Notarized Letter From Us Embassy Stating Income

[farangene]

I went to Bkk Immig at Chengwattana today (Apr 7,2011) with the US notarized income letter in my retirement visa renewal package. I had good rapport with the Immig officer who was checking the papers. He was very efficient and quickly reviewed the papers.

He saw the notarized US statement and asked if I brought along any supporting documentation for the stated amount. I have two pensions- 1 from govt for Soc sec and another for a private company pension. He wasn't interested in copies of my bank statements or my private co pension paperwork that I had brought. He only wanted copies of the US govt letter that specified the amount of pension which I had also brought.

He said that some people are getting the notarized letter and do not actually receive a pension or at least not for the amount they show in the notarized statement.

I guess the rumors are true. I didn't feel that I was singled out for any reason when he asked for the papers

[Jingthing]

Thanks for that excellent report. A detail please, you are using GROSS pension income before tax, correct, and that was accepted?

Edited April 7, 2011 by Jingthing

[jackdawson]

asked if I brought along any supporting documentation

I guess the rumors are true.

see ? i told u

[Jingthing]

This enforcement policy change for at least one office is no longer a rumor. There have been enough reports indicating that something is going on. As far as the national enforcement impact, too early to tell.

[bkkharry]

Thanks for that excellent report. A detail please, you are using GROSS pension income before tax, correct, and that was accepted?

Why would you use gross, net should be the proper amount. You can only spend the net amount, not the gross amount. You would be overstating your spendable income if you use the gross amount.

[Jingthing]

Because income is traditionally expressed as gross. For example, an American might have a social security annual income of 15,000 dollars a year. Any communication from the SS office will state the 15K as the income. The office pays the full 15K but it is taxable as income. The net is a hazy area, it depends totally on the tax situation for each individual taxpayer and will vary year to year. You wouldn't know the number specifically until you did your taxes for the next year anyway. To me, stating gross income sounds like the logical method. Maybe I am confusing the terminology here. If the office pays an amount, that's what they pay, period. I do agree if an office said your pension is x, but they don't send the full amount of x, then you would state what they do send.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Jingthing

[bkkharry]

I have always used the net amount. Not sure if its right or wrong. My reasoning is they require 800,000 in the bank, or 65,000 a month in income. 800,000 in bank would equal a little over 66,000 a month. Curious as to what others use for pension income, net or gross. hope we get some responses on this one.

[Jingthing]

I have always used the net amount. Not sure if its right or wrong. My reasoning is they require 800,000 in the bank, or 65,000 a month in income. 800,000 in bank would equal a little over 66,000 a month. Curious as to what others use for pension income, net or gross. hope we get some responses on this one.

Still not sure about terminology. If your pension benefit is x, your income is x. You estimate something different? I really don't understand what you are saying unless your pension doesn't directly pay you the full benefit amount.

[bkkharry]

The US with holds taxes from my pension. So I claim the amount of cash I receive,(net amount) not the gross amount of my monthly pension check

[Mrjlh]

Gross or Net? Should always be using Gross. What comes out of your check is nobody's concern. It's what you make. Could be taxes or medical expenses taken out. They understand that. I've been using Gross for 5 years now. Never a question or issue.

Tomorrow's my turn. Got my bank and Embassy letter today. Showed my 1040 at Embassy but she really didn't care but got a big smile from her. It's what you "affirm to" under penalty of perjury. And that's exactly what it states on the letter itself. All the Letter is, is an Affirmation you are telling the truth. Extra documentation is at the discretion of the Immigration Officer and that's no surprise, it's always been that way. So you should always have it. Only people who are trying to skirt the system need to worry. We'll see how it goes tomorrow and I'll report.

The thing I see happening is the Baht is getting stronger and you need to make more to meet the monthly income requirement if that is the route you go. They have a record of what you report every year and I think if they are seeing big changes they are going to start asking questions. But there are lots of reasons a persons income fixed or otherwise changes. Just have an answer you can prove.

[farangene]

Thanks for that excellent report. A detail please, you are using GROSS pension income before tax, correct, and that was accepted?

I have used the gross amount for several years because I read someplace (?) that it was the proper number to use. However, most of my pension support documentation (ie bank statements reflecting deposits) show only the net amount. Therefore, I used the net amount not the gross for this years application.

