Marriage Visa Extension Denied - Even Tough I Met All Requirements

[Nickthegreek]

I think its purely down to all the factors that have been done to death here, but sadly we all know that the Immigration Officers are the boss and last and final contact point for us to gain our stay each year.

It seems that the officer was correct if I read it and without a work permit how can you have an income in ThaIland, its black and white to them, hence he asked for 400,000 k baht, sadly as previously mentioned showing him on your Ipad the rules and regs will have clearly got up his nose and compounding that with asking to see his supervisor meant closing ranks.Maybe a short term loan on your house will help you while you season the 400K baht and to be honest make your life easier moving forward...It took me 6 years of jumping through hoops and I like you have a child, wife, house, but I keep the cash in the bank locked away for infinity, this year my extension took 15 minutes, never known ity so good, why it took hours every other year god only knows.!! nothing has ever changed.

Dust yourself down, stand up straight and best foot forward, no matter how hard they make it you can overcome it, its worth it in the long run, make the change now and get with their programme and all in good time this will seem like a long bad memory, well forgotten !!

[ubonjoe]

I think its purely down to all the factors that have been done to death here, but sadly we all know that the Immigration Officers are the boss and last and final contact point for us to gain our stay each year.

It seems that the officer was correct if I read it and without a work permit how can you have an income in ThaIland, its black and white to them, hence he asked for 400,000 k baht, sadly as previously mentioned showing him on your Ipad the rules and regs will have clearly got up his nose and compounding that with asking to see his supervisor meant closing ranks.Maybe a short term loan on your house will help you while you season the 400K baht and to be honest make your life easier moving forward...It took me 6 years of jumping through hoops and I like you have a child, wife, house, but I keep the cash in the bank locked away for infinity, this year my extension took 15 minutes, never known ity so good, why it took hours every other year god only knows.!! nothing has ever changed.

 

Dust yourself down, stand up straight and best foot forward, no matter how hard they make it you can overcome it, its worth it in the long run, make the change now and get with their programme and all in good time this will seem like a long bad memory, well forgotten !!

 

I guess you skipped all the posts saying that the 40k baht income option is allowed.

I have gotten 6 consecutive extensions based upon marriage with just an income document. The OP had 4 before this one the same way.

The immigration officer was 100% wrong.

[Nickthegreek]

I think its purely down to all the factors that have been done to death here, but sadly we all know that the Immigration Officers are the boss and last and final contact point for us to gain our stay each year.

It seems that the officer was correct if I read it and without a work permit how can you have an income in ThaIland, its black and white to them, hence he asked for 400,000 k baht, sadly as previously mentioned showing him on your Ipad the rules and regs will have clearly got up his nose and compounding that with asking to see his supervisor meant closing ranks.Maybe a short term loan on your house will help you while you season the 400K baht and to be honest make your life easier moving forward...It took me 6 years of jumping through hoops and I like you have a child, wife, house, but I keep the cash in the bank locked away for infinity, this year my extension took 15 minutes, never known ity so good, why it took hours every other year god only knows.!! nothing has ever changed.

Dust yourself down, stand up straight and best foot forward, no matter how hard they make it you can overcome it, its worth it in the long run, make the change now and get with their programme and all in good time this will seem like a long bad memory, well forgotten !!

I guess you skipped all the posts saying that the 40k baht income option is allowed.

I have gotten 6 consecutive extensions based upon marriage with just an income document. The OP had 4 before this one the same way.

The immigration officer was 100% wrong.

No, but is it that they are tightening up on the rules ?? who knows, if you have an income surely you are working was my point and how easily one could be confused by the rules, not what's been done before its what's being done today surely.

Lets hope then its not a new rule and an income document will no longer suffice.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Nickthegreek

[JLCrab]

The immigration officer was 100% wrong. I ran that one through my James Earl Jones / Darth Vader voice synthesizer

[ubonjoe]

 

I think its purely down to all the factors that have been done to death here, but sadly we all know that the Immigration Officers are the boss and last and final contact point for us to gain our stay each year.

