How? Thai Girlfriend (Not Fiance) Visa To Visit Usa

[thailandmark]

<P>I'm trying to understand how i can bring my thai girlfriend to the usa for a visit. what do i need to understand? what are the requirements in addition to completing the application and her having a thai passport? if bond is required, what's the recommended method? she lives and works full time and has a good job in bkk. she wants to come visit me in the usa on her holiday and return to her job. we have until april 2012 to prepare. i live in los angeles, ca. <BR><BR>suggestions?<BR><BR>thanks<BR><BR>tm</P>

[Thanyaburi Mac]

Sorry to be the bearer of possible (probable?) bad news, but I'm thinking she'd not get a visa.

FYI, deposit of a bond is not accepted by U.S. Immigration, be nice if it was, but that option is out.

Biggest problem she'll have is establishing that she'd return to Thailand, and you're being seemingly anchored in the U.S. doesn't help. It might well look to the interviewing ConOff that she just wants to jump the fiance immigration queue. Giving up one's job isn't that big a deal.

Ages of you and her might also enter into a decision. You didn't state your ages, just my thought.

FYI, my now Thai wife got her first three tourist visas when she was still the G/F, last visa a 10-year one. But from the get-go, I was living here and retired, that was the deciding factor.

Mac

[mizzi39]

Agree with Mac. it is important that she shows the ConOff her ties to you if she is going to use you for reason to visit. It also makes a huge difference if you have ties to Thailand.

My wife got her 10 year TV on her first try, but I live here and we have a son that is a dual citizen, so it was pretty cut and dry.

Doesn't hurt to try though. It is not that expensive to apply for a TV. The worst case scenario is that she gets denied, with a reason for denial. In case she does can denied, as long as she can rectify the reason for denial, she can re-apply.

Good luck! Mizzi

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The U.S. consulate doesn't give any meaningful reasons when they deny a tourist visa to a Thai citizen...

They just have standard boilerplate language about not meeting the requirements or not able to show sufficient ties to Thailand...

But they'll never actually tell the applicant the specific reasons, like, not enough funds... or not secure job... or anything else that the applicant could then take action on.

[mizzi39]

"Not showing sufficient ties to Thailand" is a reason for denial. Boilerplate language or not. It is up to the applicant to figure out how to secure those ties.

Getting approved is a crap shoot at best. Most applicants can make a fair prediction as to whether or not they will be approved, based on how prepared they are, and what they can show.

[Gary A]

I went to the US Embassy with a 40 year old female friend of mine. Her US boyfriend wrote a letter to explain where she would stay and that he would assume responsibility. She has property, a bank account and a job. Her number was called and after about three minutes she came back in tears. The gestapo farang female agent didn't even bother to look at her paperwork. Just denied with no explanation. I was VERY irritated and headed up to the window to have a few words. My Thai friend knew I was angry and she begged me not to say anything. We left without me having any words with the gestapo agent.

Good luck and if you can get a male gestapo agent, you can't have any worse treatment. I don't remember how much the application was but it wasn't cheap.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

"Not showing sufficient ties to Thailand" is a reason for denial. Boilerplate language or not. It is up to the applicant to figure out how to secure those ties.

Getting approved is a crap shoot at best. Most applicants can make a fair prediction as to whether or not they will be approved, based on how prepared they are, and what they can show.

Actually, the sufficient ties language is pretty much the only reason they ever give because, that's the language in the statute requirement talking about what people are required to show in order to receive the visa... So basically they're just saying, you didn't meet our threshold.

But "ties" can and does mean a whole basketful of specific things, and the applicant has no clue where they've come up short in the eyes of the consulate....

Beyond that, I don't think your final comment is justified by the many reports of members here on the subject, and general reports about the tourist visa process at the U.S. Consulate in BKK. There are people who basically have no reason or basis for getting a tourist visa who have been granted them... and on the opposite site, people who would seem to have more than enough specific factors in their support who have been denied.... All in all, based on a multitude of reports, it appears to be a tremendously arbitrary, capricious decision making process.

[montrii]

Actually, the sufficient ties language is pretty much the only reason they ever give because, that's the language in the statute requirement talking about what people are required to show in order to receive the visa... So basically they're just saying, you didn't meet our threshold. But "ties" can and does mean a whole basketful of specific things, and the applicant has no clue where they've come up short in the eyes of the consulate.... Beyond that, I don't think your final comment is justified by the many reports of members here on the subject, and general reports about the tourist visa process at the U.S. Consulate in BKK. There are people who basically have no reason or basis for getting a tourist visa who have been granted them... and on the opposite site, people who would seem to have more than enough specific factors in their support who have been denied.... All in all, based on a multitude of reports, it appears to be a tremendously arbitrary, capricious decision making process.