It might be difficult to explain to a Thai immigration officer why the amount shown in your supporting bank deposits should be considered 30+% higher to equate to what is show in your notarized letter. I agree that the gross amount is the common amount used when talking about pensions. Any amounts deducted (ie taxes, medicare, etc) could be handled in another way to increase your monthly net amount closer to the gross figure. (ie pay quarterly estimated taxes in lieu of withholding taxes from your check).

One way around the gross vs net debate is to show only the "award" notice letter that Soc Sec sends to recipients every year. This official letter shows the gross amount (which I would highlight as the amount) as well as various deducts (taxes, medicare, etc).

As I noted, the only thing the immigration official wanted from my supporting documents was a copy of the government "award notice" letter. He did not take any documents relating to my private company pension although I showed them to him.

[mojaco]

Farangene, so the ONLY income you put on the letter from the embassy was JUST the government pension?

[farangene]

No I showed both govt pension and private co pension in the notary letter. He only wanted the US govt letter document related to govt pension.

But my govt pension is enough to meet the 65,000 B threshhold so maybe that's the reason he wasn't interested in anything else.

I dont know the reason he didn't want the private pension info.

[JimGant]

Interesting drill in financial semantics....

Gross income seems to be the accepted figure for those embassies requiring evidence of income (at least I haven't see anything different on this forum). And when a Yank "affirms he receives X dollars per month from a pension, or other sources," there's nothing unethical, IMO, about using your "gross" figure.

Immigration apparently never dictated to embassies that they wanted to see "disposable" income (gross, net of taxes, by most definitions). Nor any other figure depicting the actual money available to be spent in Thailand. Not realistic, they no doubt concluded. To compensate, just pad the required number upwards (to, so far, 65k) to account for the "must pays" before a "disposable in Thailand" figure is reached. Rough, but workable.

So much for theory.

My Air Force pension and Social Security statements both have blocks depicting gross and net amounts received. Handing these statements to an Immigration officer could be interesting -- if he concentrated on the "net" block, while my income statement contained the "gross" amount. Fortunately, the net amount would still qualify. But, a few years ago on my Air Force statement, it would show a huge over-withholding amount (to cover IRA cashouts)-- and a net figure below the required 65k. And while I still cashout IRAs, I no longer use additional withholding to cover the taxes (EFTPS.gov instead). Anyway, if Immigration is going to start perusing our pension statements, then limiting your withholdings (and filing quarterly estimated taxes, as farangene suggests) could possibly avoid a conversation with Immigration about a 'too low net figure.'

For example, an American might have a social security annual income of 15,000 dollars a year. Any communication from the SS office will state the 15K as the income.

Yes, and no....

Unfortunately, you receive every year from the SS Administration a "Your Benefit Amount," which has a column, starting with gross, then showing deductions for Medicare, Federal taxes, then the bottom "net" line. Not much you can do about the Medicare deduction, but it's probably wise not to have taxes withheld from your SS -- in order to bolster your bottom line. (Withholding is NOT a requirement.)

However the Social Security SSA-1099 tax form is a much better form to show Immigration, as it has a highlighted box with your gross amount in it, and only in smaller, aside print are your deductions shown. (And even friendlier, the highlighted box, while "gross," actually says "net" -- but meaning net of "benefits repaid to SSA.")

Anyway, not sure where all of this is headed.... But, never too soon to 'tweak' your supporting documents.

Edited April 7, 2011 by JimGant

[BuckarooBanzai]

If you are retired and are not required to pay any tax you should definitely use gross income. Medicare is an optional expenditure although it certainly does not do one any good over here (But if you end up going back to the States it certainly comes in handy). Also, if you are not required to pay taxes then you should not have any deductions made from SS or Pension distributions. That way all all your documentation should show gross disposable income. The one requirement for 0 deductions for tax is to maintain a bank account in the US where all your distributions are deposited. If you have them sent directly to a bank here they will by law insist you pay up to 30% in deductions for your income even if you do not owe any taxes at the end of the year.

