Is It Compulsory To Use A Visa If You Have One When Entering Thailand?

[hyperdimension]

When entering Thailand, sometimes you may want to delay the use of your visa (e.g. 60-day tourist visa) if you are planning to exit soon after entering (e.g. within the following 2 weeks), and instead enter on a 15-day visa exemption stamp (or 30-day if entering at airport). Is this allowed, or would they force you to enter using the visa?

Would it also be allowed, after having used the first entry of a tourist visa, to delay the use of a second entry and instead enter on a visa exemption stamp?

[lopburi3]

You can ask and often it is allowed. But at times it is not or you are given the choice of using visa or having it canceled.

[hyperdimension]

You can ask and often it is allowed. But at times it is not or you are given the choice of using visa or having it canceled.

Why should the visa be canceled? Is it a written rule? Shouldn't the visa be left alone and remain valid for use any time before the "Enter Before" date?

On some occasions I have been able to enter on visa exemption stamps even though I had a valid visa, maybe because the immigration officers didn't notice the valid visa.

But on my latest entry at Sunvarnabhumi I said "no visa" when I handed my passport, so the officer did the usual 30-day visa exemption stamp, then flicked through the pages and found my brand new visa and started asking questions to her supervisor. I told her that I don't want to use the visa, but after asking her supervisor again she restamped a new "Until" date (60 days) (and crossed out the 30-day date) and stamped my visa. I complained and was taken away to argue with a few different people, but I was told that I must use the visa. It would've been a mess anyway to backtrack after having already received the stamps and a crossed-out date stamp.

Logically, since I applied and paid money for the visa, it should be my right to decide when I want to actually use it (any time before the "Enter Before" date) if I have the option not to. So is there any written rule that states that I cannot enter on a visa exemption stamp if I have a valid visa, and if I do, the visa would be canceled?

[Mario2008]

Immigration might feel that you need to use the visa, since you have one. If you don't want to make use of it, they may cancel it. Is there a written rule, that is unknown. There might or might not be, but going to court about it will cost a lot of time and money with an uncertain outcome.

if you want to go that way make sure you meet all immigration requirements, like having enough cash on you and being in possession of proof of onward travel within 30 days of arrival. A telephone umber of a lawyer might also come in handy.

[merijn]

Like some says, You can ask for it but most of the time the officer will use the use visa when you have one.

[Maestro]

You applied for your visa for the purpose of travelling to Thailand. You got your visa, you travelled to Thailand, the visa has served its purpose and unless it is valid for more than one entry it is no longer valid for travel to Thailand. That's the official situation regarding visas in general, world-wide. Knowing that you were going to make two trips to Thailand you had the option of applying for a tourist visa valid for two entries.

[hyperdimension]

You applied for your visa for the purpose of travelling to Thailand. You got your visa, you travelled to Thailand, the visa has served its purpose and unless it is valid for more than one entry it is no longer valid for travel to Thailand.

I do not need to apply for a visa if I wish to travel to and stay in Thailand for less than the specified visa-exempt period (15 days if entering by land, 30 days if entering at airport).

I applied for the visa in order to stay in Thailand for longer than 30 days.

I am allowed to travel to Thailand more than once.

So if my plan was to stay in Thailand firstly for 2 weeks then leave and at a later date come back to stay for more than 30 days, then I should be allowed to enter on a visa exempt stamp on my first trip, and use the visa for my second trip.

The visa should remain usable any time before the "Enter Before" date that is written on the visa, and it should be my right to choose whether and when to make use of it.

[Maestro]

...I am allowed to travel to Thailand more than once...

Of course, you are:

Trip 1: travel without a visa in your passport --> receive visa-exempt permission to stay for 30 days.

Trip 2: travel with a tourist visa in your passport --> receive permission to stay for 60 days.

But that is not what you did. You made trip 1 with a tourist and received what this entitled you to: 60 days. There were two criteria attached to the use of the visa: one trip only; enter Thailand before the given date. You complied with both criteria and got what you paid for. The fact that in the past this was not strictly enforced and you were allowed a visa-exempt entry before using the visa entry does not invalidate the standard concept that the visa is used for the first entry you make after receiving the visa.

[Maestro]

You may say that neither the visa application form nor the visa itself state that no visa-exempt entry may be made prior to the use of the visa, and you will be right. For reasons that I am unable to explain I always assumed with my visa applications that it would be valid only for the very first trip I make after receiving the visa. Perhaps it seemed logical to me. "Dear Consul, may I please have a visa to travel to Thailand?", I ask. "Certainly, my good man, here it is", he replies. The visa does not say what I am not allowed to do; it logically says what it allows me to do, ie one journey to Thailand within a specified date.