It seems that the officer was correct if I read it and without a work permit how can you have an income in ThaIland, its black and white to them, hence he asked for 400,000 k baht, sadly as previously mentioned showing him on your Ipad the rules and regs will have clearly got up his nose and compounding that with asking to see his supervisor meant closing ranks.Maybe a short term loan on your house will help you while you season the 400K baht and to be honest make your life easier moving forward...It took me 6 years of jumping through hoops and I like you have a child, wife, house, but I keep the cash in the bank locked away for infinity, this year my extension took 15 minutes, never known ity so good, why it took hours every other year god only knows.!! nothing has ever changed.

 

Dust yourself down, stand up straight and best foot forward, no matter how hard they make it you can overcome it, its worth it in the long run, make the change now and get with their programme and all in good time this will seem like a long bad memory, well forgotten !!

 

I guess you skipped all the posts saying that the 40k baht income option is allowed.

I have gotten 6 consecutive extensions based upon marriage with just an income document. The OP had 4 before this one the same way.

The immigration officer was 100% wrong.

 

No, but is it that they are tightening up on the rules ?? who knows, if you have an income surely you are working was my point and how easily one could be confused by the rules, not what's been done before its what's being done today surely.

Lets hope then its not a new rule and an income document will no longer suffice.

I am certainly not working and neither is the OP.

There has been no changes in the rules or any tightening up.

Just an immigration officer being an a**.

[pmarlin]

I think we have been had, I bet it never happened like the OP claims. Reminds me of a similar post a few months ago about someone who was trying to get an marriage extension at CW and was given a hard by a male officer who made an advance to the persons wife asking her out for coffee.

[Papadragon]

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !
Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.
Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.
End of discussion

Edited November 3, 2013 by Papadragon

[ubonjoe]

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !

Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.

Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.

End of discussion

What does being under 50 have to do with it?

Trying to make an issue over the use of the word earn is ridiculous.

The immigration officer was wrong.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ubonjoe

[JLCrab]

If the account by the OP in Post #1 and a few subsequent is correct, then it sure seems that the extension should have been issued and that the officer in question either is unfamiliar with even the basic language of the 2 Police Orders, or is maybe a total nut case.

Of course, if it were to turn out that the OP in all this is the total nut case, it would not be the first time.

[lopburi3]

Flame removed.

[ubonjoe]

 

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !

Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.  

Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.

End of discussion

   

What does being under 50 have to do with it?

Trying to make an issue over the use of the word earn is ridiculous.

The immigration officer was wrong.

 

 

You really must learn to read before you write UbonJoe

For an extension the Over 50's the requirement is Income - for the under 50's the requirement is Earnings.

Unearnt Income for the under 50's does NOT qualify ! 

Either the female officers got it wrong in the past or the rules have changed !

The Thai Immigration officer was absolutely correct in refusing the OP an extension unless he could show TB400,000 in the bank, his supervisor agreed with him and so do I. 

If you disagree with Thai Immigration I suggest you pay for his appeal and see how far you get with it Thai Rak Thai  

As I said before - end of discussion !

Being 50 or over is a requirement for retirement extensions.

Age is not mentioned at all in the rules for extensions based upon marriage.

You need to go back read the posts showing info from 305/2551.

I have 6 extensions of stay based upon marriage by showing an income of 40k baht and I am not working.

You and the immigration officer are both wrong. The female officers were right.

[JLCrab]

The header of the Police Order 305/2551 states that it is issued "Pursuant to Police Order No. 777/2551" therefore, if there was an issue of interpretation, it would seem by the use of the word "pursuant' that the language of 777 would take precedence over that in 305.

[Nickthegreek]

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !

Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.

Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.

End of discussion

Papadragon, you and I get it !!! back to sleep me thinks !!!

[whybother]

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !

Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.

Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.

End of discussion

Look up the definition of earn.

[JLCrab]

From Dictionary.com:

earn1 [urn]

verb (used with object)

1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living.

2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned.

3. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty.

4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest.

From dictionary front-pieces:

"The definition appearing first is the one most frequently used. Successive definitions are listed .. in order of declining frequency of use rather than according to semantic evolution."