I couldn't agree more with this. Here is my own story, with all my anger: I now have been retired here for three years, but before that, my Thai girlfriend applied three times for a tourist visa to the United States while I was living in Berkeley, although I was in Thailand one of those times. All the times she produced all the supporting documents suggested by State Department guidelines, including documentation of the following:

• a university degree and a senior-level job of nine years standing at an import-export firm for whom she had gone on numerous business trips outside Thailand
• a 1.3 million baht townhouse and a 2003 Honda automobile in her own name
• a substantial savings account
• proof that she had been invited to visit the U.S. at a specific address for a specific two-week period a letter of support from me—a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand with a continuing history in that country.

Even with this she was turned down all three times, for reasons which were never made clear enough that she or I could comprehend them. The official justification was a general one: under section 214(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act she had failed to show evidence of compelling social, family, or economic ties outside the United States sufficient to ensure her return to Thailand. She was never told what, specifically, might have been seen lacking in the thorough documentation which she twice presented, the second time more fully. That third time she was (as was I, who at her request had come with her) treated so rudely that she left the Embassy fuming.

The application was rejected by a junior consular official who spoke bad Thai and seemed bad-natured and prejudiced against her from the start, and who did not provide us with her name or any explanation of the reasons behind decision she made. This person told me to sit down before I had gotten a whole sentence out, but not before asking me, as if it were any of her business, whether I was married or not. My friend was especially furious because she had overheard a Thai translator tell (in English) the ignorant Nazi behind the bulletproof glass that she thought my friend was most likely a prostitute. They seemed to find all the foreign stamps in her passport (for business trips--Beijing, Cebu, Singapore, etc., as she explained) extremely suspicious. Go figure.

I wrote a letter in April to the U.S. Ambassador in Bangkok, explaining why I felt my friend had been treated unfairly. I received no answer that month. On May 7th I sent an inquiry by e-mail to him, care of the Embassy, and was assured by a staff member that he would get back to me by the end of May. I heard nothing that month either. As a member of Friends of Thailand I was invited to a dinner on June 6th in Berkeley, CA. for the Ambassador, who happened to also be a former Thailand Peace Corps Volunteer. I sat almost directly across the table from the ambassador and we engaged in pleasant conversation the entire evening. When I brought up the issue of the letter, he said that he had forwarded the letter to the Visa Section and that it was wrong that I had not received a reply, suggested he might look at the case and put a note of support in the file, and at the end of the night assured me that I would be hearing from him. "I'll be getting back to you" were the exact words he used.

On July 12th, having heard nothing, I sent another inquiry to the Embassy in Bangkok, attaching another letter to the Ambassador. The same staff member told me he had immediately passed it on to Mr. Johnson. By the end of July, I still had not gotten any response, so I sent one more inquiry to the Embassy. On July 30th I was again told that "a response is coming." I had given several e-mail addresses and a land address in Berkeley, all of which I checked daily for mail, and never received anything in the next months. Finally, on November 30th, I sent an appeal to the Ambassador using his personal e-mail address, which was listed on the Friends of Thailand website. This produced a flurry of e-mail correspondence lasting nearly a week.

First I got a note from the Embassy staff telling me to not use the ambassador's personal e-mail. Attached was a note supposedly sent on August 2nd from the chief of the Visa Section, telling me what I already had known since April, that my friend had been denied a Visa under section 214(a) of the INA. The note did not apologize for the interviewer's rudeness, or the tardiness of the reply, but rather suggested that I must have been mistaken in thinking the interviewer was rude, because they were all trained not to be, and saying that if my friend reapplied, "without evidence of strong ties in Thailand, the application will again be rejected." Since this was not in the least responsive to my letters, I wrote back to the consular chief asking for specifics of the case: what more documentation could my friend have provided?

His reaction to my questions was, again, not responsive, and clearly showed his irritation with me: "I cannot engage in a point by point discussion of the issues you raise." His final sentence was a terse "unless and until she does reapply, I will not reply to any further messages other than purely procedural questions on how she can make her application." When I informed the Ambassador through official e-mail that I wasn't satisfied, he sent me the only personal response I ever got from him, which was what I could only feel was an angry one: " . . . receiving a U.S. visa is not a right, it is a priviledge(sic). It is against the law for anyone to overrule or to instruct a visa officer to change his or her judgement. . . . my assumption was that you wanted an answer to the questions and concerns you had raised . . . I now gather that your primary interest was in getting a reply from me."

I really couldn't let this sit, so I wrote one final note to the ambassador, attempting to correct his mistaken impression, and gave this parting shot: "I am astounded that you would make any reference to things that are 'against the law,' as I have never made a suggestion that you or anyone else interfere with the laws or rules and regulations involved."

Besides the fact that my friend was treated rudely and denied a visa without any clear reason for it, I was treated with disrespect at almost every turn. My first letter was on Apr. 18: it took 3 letters, a personal discussion with the Ambassador, and numerous e-mails to get any answer at all, and that did not come until December (though the consular chief claims it was sent in August, still nearly 4 months after my first inquiry). My questions have never been answered. In summary, both a Thai national and an American citizen with a history of service to his country and Thailand have been ill-served by the system and people who were put in place by the United States to serve them.