There are so many things the visa does not allow me to do, listing them all would probably fill up half my passport.

[Maestro]

I do not need to apply for a visa if I wish to travel to and stay in Thailand for less than the specified visa-exempt period (15 days if entering by land, 30 days if entering at airport).

I applied for the visa in order to stay in Thailand for longer than 30 days...

Since we are looking at the finer points of technicality of a visa it is opportune to clarify that you did not apply for a visa to stay in Thailand, but to travel to Thailand. It was valid for this purpose alone, until the moment you placed your passport into the hands of the Thai immigration officer at Bangkok airport. It was then this immigration officer who gave you permission to stay and he based the period of stay on the type of visa you had in your passport. At a cursory glance it may look the same, but procedurally there is a clear distinction.

[Colabamumbai]

You can ask and often it is allowed. But at times it is not or you are given the choice of using visa or having it canceled.

Why should the visa be canceled? Is it a written rule? Shouldn't the visa be left alone and remain valid for use any time before the "Enter Before" date?

On some occasions I have been able to enter on visa exemption stamps even though I had a valid visa, maybe because the immigration officers didn't notice the valid visa.

But on my latest entry at Sunvarnabhumi I said "no visa" when I handed my passport, so the officer did the usual 30-day visa exemption stamp, then flicked through the pages and found my brand new visa and started asking questions to her supervisor. I told her that I don't want to use the visa, but after asking her supervisor again she restamped a new "Until" date (60 days) (and crossed out the 30-day date) and stamped my visa. I complained and was taken away to argue with a few different people, but I was told that I must use the visa. It would've been a mess anyway to backtrack after having already received the stamps and a crossed-out date stamp.

Logically, since I applied and paid money for the visa, it should be my right to decide when I want to actually use it (any time before the "Enter Before" date) if I have the option not to. So is there any written rule that states that I cannot enter on a visa exemption stamp if I have a valid visa, and if I do, the visa would be canceled?

Very good question, and replies. I still learn something new everyday on TVF.

[impulse]

Trying to apply commercial logic to immigration (and other official government) issues gets a lot of folks in trouble, myself included over the years.

While I agree with the OP's argument, rules are rules, and they are interpreted differently from place to place and from officer to officer and from time to time.

If that sounds contradictory, my point has been made.

The rule I live by is this: Just because I did it last year in BKK doesn't mean I can do it this year anywhere, and vice versa. Always have a plan B. You'll need it if you travel enough.

[ubonjoe]

If you have a tourist visa and are planning a trip shortly after arrival you can get a single re-entry permit for 1000 baht at immigration for the 60 day entry (and/or 30 day extension) that would keep what remains of that entry valid when your return.

But in reality it would be about the same cost to get a visa with more entries and save a trip to immigration.

[USNret]

on my latest entry at Sunvarnabhumi I said "no visa" when I handed my passport, so the officer did the usual 30-day visa exemption stamp, then flicked through the pages and found my brand new visa and started asking questions to her supervisor. I told her that I don't want to use the visa, but after asking her supervisor again she restamped a new "Until" date (60 days) (and crossed out the 30-day date) and stamped my visa. I complained and was taken away to argue with a few different people, but I was told that I must use the visa.

It could be that you simply p*ssed off the immigration official by telling a lie (big no no in any immigration setting). I have no idea if it would have helped or not, but if you had said "I would like visa exempt entry please) they might have been more accommodating.

[hyperdimension]

Trip 1: travel without a visa in your passport --> receive visa-exempt permission to stay for 30 days.

Trip 2: travel with a tourist visa in your passport --> receive permission to stay for 60 days.

But that is not what you did. You made trip 1 with a tourist and received what this entitled you to: 60 days.

That's what happened, but it's not what I wanted. I tried to prevent the officer from using the visa yet she still did it, and I protested afterward but it was a bit too late after stamps were made and changed. So my reason for creating this thread was for some clarification and discussion about what happened.

What if my first entry was just a one night stopover on my way to another country? Would it be fair for them to use the tourist visa just for my one night stay when my plan was to only use the visa for my second and longer trip? That would be a wasted 1,000 baht (cost of the visa) as well as wasted time (applying for it).

[hyperdimension]

it logically says what it allows me to do, ie one journey to Thailand within a specified date.

The key phrase there is "within a specified date". In a visa application you specify the intended entry date for which you want to enter using the visa for which you are applying. So based on my plans, (one very short trip, and then a longer trip), I would write the entry date of my second trip on the application, because I would need a visa for that trip. I am not applying for a visa for the first trip because I don't need one. Where does it say that a visa, after being granted, is only valid for the very next entry into the country?

[lopburi3]

You asked a question and it has been answered. This now appears to be an attempt to continue a troll and will end rather than cause more confusion.