Generally words in dictionary definitions are ranked in order of commonality of use or "usualness of meaning".

For a word with a large number of meanings, the top few definitions may be of similar likeliness of meaning in common use, but definitions towards the bottom of the list will be ones which are rarely used and/or whose meanings are obscure or archaic.

Edited November 3, 2013 by JLCrab

[whybother]

From Dictionary.com:

earn1 [urn]

verb (used with object)

1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living.

2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned.

3. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty.

4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest.

From dictionary front-pieces:

"The definition appearing first is the one most frequently used. Successive definitions are listed .. in order of declining frequency of use rather than according to semantic evolution."

Generally words in dictionary definitions are ranked in order of commonality of use or "usualness of meaning".

For a word with a large number of meanings, the top few definitions may be of similar likeliness of meaning in common use, but definitions towards the bottom of the list will be ones which are rarely used and/or whose meanings are obscure or archaic.

The bit you added at the bottom is a general piece for ALL definitions, and doesn't mean that the lower definitions of "earn" are rarely used, obscure or archaic.

Do a search of "earn interest" and you will see that it is widely used.

[JLCrab]

You'd have a tough argument to make as to why a less-predominant usage should take precedence over the most common usage as indicated in any dictionary.

Edited November 3, 2013 by JLCrab

[whybother]

You'd have a tough argument to make as to why a less-predominant usage should take precedence over the most common usage as indicated in any dictionary.

They are all valid meanings. Why should one meaning take precedence over the others? Just because one meaning is used more, that doesn't make the other meanings invalid.

[thaiexpat21]

Earn

verb

[with object]

1. obtain (money) in return for labour or services:

he earns his living as a lorry driver

[with two objects]:

earn yourself a few pounds

[with two objects] (of an activity) cause (someone) to obtain (money):

this latest win earned them $50,000 in prize money

(of capital invested) gain (money) as interest or profit:

the dollars can be placed on deposit and earn interest

2. gain deservedly in return for one’s behaviour or achievements:

through the years she has earned affection and esteem

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/earn

Edit

Clarity!

Sorry about the American bias but there seem to me many of them here !

Edited November 3, 2013 by thaiexpat21

[JLCrab]

But what you and others are saying here is that the interpretation of the word 'earn' in 777/2551 2.18 (6) should revert to the less common usage as per any dictionary and that the less common usage should take precedence. What I suggested way back when is that maybe the Officer in question is using the word 'earn' in its most common usage and you and others are saying that is the usage which is not valid.

[Papadragon]

The translation of Police Order 777/2551 for the 65K baht In Case of Retirement 2.22 (3) says: "Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month; or..."

In 2.18 (6) it says: "In the case of marriage to a Thai woman, the alien husband must earn an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month or ..."

So for retirement purposes one must have evidence of an income but for extension based upon marriage it uses the word 'earn'.

Being the beneficiary of a trust certainly is income but one might say that one does not EARN such income noting that the translation on the Immigration website was prepared by the law firm Tillike & Gibbins.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly argue with the above !

Clearly the Thai Immigration officer is absolutely correct in NOT granting an extension based on marriage to an alien under 50 who's income is clearly not "earnt" as defined in this translation.

Any appeal would be a total waste of time and money because there is no doubt that it would fail.

End of discussion

Papadragon, you and I get it !!! back to sleep me thinks !!!

Agreed - zzzzzzzzzzzz

The problem here is the expectation that one Thai will overule another in favour of an Alien - forget it !

They have a lot to learn about the Thai mentality Thai Rak Thai

[whybother]

But what you and others are saying here is that the interpretation of the word 'earn' in 777/2551 2.18 (6) should revert to the less common usage as per any dictionary and that the less common usage should take precedence. What I suggested way back when is that maybe the Officer in question is using the word 'earn' in its most common usage and you and others are saying that is the usage which is not valid.

No. What we are saying is that earn could have many meanings. Why does it only have to have one meaning?

The clause says that you need to "earn" money. That means, it could be salary, pension, or interest.