Edited September 26, 2011 by montrii

[theoldgit]

^^^^

So if the US Government officials treat their fellow citizens with such utter contempt, I suspect that us Brits, and other non US nationals, will not have a cat in hells chance of a courteous response if we encounter problems with the US Embassy.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Actually, you'd probably do fine most of the time... just so long as you're not trying to get a visa for an average Thai person to visit the U.S.

[globalmenace]

Actually, the sufficient ties language is pretty much the only reason they ever give because, that's the language in the statute requirement talking about what people are required to show in order to receive the visa... So basically they're just saying, you didn't meet our threshold. But "ties" can and does mean a whole basketful of specific things, and the applicant has no clue where they've come up short in the eyes of the consulate.... Beyond that, I don't think your final comment is justified by the many reports of members here on the subject, and general reports about the tourist visa process at the U.S. Consulate in BKK. There are people who basically have no reason or basis for getting a tourist visa who have been granted them... and on the opposite site, people who would seem to have more than enough specific factors in their support who have been denied.... All in all, based on a multitude of reports, it appears to be a tremendously arbitrary, capricious decision making process.

I couldn't agree more with this. Here is my own story, with all my anger: I now have been retired here for three years, but before that, my Thai girlfriend applied three times for a tourist visa to the United States while I was living in Berkeley, although I was in Thailand one of those times. All the times she produced all the supporting documents suggested by State Department guidelines, including documentation of the following:

• a university degree and a senior-level job of nine years standing at an import-export firm for whom she had gone on numerous business trips outside Thailand
• a 1.3 million baht townhouse and a 2003 Honda automobile in her own name
• a substantial savings account
• proof that she had been invited to visit the U.S. at a specific address for a specific two-week period a letter of support from me—a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand with a continuing history in that country.

Even with this she was turned down all three times, for reasons which were never made clear enough that she or I could comprehend them. The official justification was a general one: under section 214(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act she had failed to show evidence of compelling social, family, or economic ties outside the United States sufficient to ensure her return to Thailand. She was never told what, specifically, might have been seen lacking in the thorough documentation which she twice presented, the second time more fully. That third time she was (as was I, who at her request had come with her) treated so rudely that she left the Embassy fuming.

The application was rejected by a junior consular official who spoke bad Thai and seemed bad-natured and prejudiced against her from the start, and who did not provide us with her name or any explanation of the reasons behind decision she made. This person told me to sit down before I had gotten a whole sentence out, but not before asking me, as if it were any of her business, whether I was married or not. My friend was especially furious because she had overheard a Thai translator tell (in English) the ignorant Nazi behind the bulletproof glass that she thought my friend was most likely a prostitute. They seemed to find all the foreign stamps in her passport (for business trips--Beijing, Cebu, Singapore, etc., as she explained) extremely suspicious. Go figure.

I wrote a letter in April to the U.S. Ambassador in Bangkok, explaining why I felt my friend had been treated unfairly. I received no answer that month. On May 7th I sent an inquiry by e-mail to him, care of the Embassy, and was assured by a staff member that he would get back to me by the end of May. I heard nothing that month either. As a member of Friends of Thailand I was invited to a dinner on June 6th in Berkeley, CA. for the Ambassador, who happened to also be a former Thailand Peace Corps Volunteer. I sat almost directly across the table from the ambassador and we engaged in pleasant conversation the entire evening. When I brought up the issue of the letter, he said that he had forwarded the letter to the Visa Section and that it was wrong that I had not received a reply, suggested he might look at the case and put a note of support in the file, and at the end of the night assured me that I would be hearing from him. "I'll be getting back to you" were the exact words he used.

On July 12th, having heard nothing, I sent another inquiry to the Embassy in Bangkok, attaching another letter to the Ambassador. The same staff member told me he had immediately passed it on to Mr. Johnson. By the end of July, I still had not gotten any response, so I sent one more inquiry to the Embassy. On July 30th I was again told that "a response is coming." I had given several e-mail addresses and a land address in Berkeley, all of which I checked daily for mail, and never received anything in the next months. Finally, on November 30th, I sent an appeal to the Ambassador using his personal e-mail address, which was listed on the Friends of Thailand website. This produced a flurry of e-mail correspondence lasting nearly a week.

First I got a note from the Embassy staff telling me to not use the ambassador's personal e-mail. Attached was a note supposedly sent on August 2nd from the chief of the Visa Section, telling me what I already had known since April, that my friend had been denied a Visa under section 214(a) of the INA. The note did not apologize for the interviewer's rudeness, or the tardiness of the reply, but rather suggested that I must have been mistaken in thinking the interviewer was rude, because they were all trained not to be, and saying that if my friend reapplied, "without evidence of strong ties in Thailand, the application will again be rejected." Since this was not in the least responsive to my letters, I wrote back to the consular chief asking for specifics of the case: what more documentation could my friend have provided?