[Thanyaburi Mac]

If you are retired and are not required to pay any tax you should definitely use gross income. Medicare is an optional expenditure although it certainly does not do one any good over here (But if you end up going back to the States it certainly comes in handy). Also, if you are not required to pay taxes then you should not have any deductions made from SS or Pension distributions. That way all all your documentation should show gross disposable income. The one requirement for 0 deductions for tax is to maintain a bank account in the US where all your distributions are deposited. If you have them sent directly to a bank here they will by law insist you pay up to 30% in deductions for your income even if you do not owe any taxes at the end of the year.

I don't quite understand the above comment which I've underlined.

I have both my Federal pension and Social Security checks sent to my U.S. bank and ZERO is deducted there by the bank, zip, nada, nothing.

IRS has already taken their bite out of the pension, but not the SocSec as I've not elected to have them do so.

Mac

[BuckarooBanzai]

If you are retired and are not required to pay any tax you should definitely use gross income. Medicare is an optional expenditure although it certainly does not do one any good over here (But if you end up going back to the States it certainly comes in handy). Also, if you are not required to pay taxes then you should not have any deductions made from SS or Pension distributions. That way all all your documentation should show gross disposable income. The one requirement for 0 deductions for tax is to maintain a bank account in the US where all your distributions are deposited. If you have them sent directly to a bank here they will by law insist you pay up to 30% in deductions for your income even if you do not owe any taxes at the end of the year.

I don't quite understand the above comment which I've underlined.

I have both my Federal pension and Social Security checks sent to my U.S. bank and ZERO is deducted there by the bank, zip, nada, nothing.

IRS has already taken their bite out of the pension, but not the SocSec as I've not elected to have them do so.

Mac

If you have your SS or Pension sent directly to an institution outside the US or one of it's possessions the IRS considers it a foreign disbursement which by law requires withholding. If you have your funds deposited in an institution within the United States or one of it's possessions then it is a domestic disbursement and does not require withholding.

Edit - Since you deposit your funds in a US bank you do not need to have money withheld.

Edited April 8, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[farangene]

Interesting drill in financial semantics....

However the Social Security SSA-1099 tax form is a much better form to show Immigration, as it has a highlighted box with your gross amount in it, and only in smaller, aside print are your deductions shown. (And even friendlier, the highlighted box, while "gross," actually says "net" -- but meaning net of "benefits repaid to SSA.")

Anyway, not sure where all of this is headed.... But, never too soon to 'tweak' your supporting documents.

I agree the 1099 is a good way to go. It is official and shows the number to confirm your notarized letter.

I guess you could always baffle them by including your full income tax return,.

[Tod Daniels]

This is truly the thread that will not die. ..

I'm ALL for sharing experiences we encounter at Thai Immigrations but I believe there are far too few people being required to ‘show additional proof’ after submitting the verification of income document notarized by ACS at the US Embassy when trying to secure a yearly extension of stay to say this is an ‘all encompassing’ sweeping change in immigration policy. It's even wackier to say it's some sort of concerted effort by Thai Immigrations to use ‘racial profiling based on nationality’. I think it's putting the cart before the horse to make statements like that or to believe this is a 'cut and dried' policy change to the interpretation of visa rules here.

Unless I looked at my files, I honestly can’t even remember the real number of acquaintances I’ve accompanied to secure extensions of stay over the last coupla years, but easily, it’s well over 100 people. They were of many different nationalities.

I’d say 4 out of 5 acquaintances from the US used the verification of income document from ACS as their sole means of meeting the financial requirements. Some did use the 800K baht ‘bank method’ and a few even used the ‘combined-method’. I have personally never ever seen one kicked back nor has a single one ever been asked for additional supporting documentation when using just the letter from ACS-US Embassy. NOT EVER!.

Again, these are my experiences ONLY.. Even though I go to Changwattana 4 or 5 times a month for various & sundry things; I highly doubt just because many officers know me by sight or name, that any acquaintances I accompany are treated differently from anyone else out there.

I do NOT doubt the veracity of other posters statements; who said they were asked for additional support documentation, ONLY stating I’ve never experienced it first hand.

Conversely, I wonder what woulda happened IF someone woulda had the balls to question an Immigrations officer by saying, “I have no other proof with me. This letter comes from MY embassy and is all the proof I need, isn’t it?”