And as I said before, why should one meaning take precedence over the others? They are all valid meanings.

[JLCrab]

Why should one meaning take precedence? Because what I was suggesting is that the most common definition is the one that the Officer in this case might have chosen to employ and if you did not meet the conditions of HIS usage that might have been the reason for the denial of extension.

[whybother]

Why should one meaning take precedence? Because what I was suggesting is that the most common definition is the one that the Officer in this case might have chosen to employ and if you did not meet the conditions of HIS usage that might have been the reason for the denial of extension.

Why should ANY meaning take precedence? They are all valid meanings, and may all apply.

Why do words/terms have multiple meanings if any one meaning was to take precedence just because it was the most used?

You seem to want all words to only ever have a single meaning, with less used meanings not being allowed to be valid. That's just stupid.

[thaiexpat21]

Why should one meaning take precedence? Because what I was suggesting is that the most common definition is the one that the Officer in this case might have chosen to employ and if you did not meet the conditions of HIS usage that might have been the reason for the denial of extension.

Why should ANY meaning take precedence? They are all valid meanings, and may all apply.

Why do words/terms have multiple meanings if any one meaning was to take precedence just because it was the most used?

You seem to want all words to only ever have a single meaning, with less used meanings not being allowed to be valid. That's just stupid.

Common usage / understanding is recognised as as being valid in UK courts of law.

Attempting to ague an antiquated or poorly understood meaning of a word is usually doomed to failure !

[JLCrab]

Words may have multiple meanings, but when you go into the IMM office at C-W, the officer sitting across from you is there to interpret the regulations as per his or her 'consideration' of your application and its 'supporting' documents. You are not there on equal grounds. He or she calls the shots. They can use any appropriate interpretation of the regulations and they can either deny or approve your application.

And if the word used in 777 is 'earn' and they want to interpret that word in the most common way it is defined in any dictionary, it really doesn't make any difference what it says in any 'pursuant' regulation in further consideration.

Edited November 3, 2013 by JLCrab

[thaiexpat21]

Words may have multiple meanings, but when you go into the IMM office at C-W, the officer sitting across from you is there to interpret the regulations as per his or her 'consideration' of your application and its 'supporting' documents. You are not there on equal grounds. He or she calls the shots. They can use any appropriate interpretation of the regulations and they can either deny or approve your application.

And if the word used in 777 is 'earn' and they want to interpret that word in the most common way it is defined in any dictionary, it really doesn't make any difference what it says in any 'pursuant' regulation in further consideration.

See my post immediately above

[ubonjoe]

I think all this discussion about the meaning of earn is unneeded because immigration defined it when thy wrote 305/2551 which for all intents and purposes says if you have any money coming in and can prove it is legally obtained (IE: not earned here without a work permit) you can use it to get an extension.

[JLCrab]

The header for 305/2551 Police Order says that it issued 'pursuant' to the criteria and conditions listed in 777/551 and then goes on to describe supporting documents for such consideration of application. The criteria and conditions come from 777/2551; 305/2551 doesn't define anything. It only describes examples of evidence of income.

Even if unusual, if an officer wanted to insist to use the most common usage of the word 'earn' in 777, even if evidence were presented as in 305, one might say he still has a legal basis for doing so.

Edited November 3, 2013 by JLCrab

[whybother]

 

Why should one meaning take precedence? Because what I was suggesting is that the most common definition is the one that the Officer in this case might have chosen to employ and if you did not meet the conditions of HIS usage that might have been the reason for the denial of extension.

 

Why should ANY meaning take precedence?  They are all valid meanings, and may all apply.

 

Why do words/terms have multiple meanings if any one meaning was to take precedence just because it was the most used?

 

You seem to want all words to only ever have a single meaning, with less used meanings not being allowed to be valid.  That's just stupid.

 

 

 

Common usage / understanding is recognised as  as being valid in UK courts of law.

 

Attempting to ague an antiquated or poorly understood meaning of a word is usually doomed to failure !

Except "earn interest" is not an antiquated or poorly understood meaning. It's just not as common as "earn wage/salary".

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app