His reaction to my questions was, again, not responsive, and clearly showed his irritation with me: "I cannot engage in a point by point discussion of the issues you raise." His final sentence was a terse "unless and until she does reapply, I will not reply to any further messages other than purely procedural questions on how she can make her application." When I informed the Ambassador through official e-mail that I wasn't satisfied, he sent me the only personal response I ever got from him, which was what I could only feel was an angry one: " . . . receiving a U.S. visa is not a right, it is a priviledge(sic). It is against the law for anyone to overrule or to instruct a visa officer to change his or her judgement. . . . my assumption was that you wanted an answer to the questions and concerns you had raised . . . I now gather that your primary interest was in getting a reply from me."

I really couldn't let this sit, so I wrote one final note to the ambassador, attempting to correct his mistaken impression, and gave this parting shot: "I am astounded that you would make any reference to things that are 'against the law,' as I have never made a suggestion that you or anyone else interfere with the laws or rules and regulations involved."

Besides the fact that my friend was treated rudely and denied a visa without any clear reason for it, I was treated with disrespect at almost every turn. My first letter was on Apr. 18: it took 3 letters, a personal discussion with the Ambassador, and numerous e-mails to get any answer at all, and that did not come until December (though the consular chief claims it was sent in August, still nearly 4 months after my first inquiry). My questions have never been answered. In summary, both a Thai national and an American citizen with a history of service to his country and Thailand have been ill-served by the system and people who were put in place by the United States to serve them.

Speak for yourself. I completely understand and appreciate the actions of the officer, and I am sure most US citizens do as well. Oh, you didn't get your way, so they're a bunch of Nazis? What a childish statement.

[Gary A]

Speak for yourself. I completely understand and appreciate the actions of the officer, and I am sure most US citizens do as well. Oh, you didn't get your way, so they're a bunch of Nazis? What a childish statement.

You must work for the Embassy. I forgot to mention in my previous post that when my Thai female friend's turn came to go to the window, she was very nervous so I went up with her. I was told by the gestapo female public servant that this was none of my concern and to go sit back down. I think that was very rude behavior from a US Embassy public servant.

[globalmenace]

No, don't work for the Embassy. But I did get two K2 visas. The entire burden of proof is on the visa applicant(s). You were not the applicant being interviewed, that is why she told you to go take a seat. I accompanied one of the K2 applicants to the Embassy, but I knew I shouldn't ask to help at the window, or interviews.

The Thai applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the ICE officer that the tourist visa applicant will leave the US when the visa expires. There is no checklist of hoops as if you are trying to get a drivers licence. Basically, you don't get one unless you're wealthy. Her assets in Thailand don't sound too impressive to me. Your stint in the Peace Corps doesn't (and shouldn't) mean squat. They also consider the demeanor and appearance of the applicant. Any chance you made a big stink when she told you to take a seat? That did not help her application.

Yes, some parts of the process are subjective and are left to the judgement of the officer. In fact, even if she got a US visa, do you realize that the ICE officer at the US port of entry can refuse to accept it?

I was always treated professionally by the US Embassy staff. Your Gestapo flourish, again, is childish.

[globalmenace]

Sorry to be the bearer of possible (probable?) bad news, but I'm thinking she'd not get a visa.

FYI, deposit of a bond is not accepted by U.S. Immigration, be nice if it was, but that option is out.

Biggest problem she'll have is establishing that she'd return to Thailand, and you're being seemingly anchored in the U.S. doesn't help. It might well look to the interviewing ConOff that she just wants to jump the fiance immigration queue. Giving up one's job isn't that big a deal.

Ages of you and her might also enter into a decision. You didn't state your ages, just my thought.

FYI, my now Thai wife got her first three tourist visas when she was still the G/F, last visa a 10-year one. But from the get-go, I was living here and retired, that was the deciding factor.

Mac

That is VERY interesting to me. I thought I would have to get a K1 or K2 to bring a Thai girlfriend back to the US sometime in the future, and I don't want to marry or get engaged. I'd like to speak with you, PM me please.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

A person in that general situation can go either of two routes... either the lady applying for a tourist visa for herself, or the man applying for a fiance visa on behalf of the lady...

There are different requirements and processes for each. But both could be available to someone in the general situation being discussed.

A couple of the main differences are:

--the tourist visa application process is shorter and less involved, but probably has a much higher rate of denials.

--the fiance visa application process is longer and more involved, but probably has a much better chance of approval for those who can submit all the required info and documentation.

--there's no limit to the number of times a person can apply for or receive a tourist visa... However, a particular man can only obtain a fiance visa ONE TIME with the same woman, and if they are not legally married I believe within 90 days after arrival, she is then required to leave the country. Once that woman has used the fiance visa with that particular man, the same couple can't ever do that again as a couple.

[HaruHaru]

I don't remember how much the application was but it wasn't cheap.

130 USD or equivalency in local currency.

It's non refundable, of course.

[theoldgit]

Actually, you'd probably do fine most of the time... just so long as you're not trying to get a visa for an average Thai person to visit the U.S.

Sadly that is probably the only time we, or at least my girlfriend, are likely to come into contact with US Embassy Staff.

[theoldgit]

Yes, some parts of the process are subjective and are left to the judgement of the officer. In fact, even if she got a US visa, do you realize that the ICE officer at the US port of entry can refuse to accept it?