While I did post the letter you fill out from the US Embassy pages back in this thread, I’ll post it again if you want to use it;

Income Affividat.pdf

Oh FWIW: on the times I've accompanied acquaintances to the ACS office in Bangkok at the US Embassy, I always tell them to use gross income as the dollar amount.

Edited April 8, 2011 by tod-daniels

[farangene]

...

I I have personally never ever seen one kicked back nor has a single one ever been asked for additional supporting documentation when using just the letter from ACS-US Embassy. NOT EVER!.

Again, these are my experiences ONLY.. .

Until April 7 I had never been questioned about verifying the amounts either.

I have been using the 65K for the last 4-5 years and the 800K for 5-6 years prior to that.

New ball game?? I don't know but I would bring supporting documents with me if I were to go again. Might save a extra trip back to Immig.

.

[Jingthing]

tod-daniels --

The reports became more important after we got a few reports that applicants were told explicitly at one office that the ENFORCEMENT POLICY had changed for Americans. This isn't really about going back historically, it's about checking to see whether this is really an enforcement policy change going on NOW, and if so, limited to which office(s)?

[Tod Daniels]

tod-daniels --

The reports became more important after we got a few reports that applicants were told explicitly at one office that the ENFORCEMENT POLICY had changed for Americans. This isn't really about going back historically, it's about checking to see whether this is really an enforcement policy change going on NOW, and if so, limited to which office(s)?

Quite the adversarial tone there doncha think; “Real-Thing”?

I made this post on page 7 of this thread after going to Changwattana on MONDAY of this week!

My Post in This Thread

I don't even how people are hearing it is an explicit enforcement policy change for Americans. Most foreigners I routinely see out there can't speak more than 2-word-toutist-thai and most immigrations officers out there know just a little more english than they need to so they can do their jobs effectively . It is my experience that ANY deep meaningful conversations about the intricacies of the Immigration rules and/or their interpretation are few and far between , unless you can conduct them in Thai or have a native Thai speaker in your back pocket.

Coincidentally the guy I accompanied WAS in fact American and was NOT asked for further proof. ..

This ain't a hysterical errr, historical reflection on my past experiences, but something that actually happened on Monday (as in 4 days ago). True it is in the past, but just slightly so.

I don't see how my experience isn't proof that they certainly aren't asking every; Tom, Dick & Somchai who happens to be American for additional documentation for sufficient funds when using the embassy letter as proof.

If it wasn't so damned close to Songkran I'd venture out to the Buddy Lodge Hotel on KhaoSan Road this coming Tuesday when the Thai Immigrations has their "all-in-one" mobile service at that location and ask one of the officers myself.

However, given the HUGE number of foreign miscreants who routinely start Songkran early ; I don't wanna be any where near KhaoSan Road, even if it is a day before the holiday officially starts!!

Again, given the relatively FEW reports we've had about being asked for extra documentation, I still don't believe it's an "across the board" or a sweeping change in interpretation of policy until I encounter it first hand. The reports are too few and far between and can be read too ambiguously to be taken as gospel. Is it good advice to go prepared, perhaps, but for me the jury's still out.

Sadly I don't have anything "in the works" retirement extension-wise with any Americans until well AFTER Songkran, just some 90 day reports to turn in.

I'm going to go do them at Bumrungrad Hospital on the 19th when Thai Immigrations has the 'all-in-one' mobile service at that location.

Maybe one of the Immigrations officers there will know more about this. Then again maybe I'll just hang around there and eavesdrop on peoples’ experiences and report back on my findings.

Believe me IF I'd heard or seen anything concrete in regards to this topic, I'd be the first to say, Yep, it's true.. So far I just ain't seen it with my own two eyes.

Edited April 8, 2011 by tod-daniels

[Tod Daniels]

Because I am curious (and not being a cat that isn't usually fatal ) and because I want to get to the bottom of this quagmire; I just called Sunbelt Asia (a sponsor of this very forum, no less).

I asked them if they recently had Immigrations request any other documentation when using the Embassy letter as sole proof of funds to secure an extension of stay based on retirement for American clients.

He said at this time they HAVE NOT had it happen, not even a single time.

Now Sunbelt is a HUGE ball 'o wax which among other things specializes in securing visas for foreigners. Quite possibly they run more foreigners thru Changwattana during the year then all the other companies who do visas for foreigners combined. I mean I see their representative(s) every single time I'm out there!

