I had my British Embassy Income letter rejected by immigration for my annual extension of stay - Ban

[spambot]

Setting off on my travels last Thursday morning everything seemed to be going just too well. The Kasikorn bank letter was typed out while I waited (they even forgot to charge me) I then walked up from Banglamphu branch up to Samsen road and then immediately along came a no 3 bus - It took me to Chatachak market (BTS) and then along came the no 52 bus that took me to immigration. I got to immigration and got my queue ticket and I was further delighted to find that there were only four people ahead of me and all booths were operating / staffed with officials. My number was displayed 15 mins latter and the first inspection officer took around 15 mins with all my documents.

Usually it’s at the first inspection where any of the issues start. But this time nothing was raised and everything was fine and no problem at all, not even any changes to the form was required and no new copies of anything.

So it was off to the final process - which always feels like there is nothing to worry about and just a formality since the real inspection has passed - This final process I though was just about getting a signature nothing more.

Well no – this did not happen – The lady officer she began in earnest inspecting my paperwork again for what seemed forever, back and forward, back and forward and then finally she settled on my income statement and stayed looking at this particular letter for over four minutes (which is rather surprising since there are only nine lines of text).

Quick overview of the income letter: On the income letter the first three lines typed are to convey my identity and my passport number. The next two lines identify my address in Thailand and the next three lines identify my monthly total with annual total / source of the revenue. This is the part she did not like – Where the wording says

“and has shown us banking statements from Yorkshire bank stating that he receives incomes totalling GBP xxx”

For the next two hours (but with a one hour break for lunch) I waited and asked (when I could0 what was the problem – The only answer I got was a few words of English repeating the same word “Yorkshire Bank” and with a body language indicating that it was unacceptable. All the real conversations were in Thai between the officers on duty.

I think that I was only allowed to remain around for this long in the office as a problem (and not expelled earlier with a rejection) was because the first inspecting officer had stamped my passport in preparation for the second inspecting officer to sign. So I had a stamp in my passport but with no signature hence there was some dilemma on what to do next.

Eventually after much time and going away to someone even higher in the immigration office I was told by the officer that Thai immigration would ignore the current ‘unacceptability on the income statement’, but I would never be allowed to present income statements from the British Embassy again in any future applications for an extension.

I told the officer that I did not want to give up this right.

Not only was I told I needed to do this, but I was then forced to make a further declaration at the bottom of my tm 7 form – This was in order to get the extension signed by the officer. This statement was to the effect that I would never use an income letter from the British Embassy ever again (this document is viewed electronically on screen on your next application time). I could not get a signature to extend my stay for 12 months until I did this so it was entirely forced to do this - since there seemed to be little or no other options opened to me.

Trying to figure this out after I thought everyone had a right to present an income letter for proof as part of any extension application. So can this statement forced from me be claimed to be binding if I actually do turn up next time with such a letter? Since everyone’s situations changes between income letters so whatever they disliked today about my income sources it could be a different set of circumstances supporting any income letter in the future.

If this is enforceable it seems that they have effectively placed a ban on me as a person and not my ability to provide what they need for a valid application which they set out within their policy. Would they really make a ban for a specific individual?

I thought about what I could have done differently with the management of the income letter. But I have no control of what I could have done to change this in any way since when I apply for the letter since I am told what documents I should show and I simply supply the documents as requested (bank statements). Neither am I in control of the wording that is typed on the letter after the British embassy personnel after they have inspected my documents. Hence I cannot alter a situation that I have no control over. – Besides I still do not know what the problem really was that I was needed to solve. I do not know if the word Bank or the name of the Bank was the problem or if they needed a different word that was omitted - I have no clue what I could do if I was to change something for next time (if I had a next time) since immigration would not say what the problem was.

And if the Embassy knows that immigration do not like a particular form of wording on these statements then I am sure that they wouldn’t place it in any of their standard letter formats. And if I had not proven to the Embassy that I have this earning then they would not have provided me with the letter to start with.

But I guess it’s most likely that simply there was nothing wrong with the letter and I was just unlucky.

What hurts the most is being made to feel just simply worthless during this whole process.

I have sent letters to the British Embassy and to the head of Thai immigration, but I’m not really sure if this will do any good though.

[theoldgit]

Moved to Thai Visa Section.

[JLCrab]

So given the letter from Kasikorn Bank and the Income verification from the Bangkok UK Embassy can we assume the OP was using or attempting to use a combination method?

Edited December 1, 2013 by JLCrab

[ubonjoe]

I wouldn't worry about it. Next year just get the letter but perhaps ask them to change the wording a bit.

Are you using the combination of income and money in the bank?

Or was the bank letter just a back up to income letter?