I was always treated professionally by the US Embassy staff. Your Gestapo flourish, again, is childish.

I have never dealt with embassy officials, apart from at an official reception at the US Embassy in London, which was very pleasant, and IRS officials at the same embassy, who were very helpful.

My dealings with ICE officials at US borders have been for the most part fine, many of them are pretty miserable, but that's the same the world over, and some have been pretty amusing and cheerful, it is a pretty mind numbing job.

However I have dealt with some officials who were frankly worrying with their gung ho approach to alleged immigration offenders, I led a team of UKBA officials on a fact finding trip to the US and was pretty amazed at some of the officials attitude to offenders in their custody.

[oakweb]

6 years ago I was able to get a 10 year visa for my Thai girlfriend, but almost was refused.

My (Isan) Thai girlfriend and I went for a interview, I let her go up there and the nice American girl spoke Thai

to her asking the normal questions. She then spoke to me with a few normal questions. Then she said, "I'm sorry

I don't think I can grant her a Visa". I said to her if she had all my info.. that I was married to a Thai before

for 10 years, and that I live in Thailand. She then asked my girlfriend about that, which my girlfriend explained

I purchased a home here. I told her that it's no problem if you want to refuse, I will be ok with going for a Fiancé

Visa. She then looked at me and said, "I changed my mind, I'm going to give her the VISA".

I was really happy, she now has traveled back with me to the USA 7 times, and with that VISA I was also able to

get her a Schengen Visa and UK Visa for tourist travel there. But also we were refused twice for return trips to

Europe on Schengen Visas, not sure why.

She's now my wife, but my advice is if you want to try to take your girlfriend to USA, be prepared to show substantial

means and a good foothold in Thailand for yourself and your girlfriend.

[wildoates]

I understand why they watch this close, but I have seen Thais get tourtist visa's with ease cause they have good job (working for government, police, nurse) then go to the States, stay 6 months and work the entire time they are there. The one policemen bragged about be a pizza deliveryman, how much money he made. He and 6 others leased an Apt, then walked away from the last 6 months of the lease.....I know it is hard to guess who is the right person, but this policeman was not asked for bankstatement, property information, nothing but that he had a good job as a Policement.....yeah right

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 years ago I was able to get a 10 year visa for my Thai girlfriend, but almost was refused.

My (Isan) Thai girlfriend and I went for a interview, I let her go up there and the nice American girl spoke Thai

to her asking the normal questions. She then spoke to me with a few normal questions.

I've seen a couple of different posters talk about this, going with their wives or GF, for past tourist visa interviews....

Just so folks here are clear and aware, for the past year or more, the U.S. Consulate has changed their policy and they will no longer allow the guy (U.S. citizen) even inside the building when their SO goes for the interview....

The one time my GF went there for a tourist visa... the officer apparently couldn't find the copy of my latest visa stamp in our pile of documents, even though the copy was there.... So she asked my GF for my actual passport, which she didn't have, because I was locked out and sitting down the street at a coffee shop. Her app. for the TV was denied.

[CraigGarrison]

I got a 30 day for my girlfriend...came back 6mos later and got a 1yr...came back next yr and got a 10yr....then I married her...but not before also getting a European union visa so we could do Euro,,, everything went smooth....although I would add..as an American citizen you can request to speak to the consulate or the American assistant....especially if you detect the Thai at the window may have an attitiude....speaking of attitude....always be mindful of your own...be bubbly...happy...and chat up the lady at the window about how nice her jacket is or whatever...maybe the broach on her lapel etc...but dont hit on her...and never start barking at the window...just calmly state you'd like to talk to the consulate as you have another matter...then you may be able to clarify things easier...but again dont badmouth the window lady to the consulate either...and yes..everyone is correct...try to establish a reason why your girl will return to thailand for sure...its not usually wads of cash...its more than that...maybe shes the manager of her own store or shop...she wants to explore everything shes heard about America...or you promised her Disneyland as a reward...you've known each other a long time...etc... I knew mine for about a yr before we went to get it...and you should be in Bangkok..sorry but thats going to increase your chances drastically...you can tell the whole story to the consulate of how you met etc...and what the trip is really about etc...they just need to be reassured both in writing and judgement...one thing you also might try is to get a visa stating you want to go to either Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands which are a few hours from Thailand but are US...if you take a short vacay there and come back ...you'll have a history of coming back from the US technically...so the next visa shouldn't be a problem.....again...it reassures youre coming back...and a not so far away US territory is less of a risk to think about for the consulate......anyway...best advice is always be polite and patient in the office...people watch you on cameras to detect hostility or deceit while sitting there....your demeanor is everything...don't be hangin on your girlfriend either....

[inquisitive]

I've read all the posts to this point and believe them all. This includes the description of the officers' apparant attitudes, as well as the one post that applauded said attitudes. It is true that the American officials often act in a way that is absolutely astounding and embarassing to the core. What makes this so embarassing is that it is totally unnecessary. There are a hundred ways to say "no" without being rude, accusative, nasty, or threatening.