I’m fully aware that they might be given some 'preferential treatment’ by Immigrations. Still, if this was happening, I think they'd certainly know something about it, don't you?

The fact that they haven't even had a single case nor have they heard of it, hmmm. I dunno take it for what it's worth.

Edited April 8, 2011 by tod-daniels

[Mrjlh]

Ok, as an American, I went to the Chaengwattana Immigration Office this morning to get my "Non-O" 90 day changed to a Non-O Retirement VISA. Not an extension but a new VISA because dummy here forgot to get his re-entry the last time and re-entered without it. (Different thread.)

In hand was:

Passport

TM-7 with photo attached

Letter from Embassy affirming monthly salary

Bank letter showing current funds

Copies of Passport of all pages including attachments (stapled and every page signed or Initialed)

Copies of Bank book (stapled). Backup documentations of Income (1040A)

I waited for 2 hours before being called. Only 19 ahead of me! It was crowded. Everyone was there getting their documents before traveling out of town during Sangkron. Don't go before a major holiday if you can avoid it!

Female Inspector I met was very polite. I presented to her everything I just listed and in the order I just listed. She didn't take or ask for the last two things. She commented on how well prepared and organized everything was. Gave me one other form to fill out and sign which was a letter to the boss showing my intention to retire in the Kingdom. Paid my fee. She then took my picture and looked up my file in her computer. Took her time, was in no rush even with the crowd. Scrutinized my paperwork...every page. Made her notes of some and that was it. Told me to wait outside and she'd call me back in a few minutes. I watched my stack go to another officer behind her and tried to see what she did. Again that officer just went through the pages and stamped a couple. That was it. I got called back in about 15 minutes and was handed my passport port and told not to forget my Re-entry this time. New VISA good for a year. I said this was first time to this office and was every ones paperwork this easy? She said no, they forget lots of things on the forms. Simple things and we need to start asking questions. We made light of it and laughed and at that point I asked her are there different rules for different countries. No, we treat them all the same she said. She said Why? I said I was just curious because of different cultures have different attitudes. Now go to the Head Officer back of station 35 and you need her signature. Have a good day ...Bye. The Head Officer took my paperwork and after reviewing what was presented, signed it and off I went with my VISA.

She never asked for income verification even though she could have. Question never came up. Even though it was really busy there was in no hurry. They made sure all the paper work was completed. Even though it was busy, I stayed and waited another hour and half to get my re-entry done. I didn't want to go back. I really believe if you present yourself as being well prepared and organized things go smoothly. When you start by saying you don't have this, you don't have that, or I forgot that document, the alarm bells go off. Plus they do have the final say. And if they ask one person or say to one person, "Oh, policy changed", it might only be that officers way of explaining the reason for asking a question. You know "Saving face?". Uuh. I was too shy to ask the question the first time. Nothing more.:jap:

[Tod Daniels]

Ok, as an American, I went to the Chaengwattana Immigration Office this morning to get my "Non-O" 90 day changed to a Non-O Retirement VISA.<SNIPPED>

I mean NO disrespect but in reading your post, I couldn't tell if:

You had the full 800K in a Thai bank account (seasoned for the proper time) and used that method.

OR possibly if you used the Embassy letter for a portion of the funds and had some money in a Thai bank to make up the difference, known as the "combination method".

OR did you use the Embassy letter with no additional proof?

OR did you just cover your bases and bring everything with you?

Honestly I'm being serious, I couldn't tell from reading your post because you say you took the "bank letter" which I assume was from a bank HERE, and you brought the letter from the US Embassy too with proof to back that up as well. It was slightly muddy in my eyes what you used to qualify for the extension, and I read it twice!

Still good you got the extension. I knew today would be a mad house out there.

That 'head officer' (the lady who sits in the back corner by #35) and who initials your stuff at the end, was the one I asked about the embassy letter being okay or not, and the one who answered me in Thai, "It's from YOUR Embassy! Why wouldn't it be okay?"

As a totally off topic aside: If I read your post correctly, you showed up there with a 90 day Non-O visa already, is that correct?

