typically copy of passbook pages)

also requiring official bank letter stating balance

It's not entirely logical, and have also heard other immigration offices DO require a Thai bank account (not sure about the letter) even for those solely using the income letter.

I do not think this long existing policy at some offices is related in any way to the reports from some Bangkok posters that were told there is a very new enforcement policy for specifically Americans using income letters to support their income claims with further documentation. Just my opinion. Support for income claims is not the same as bank account cash flow anyway, but of course it would be up to immigration what to accept as evidence or not.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

did my retirement extension today and my income letter was all I needed. Had other proof just in case.

What's your nationality? Which immigration office?

American and at chaengwattana, Immigration division 1

Thanks.

[Jingthing]

Its time to close this issue until we have the real stats so far this issue is starting too sound like a room full of school kids starting to yell at each other.

I disagree. We had some credible reports that immigration officer(s) had announced there is a real enforcement change happening. Why close this while we are still figuring out if this is real? I am still hoping one of the "insiders" here with contacts in immigration can get us a more official opinion about whether this is real or not.

[mojaco]

Its time to close this issue until we have the real stats so far this issue is starting too sound like a room full of school kids starting to yell at each other.

I disagree. We had some credible reports that immigration officer(s) had announced there is a real enforcement change happening. Why close this while we are still figuring out if this is real? I am still hoping one of the "insiders" here with contacts in immigration can get us a more official opinion about whether this is real or not.

I also would like this to stay open another week or two to get more reports as to whether anything has changed or not at Immigration (especially CW Bangkok). But hopefully without posts that are simply disruptive and not helpful to finding out the actual experiences of people extending their visa for retirement purposes using just the income letter route.

[gudtymchuk]

Went to Sakon Nakhon immigration today for my extension based on retirement. Sakon Nakhon immigration accepted my US Embassy Letter for proof of income but now they require the foreigner to have a Thai bank account. This is a new requirement in the last month according to the officer that did my extension. I asked him why they are now requiring a bank account. He said, "New boss, new rules", as he was rolling his eyes skyward. New rules do not require a minimum balance, only that you have a bank account so I went to Krung Thai bank and opened a saving account with Baht 500, returned to immigration with copies of my new passbook and everybody was happy.

[Isaanben]

Went to Sakon Nakhon immigration today for my extension based on retirement. Sakon Nakhon immigration accepted my US Embassy Letter for proof of income but now they require the foreigner to have a Thai bank account. This is a new requirement in the last month according to the officer that did my extension. I asked him why they are now requiring a bank account. He said, "New boss, new rules", as he was rolling his eyes skyward. New rules do not require a minimum balance, only that you have a bank account so I went to Krung Thai bank and opened a saving account with Baht 500, returned to immigration with copies of my new passbook and everybody was happy.

When I did my first retirement extension in Sakon Nakhon in dec 2009, they also required a letter from the bank together with the book. Even though the letter from my embassy showed a monthly income well over 65,000 per month.

[Mario2008]

Not unusual that they want to see a bankbook as well.

The request for a bank letter in your case was and probably because they were confused.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Mario2008
made sentence more coherent

[Jingthing]

My understanding at Jomtien is that the requirement to show a Thai bank account with any balance (and a bank letter) has been a requirement for years now even for those qualifying by the income letter only. Probably one of those office to office variances. No relation to the possible new policy about verification of income letter for Americans at Bangkok.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Jingthing