But I want to sick to the OP's request.

To understand this visa process you must embrace the idea that the officials start off with the belief that whatever they are told is most likely not true. They make it clear even on their website that they have one singleminded purpose, and that it to make sure that everyone granted a visa leaves the country when they are told. Maybe a better way to put their position would be "We know you are trying to trick us, and we're not going to let you." That's it. They think you are going to overstay, and they've got lots of experience to show they're probably right, so you've got to make it appear that there isn't a snowball's chance that you'll stay a minute longer than granted. Once you understand that principle, then everything else falls into place.

Bringing documentation is important, but I've been directly involved in only three cases - all of which received visas - and in 2/3 of them I know for a fact that the documentation wasd almost an afterthought. The first case took place six years ago. At that time my brother owned a business which imported Thai textiles. He got his company (meaning my brother - there were no other employees) to send a letter to his Thai supplier asking him to send a representative to meetings in the USA so they could better understand what was needed at both ends of this business connection. The Thai business owner then chose his daughter (surprise) and all the documentation was submitted to the US embassy. I do not know whether they were read, or what the girl looked like when she appeared, or any other detail. I do know that The embassy issued a 90 day visa with little ado. The girl has yet to return to Thailand, which kind of proved that there is a real basis for the distrust between officer and candidate.

In the next case, the Thai lady applying for eh visa had formerly been a teacher. She was now self-employed by a Thai division of an American company and had visited many countries on her Thai visa including Switzerland. The American company wrote to discuss her new promotion, her new duties and the six week training session she was to receive in New York. The letters were very specific as to dates and times, including references to hotel arrangements, transport, etc. The candidate brought all these plus har tax records, her house registration, car registration, and teaching license to the embassy. The interviewer took the documentation but never read a single item. She merely flipped through them and handed the packet back. She asked only about the company and the candidate's duties. In the end, the interviewer asked to see a sample of the products the company sold, and the candidate said she did not have any with her. The result was that the officer told her in a fairly haughty manner that she was denied a visa, but she COULD return with a sample if she wanted. It was clear that teh officer thought she had just about been successfully scammed. Her tone varied between sounding aloof and uninterested, to slightly hostile and disbelieving, and finally shooed the candidate away in an accusative manner.

The candidate returned a few days later, and again without seeing a single bit of documentary evidence - or even the requested sample - the officer smiled and announced "I'm giving you a ten year approval. Good luck," and it was over.

The third case came two years later. It was the mother of the last mentioned candidate. Her story was that her daughter lived with an American in Thailand. During those years, the American's elderly father came to spend many months with the Thai family and they all got very close. The father then returned to America where his health declined. Now the candidate and the American had a child, which the father had never seen, and everyone at the Thai end wanted to visit the father perhaps for the last time. Yep, the mother also got a 10 year stamp - this time without even the second visit.

So what made these work? Nobody knows, but I have very strong opinions. First of all, the daughter dressed in business clothes. Not sexy clothes, not party clothes. Strictly business. She is beautiful, but she seemed high class. She stood out in a room full of other beautiful ladies who looked, well, more attractive. You know what I mean. YEs, some looked like hookers, but most just were wearing their Sunday best, and that was a mistake. Skip the heels, or at least anything over an inch. The fact is that the immigration officer pretty much assumes that every woman under age 45 who applies is going to run away in the USA and become a prostitute. So don't feed that image. Don't look too sexy, and don't look financially desperate.

Sure it probably was important that the candidate had all the supporting stuff. But the decision both times seems to have been 90% made before the candidate even opened her mouth. Her apearance and demeanor took center stage.

When this candidate was turned down on her first visit she was so depressed that she almost refused to ever return. But when she came back, she walked up tp the window, smiled, and waied the officer (the same one from before). She quietly identified herself and the officer said that she was suprised to see her again. Then without another word, she told the candidate that she would get the visa. I believe down to my toes that it was the smile and appearance of respectful confidence that turned the tide. A wai goes a long way here.

In the case of this lady's mother, well, the mother owned a house, was leaving several other daughters and her husband behind, could not speak English so she would be travelling with her daughter, and was past streetwalking age, so it was easy. Still, she dressed like a respectful elder, and looked like the kind of person anyone would want to help.

So I guess my main advice is to follow all protocol, assemble all documentation, and remember that the first impression may be the whole ballgame.

Good luck.

[MJo]

OP, if she has good job, and can show financial means to fund the trip there should be no reason for her not getting a visa.

What my wife did was to apply tourist visa herself, also with job etc. All she needed was the required documentation including letter from employer, proof of finances, trip plan (no booked tickets or hotels etc, just a document prepared by her where she wanted to go and stay etc). Went for an interview, asked to provide the trip plan which she didn't have at that time but promised otherwise she was good and getting the visa. She delivered the trip plan few days later and was issued 10 years visa right away. This was her first application to US embassy.

And for the record i'm not from US nor i had anything to do with the application. She was planning a trip with her sister and went for it without me being involved in any way.