If it is, I think you didn't get a year long Non-O "VISA". .. I think you received a "yearly extension of stay based on retirement" from the 90 day Non-O visa you had. Your stamp should have taken up about about half a passport page with the exact wording;

SUB-DIV. 2 IMM-DIV.1

EXTENSION OF STAY PERMITTED UP TO ______ <- (a stamp year from when your current non-o would expire)

HOLDER MUST LEAVE THE KINGDOM WITHIN THE

DATE SPECIFIED HEREIN, OFFENDERS WILL BE

PROSECUTED

SIGNED______ <-(some thai signature)

DATE____ <- (a stamp of today's date)

NOTICE

-TO KEEP YOUR STAY PERMIT RE-ENTRY PERMIT

MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING THAILAND

-NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENCE MUST BE

MADE EVERY 90 DAYS

They also stamp the word RETIREMENT on it and it'll have 4 numbers a / and two more numbers written in pen too.

If I'm wrong, I'm totally sorry, but a quick look at your passport would show it.

I've just never EVER seen a year long Non-Immigrant Type-O Visa issued, only extensions of stays based on what ever you're extending for (marriage, education, retirement, business, etc).

Lemme know what it says as you've piqued my curiosity. ..

Edited April 8, 2011 by tod-daniels

[Jingthing]

Here is my current thinking on the potential new enforcement rules for Americans, and potentially any nationality known to immigration that doesn't require backup to issue income letters.

1. I believe with very little doubt that at least a few Americans were told explicitly this is a new policy by an immigration officer, requiring Americans presenting income letters to provide further evidence to immigration, at at least one office.

2. I do not believe this means there actually IS a real enforcement policy change at one office or a national change to come. Too early to tell. Keep the reports of recent applications coming please, with as much detail as possible.

3. I believe immigration has asked others in the past for this kind of evidence, but most likely a very small minority. It is not news that they have always had the full legal right to demand more evidence of anyone for any reason. I don't think these issues are really related, the history of no enforcement policy and the potential of a new enforcement policy. Only VERY RECENT reports of are value in determining the validity of the information about a new enforcement policy.

4. I find the report here from Sunbelt of VERY LITTLE VALUE. Why? (a) The reports of the enforcement policy change from posters here was VERY RECENT. (-b-) No info was provided on exactly how many Americans using Sunbelt using income letters went through the reported Bangkok office VERY RECENTLY. (-c-) I think most Americans going for retirement extensions using income letters do this all by themselves without Sunbelt. (d) Even if there was even one such applicant going through Sunbelt in the last few days, there is every possibility such "paying" applicants could be excused form a new enforcement rule due to the special relationship such agents have with immigration officers.

I don't wish to make this into a pissing war. This is ALL about objective evidence for me.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Jingthing

[Mrjlh]

Ok, as an American, I went to the Chaengwattana Immigration Office this morning to get my "Non-O" 90 day changed to a Non-O Retirement VISA.<SNIPPED>

I mean NO disrespect but in reading your post, I couldn't tell if:

You had the full 800K in a Thai bank account (seasoned for the proper time) and used that method.

OR possibly if you used the Embassy letter for a portion of the funds and had some money in a Thai bank to make up the difference, known as the "combination method".

OR did you use the Embassy letter with no additional proof?

OR did you just cover your bases and bring everything with you?

Honestly I'm being serious, I couldn't tell from reading your post because you say you took the "bank letter" which I assume was from a bank HERE, and you brought the letter from the US Embassy too with proof to back that up as well. It was slightly muddy in my eyes what you used to qualify for the extension, and I read it twice!

Still good you got the extension. I knew today would be a mad house out there.

That 'head officer' (the lady who sits in the back corner by #35) and who initials your stuff at the end, was the one I asked about the embassy letter being okay or not, and the one who answered me in Thai, "It's from YOUR Embassy! Why wouldn't it be okay?"

As a totally off topic aside: If I read your post correctly, you showed up there with a 90 day Non-O visa already, is that correct?