[OJAS]

Looks like you may have had the misfortune to encounter an officer who got out of bed the wrong side that day. But why don't you provide the Embassy with the latest statement(s) from your UK income provider(s) (as I do) instead of from your UK bank? These include gross figures (as distinct from the net figures in your Yorkshire Bank statements), which might make all the difference as to whether or not you need a Kasikorn letter as well.

You might also be strongly advised to be accompanied by a native Thai speaker for future trips to Immigration for extension of stay purposes.

Edited December 1, 2013 by OJAS

[spambot]

I wouldn't worry about it. Next year just get the letter but perhaps ask them to change the wording a bit.

Are you using the combination of income and money in the bank?

Or was the bank letter just a back up to income letter?

So given the letter from Kasikorn Bank and the Income verification from the Bangkok UK Embassy can we assume the OP was using or attempting to use a combination method?

Yup - It was a combination of income and money in Thai Bank.

[jpinx]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

[spambot]

Looks like you may have had the misfortune to encounter an officer who got out of bed the wrong side that day. But why don't you provide the Embassy with the latest statement(s) from your UK income provider(s) (as I do) instead of from your UK bank?

The latest statement(s) from your UK income provider(s) were also provided ( I show them every year and year year they are not inspected), British Embassy tend to focus upon Bank statements as primary - I got this as a statement from British Embassy by email response to my question and confirmed verbally at application a few years ago now. I was told that the income provider letters are useful and may be accepted depending upon individual situations, but are not considered as a primary source.

[spambot]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

Yup - That is a possibility, but unfortunately no one is saying - And really I or anyone else should not be expected to simply guess what the reason might be when faced with a difficult situation at immigration like this.

[OJAS]

Looks like you may have had the misfortune to encounter an officer who got out of bed the wrong side that day. But why don't you provide the Embassy with the latest statement(s) from your UK income provider(s) (as I do) instead of from your UK bank?

The latest statement(s) from your UK income provider(s) were also provided ( I show them every year and year year they are not inspected), British Embassy tend to focus upon Bank statements as primary - I got this as a statement from British Embassy by email response to my question and confirmed verbally at application a few years ago now. I was told that the income provider letters are useful and may be accepted depending upon individual situations, but are not considered as a primary source.

In my experience, statements from your UK income provider(s) should be sufficient - I have never provided the Embassy with statements from my UK bank as well and neither have I been asked for these.

[jpinx]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

Yup - That is a possibility, but unfortunately no one is saying - And really I or anyone else should not be expected to simply guess what the reason might be when faced with a difficult situation at immigration like this.

The embassy letter should only be confirming the amount - not the source.

I suggest you take it up with the embassy.

Immigration officers have absolute power over you - that is just the way it works.

Edited December 1, 2013 by jpinx

[JLCrab]

I will make this observation:

In the Police Order 777/2551 at 2.22 Retirement it states at (3) must have income of 65,000 baht per month. At (5), the so-called combination method, it states that the alien "Must have an annual earning and funds deposited with a bank totaling no less than Baht 800,000 as of the filing date."

So maybe they are now saying at CW-IMM that the UK Embassy letter states monthly income when for purposes of (5) an 'annual earning' must be shown is proving a discrepancy

[evadgib]

Ringing the Embassy from within the office & handing them the phone has the desired effect:)

Edited December 1, 2013 by evadgib

[spambot]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

Yup - That is a possibility, but unfortunately no one is saying - And really I or anyone else should not be expected to simply guess what the reason might be when faced with a difficult situation at immigration like this.

The embassy letter should only be confirming the amount - not the source.

I suggest you take it up with the embassy.

Immigration officers have absolute power over you - that is just the way it works.

Yup - The power is one sided - It is the nature of what happens agreed. Doesn't stop the hurt though! - You say that the he source is not normally on an income letter....Mnnnn interesting. I didn't know that - Does anyone else here on the forum have their sources specified or is it a one off just for me - That might at least issolate an issue.

I have a letter sent to British Embassy asking them to make an investigation on why the letter was seen as unacceptable (and will go and visit if there is no response in next few weeks) - Since this could happen to anyone - Since if its not known what the actual problem is (this time) - How can anyone solve it the next time.

[spambot]

Ringing the Embassy from within the office & handing them the phone has the desired effect:)

Good point - I actually asked them to call the embassy - Since the only number I had / used previously took forever to get answered and then it eventually got sent to a voice mail when transferred to right dept by reception.

[JLCrab]

FYI The US Embassy-Bangkok form letter for Income Affidavit states:

I also affirm that I receive US$ _________________ every month from the United States Government and/or other sources.

[evadgib]

....which is why Citizens of "Stat Dec" countries often get a hard time each year.

Edited December 1, 2013 by evadgib

[JLCrab]

....which is why Citizens of "Stat Dec" countries often get a hard time each year.