My advice would be to stay away from it, let her to apply on pure tourist basis. Not to visit and stay with "boyfriend" but as genuine tourist wanting to see US, go to Disneyland and meet up with some old friends at most.

I reckon the mistake most of the guys above have done is to storm the embassy and announce they want to "take their GF with them to US". Will send the alarm ringing at the embassy even if the intention is just to holiday in US for couple of weeks. So why not base the application on pure tourism as that what is or then go for fiancee visa or something else if the intention is to settle in US.

My 2 cents...

[yougivemebaby]

What if I am a US citizen and want my Thai girlfriend to come with me to Australia or NZ? Does anyone know the requirements for that?

[Sailfish1]

Sorry to be the bearer of possible (probable?) bad news, but I'm thinking she'd not get a visa.

FYI, deposit of a bond is not accepted by U.S. Immigration, be nice if it was, but that option is out.

Biggest problem she'll have is establishing that she'd return to Thailand, and you're being seemingly anchored in the U.S. doesn't help. It might well look to the interviewing ConOff that she just wants to jump the fiance immigration queue. Giving up one's job isn't that big a deal.

Ages of you and her might also enter into a decision. You didn't state your ages, just my thought.

FYI, my now Thai wife got her first three tourist visas when she was still the G/F, last visa a 10-year one. But from the get-go, I was living here and retired, that was the deciding factor.

Mac

Wow! You mean the U.S. gives out 10 year tourist visas? Now, why would anyone need a 10 year tourist visa? 10 years sounds more like a semi-permanent stay.

[theoldgit]

Wow! You mean the U.S. gives out 10 year tourist visas? Now, why would anyone need a 10 year tourist visa? 10 years sounds more like a semi-permanent stay.

It doesn't mean that you can stay in the US for ten years, it means that you can visit without applying for a new visa during the validity of the visa. Don't forget that even though you may have a visa that is valid for ten years that only allows you to board the aircraft and present yourself at the border, the border official will decide whether to admit you or not, and for how long.

[dighambara]

Actually, the sufficient ties language is pretty much the only reason they ever give because, that's the language in the statute requirement talking about what people are required to show in order to receive the visa... So basically they're just saying, you didn't meet our threshold. But "ties" can and does mean a whole basketful of specific things, and the applicant has no clue where they've come up short in the eyes of the consulate.... Beyond that, I don't think your final comment is justified by the many reports of members here on the subject, and general reports about the tourist visa process at the U.S. Consulate in BKK. There are people who basically have no reason or basis for getting a tourist visa who have been granted them... and on the opposite site, people who would seem to have more than enough specific factors in their support who have been denied.... All in all, based on a multitude of reports, it appears to be a tremendously arbitrary, capricious decision making process.

I couldn't agree more with this. Here is my own story, with all my anger: I now have been retired here for three years, but before that, my Thai girlfriend applied three times for a tourist visa to the United States while I was living in Berkeley, although I was in Thailand one of those times. All the times she produced all the supporting documents suggested by State Department guidelines, including documentation of the following:

• a university degree and a senior-level job of nine years standing at an import-export firm for whom she had gone on numerous business trips outside Thailand
• a 1.3 million baht townhouse and a 2003 Honda automobile in her own name
• a substantial savings account
• proof that she had been invited to visit the U.S. at a specific address for a specific two-week period a letter of support from me—a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand with a continuing history in that country.

Even with this she was turned down all three times, for reasons which were never made clear enough that she or I could comprehend them. The official justification was a general one: under section 214(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act she had failed to show evidence of compelling social, family, or economic ties outside the United States sufficient to ensure her return to Thailand. She was never told what, specifically, might have been seen lacking in the thorough documentation which she twice presented, the second time more fully. That third time she was (as was I, who at her request had come with her) treated so rudely that she left the Embassy fuming.

The application was rejected by a junior consular official who spoke bad Thai and seemed bad-natured and prejudiced against her from the start, and who did not provide us with her name or any explanation of the reasons behind decision she made. This person told me to sit down before I had gotten a whole sentence out, but not before asking me, as if it were any of her business, whether I was married or not. My friend was especially furious because she had overheard a Thai translator tell (in English) the ignorant Nazi behind the bulletproof glass that she thought my friend was most likely a prostitute. They seemed to find all the foreign stamps in her passport (for business trips--Beijing, Cebu, Singapore, etc., as she explained) extremely suspicious. Go figure.

I wrote a letter in April to the U.S. Ambassador in Bangkok, explaining why I felt my friend had been treated unfairly. I received no answer that month. On May 7th I sent an inquiry by e-mail to him, care of the Embassy, and was assured by a staff member that he would get back to me by the end of May. I heard nothing that month either. As a member of Friends of Thailand I was invited to a dinner on June 6th in Berkeley, CA. for the Ambassador, who happened to also be a former Thailand Peace Corps Volunteer. I sat almost directly across the table from the ambassador and we engaged in pleasant conversation the entire evening. When I brought up the issue of the letter, he said that he had forwarded the letter to the Visa Section and that it was wrong that I had not received a reply, suggested he might look at the case and put a note of support in the file, and at the end of the night assured me that I would be hearing from him. "I'll be getting back to you" were the exact words he used.