If it is, I think you didn't get a year long Non-O "VISA". .. I think you received a "yearly extension of stay based on retirement" from the 90 day Non-O visa you had. Your stamp should have taken up about about half a passport page with the exact wording;

SUB-DIV. 2 IMM-DIV.1

EXTENSION OF STAY PERMITTED UP TO ______ <- (a stamp year from when your current non-o would expire)

HOLDER MUST LEAVE THE KINGDOM WITHIN THE

DATE SPECIFIED HEREIN, OFFENDERS WILL BE

PROSECUTED

SIGNED______ <-(some thai signature)

DATE____ <- (a stamp of today's date)

NOTICE

-TO KEEP YOUR STAY PERMIT RE-ENTRY PERMIT

MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING THAILAND

-NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENCE MUST BE

MADE EVERY 90 DAYS

They also stamp the word RETIREMENT on it and it'll have 4 numbers a / and two more numbers written in pen too.

If I'm wrong, I'm totally sorry, but a quick look at your passport would show it.

I've just never EVER seen a year long Non-Immigrant Type-O Visa issued, only extensions of stays based on what ever you're extending for (marriage, education, retirement, business, etc).

Lemme know what it says as you've piqued my curiosity. ..

Sorry if I left it out. I did the B65K monthly route plus they want to see (and this is important) money in your Thai Bank account. They wan to see that you actually have money in the bank. The more the better in their eyes.So I provided a Bangkok Bank Letter showing the account balance. The advantage to doing this is, if your monthly intake does not meet the 65K amount then you have the bank balance to fall on if it comes up short. I say this and warn people to check the current money exchange rate to make sure you qualify. I'm not sure which rate Immigration uses, there are several to chose from.

As far as the VISA is concerned. I re-read the stamp and you are right. It is an extension of my NON-O. I was told at Immigration it was a new VISA but I think it is a simple matter of language usage. They said one thing I heard another. Thanks for pointing that out.

[lopburi3]

They wan to see that you actually have money in the bank.

Someone said this within the last 3 years? Or do you remember it from long ago? I have not been asked for any such account information since change to retirement about seven years ago and also use Bangkok and from reports here it does not seem most people are.

This seems to be asked in Jomtien; but has not been asked in Bangkok.

[tutsiwarrior]

They wan to see that you actually have money in the bank.

Someone said this within the last 3 years? Or do you remember it from long ago? I have not been asked for any such account information since change to retirement about seven years ago and also use Bangkok and from reports here it does not seem most people are.

This seems to be asked in Jomtien; but has not been asked in Bangkok.

further:

quote

I did the B65K monthly route plus they want to see (and this is important) money in your Thai Bank account.

unquote (my emphasis)

horror of horrors as many of us applying for retirement extensions keep most of their funds in offshore accounts, to which monthly income deposits of foreign currency are usually directed perhaps with enough for living expenses in a local thai account...

Edited April 8, 2011 by tutsiwarrior

[Tod Daniels]

For the most part, I believe the O/P's post (especially now that the extension v/s visa was cleared up ).

In reading the post he provided TONZ of documentation! I mean literally he showed up with a veritable "pile 'o paperwork". In situations I've observed like this, Immigrations will usually take the stack, especially once the relevant documents are found in the pile. They will usually hang onto anything if has to do with meeting financial requirements. I did find it of interest that they used the calculator and converted the USD to Baht. That would lead me to believe they accepted AND used the Embassy letter.

Things that make me think this wasn't about additional proof being REQUIRED are;

1) He was not told he needed anything more than the US Embassy letter.

2) He was not asked for additional proof to support it (he provided it before hand).

3) He was not asked for a bank letter (again, he provided it without being asked).

I somewhat doubt the veracity of the statement

"They want to see you actually have money in the bank. The more the better in their eyes.."

. That certainly sounds like some creative license is being taken on the part of the O/P than anything resembling a real fact as it runs totally counter to my personal experiences out there.

I'm on the fence about this one. .. I honestly believe it'd have flown thru just fine with the US Embassy letter alone without the pile of support documentation he turned in with it.

Still at the end of the day, he got the extension of stay, so it worked out. Now did he really need everything he supplied? For me, sorry, the fact that Immigrations accepted the documents is not evidence enough to me that they were even actually required to begin with.

FWIW: I don't wish to turn this into a pissing match either. This is ALL about objective evidence for me too!

This one falls a little short of the mark as far as hard evidence one way or the other about the ability to use the US Embassy letter as a stand alone document for verification of sufficient funds in securing an extension of stay.

Edited April 8, 2011 by tod-daniels