I've had hard times on occasion but never because of the US Embassy letter -- like IMM people the world over they often go on body language.

[spambot]

I will make this observation:

In the Police Order 777/2551 at 2.22 Retirement it states at (3) must have income of 65,000 baht per month. At (5), the so-called combination method, it states that the alien "Must have an annual earning and funds deposited with a bank totaling no less than Baht 800,000 as of the filing date."

So maybe they are now saying at CW-IMM that the UK Embassy letter states monthly income when for purposes of (5) an 'annual earning' must be shown is proving a discrepancy

yes that is a possibility - And would make sense. It would be useful to know if this is the case - And especially is someone has recently had the same situation with the same outcome. It did however feel when I was watching the proceeding when the other officers came into the dialogue - She was looking for reassurance that she was right, but she was not sure if she was right - I think that personally she didn't understand something as she spent so long looking at the same page with very little on it and when she showed it to other officers their body language seemed to also suggest that they were not instantly committed to a decision mostly there were silent after reading the line she pointed to - one put in hand on his chin and said nothing and another officer screwed up his lips and looked upwards as if saying he didn't know the answer after looking at the letter..

[evadgib]

Ringing the Embassy from within the office & handing them the phone has the desired effect:)

Good point - I actually asked them to call the embassy - Since the only number I had / used previously took forever to get answered and then it eventually got sent to a voice mail when transferred to right dept by reception.

02 305 8333 should suffice during office hours.

HTH

[spambot]

....which is why Citizens of "Stat Dec" countries often get a hard time each year.

I've had hard times on occasion but never because of the US Embassy letter -- like IMM people the world over they often go on body language.

Actually you make a good point - I took a change of clothes with me on the day to change into before the application. I had new shoes, new white shirt and nice pair of crisp semi formal chino pants. I wanted to ensure that I showed respect (and was not pissing anyone off by the way I was actually dressed).

For my body language - As a salesman selling previously large software packages to telcos I was used to these formal face to face interviews / meetings and so through practice and history I was pretty conscious of my body language factor while being there.

However maybe this over trying showed up as something more.

Edited December 1, 2013 by spambot

[spambot]

Ringing the Embassy from within the office & handing them the phone has the desired effect:)

Good point - I actually asked them to call the embassy - Since the only number I had / used previously took forever to get answered and then it eventually got sent to a voice mail when transferred to right dept by reception.

02 305 8333 should suffice during office hours.

HTH

Thanks - Useful for next time. Yours is different to mine - so I will give yours a go on Monday morning and test this out - Thanks.

Also when I do get to meet with the Embassy on follow up I am going to ask if I was to take a letter next time and did have the potential problem arise due to what has now happened - Could I have a hot contact to pass to the immigration offices for a direct contact to be made immediately.

Edited December 1, 2013 by spambot

[Mario2008]

post containing flame/profanity removed.

[rawhod]

I use the 65,000 income method at Chiang Mai immigration. I submit letters/documents from my two pension providers to the British Consulate and their letter always states the source of my pensions and the total gross income in GB pounds.

[MAN2SIN2BKK]

I have a complication caused by the fact that although I am a British citizen my income was coming from the US. I took all the Transfer details for the last 6 months along with copies of my SCB bank books; the embassy issued a letter confiming the figures in USD and Thai Baht. There has been no problem and now all the Immigration Officer wants to see is that letter.

[sms747]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

So ignorance on the part of the officer, a quick google would have put her mind at rest, too much to ask maybe?

[Jingthing]

Perhaps they required the income proof to be based on statements from the SOURCE of the income not from incoming BANK statements.

OR if it's related to that bank, could the extreme request to NEVER use income statements again have something to do with suspicion of fraud?

I understand questioning an application, but the request to never use an income method ever again sounds really radical. Too bad we don't know their actual reasons and are just guessing.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[jpinx]

Sounds like a confusion over the fact that the embassy letter mentioned a bank that the officer does not know.

So ignorance on the part of the officer, a quick google would have put her mind at rest, too much to ask maybe?

The officer is not "ignorant" and suggesting such a thing is most certainly not going to win any favours with her.

[jpinx]

Perhaps they required the income proof to be based on statements from the SOURCE of the income not from incoming BANK statements.

OR if it's related to that bank, could the extreme request to NEVER use income statements again have something to do with suspicion of fraud?

I understand questioning an application, but the request to never use an income method ever again sounds really radical. Too bad we don't know their actual reasons and are just guessing.

I believe there is some confusion between the requirements of the embassy and the requirements of immigration. They are not the same.

[Jingthing]

This report is troubling to people using the income method. The rules are clear as mud if they say they take income letters and then for unexplained reasons they don't. Hope it's a one off!