On July 12th, having heard nothing, I sent another inquiry to the Embassy in Bangkok, attaching another letter to the Ambassador. The same staff member told me he had immediately passed it on to Mr. Johnson. By the end of July, I still had not gotten any response, so I sent one more inquiry to the Embassy. On July 30th I was again told that "a response is coming." I had given several e-mail addresses and a land address in Berkeley, all of which I checked daily for mail, and never received anything in the next months. Finally, on November 30th, I sent an appeal to the Ambassador using his personal e-mail address, which was listed on the Friends of Thailand website. This produced a flurry of e-mail correspondence lasting nearly a week.

First I got a note from the Embassy staff telling me to not use the ambassador's personal e-mail. Attached was a note supposedly sent on August 2nd from the chief of the Visa Section, telling me what I already had known since April, that my friend had been denied a Visa under section 214(a) of the INA. The note did not apologize for the interviewer's rudeness, or the tardiness of the reply, but rather suggested that I must have been mistaken in thinking the interviewer was rude, because they were all trained not to be, and saying that if my friend reapplied, "without evidence of strong ties in Thailand, the application will again be rejected." Since this was not in the least responsive to my letters, I wrote back to the consular chief asking for specifics of the case: what more documentation could my friend have provided?

His reaction to my questions was, again, not responsive, and clearly showed his irritation with me: "I cannot engage in a point by point discussion of the issues you raise." His final sentence was a terse "unless and until she does reapply, I will not reply to any further messages other than purely procedural questions on how she can make her application." When I informed the Ambassador through official e-mail that I wasn't satisfied, he sent me the only personal response I ever got from him, which was what I could only feel was an angry one: " . . . receiving a U.S. visa is not a right, it is a priviledge(sic). It is against the law for anyone to overrule or to instruct a visa officer to change his or her judgement. . . . my assumption was that you wanted an answer to the questions and concerns you had raised . . . I now gather that your primary interest was in getting a reply from me."

I really couldn't let this sit, so I wrote one final note to the ambassador, attempting to correct his mistaken impression, and gave this parting shot: "I am astounded that you would make any reference to things that are 'against the law,' as I have never made a suggestion that you or anyone else interfere with the laws or rules and regulations involved."

Besides the fact that my friend was treated rudely and denied a visa without any clear reason for it, I was treated with disrespect at almost every turn. My first letter was on Apr. 18: it took 3 letters, a personal discussion with the Ambassador, and numerous e-mails to get any answer at all, and that did not come until December (though the consular chief claims it was sent in August, still nearly 4 months after my first inquiry). My questions have never been answered. In summary, both a Thai national and an American citizen with a history of service to his country and Thailand have been ill-served by the system and people who were put in place by the United States to serve them.

Speak for yourself. I completely understand and appreciate the actions of the officer, and I am sure most US citizens do as well. Oh, you didn't get your way, so they're a bunch of Nazis? What a childish statement.

IMHO - You have never had to deal with the US Embassy in this regard. For myself, or my daughters US Citizens, they have aways bee professional but for my wife (Thai), rudeness is the routine...

So, NAZIs seems a reasonabble description...

[nycpal44]

If your GF has a good and steady job, can show a good amount of money in her bank account and presents herself well during the interview at the US Embassy, then I do not see any reason why they would not grant her a VISA to the US.

[dancw3]

No, don't work for the Embassy. But I did get two K2 visas. The entire burden of proof is on the visa applicant(s). You were not the applicant being interviewed, that is why she told you to go take a seat. I accompanied one of the K2 applicants to the Embassy, but I knew I shouldn't ask to help at the window, or interviews.

The Thai applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the ICE officer that the tourist visa applicant will leave the US when the visa expires. There is no checklist of hoops as if you are trying to get a drivers licence. Basically, you don't get one unless you're wealthy. Her assets in Thailand don't sound too impressive to me. Your stint in the Peace Corps doesn't (and shouldn't) mean squat. They also consider the demeanor and appearance of the applicant. Any chance you made a big stink when she told you to take a seat? That did not help her application.

Yes, some parts of the process are subjective and are left to the judgement of the officer. In fact, even if she got a US visa, do you realize that the ICE officer at the US port of entry can refuse to accept it?

I was always treated professionally by the US Embassy staff. Your Gestapo flourish, again, is childish.

Given the postings about Thai women who have gotten visas with much less qualifications, I think you comment about him acting like a child and the rejection completely understandable is really obnoxious. But I think that the Nazi characterization is inaccurate. It should have been politically correct instead of Nazi. The woman was obviously threatened by Thai women and assuming the Thai woman was a prostitute. And that is wrong and blatant discrimination and something should have been done about it. But I think the Ambassador's . comment about it being illegal for him to intercede is telling. Its probably very touchy and politically dangerous for him to intercede. He would need some very serious motivation to intercede.