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

[Miami Bob]

For next year you might want to put the whole 800K in a Thai bank at least 90 days before applying for your extension and then try using the income letter first without showing them the bank letter to see what happens and if they reject you based on that notation they put in your records this year then use your bank letter. We all know the rules of the game change from year to year, location to location and officer to officer but that bank letter is always your ace in the hole.

[jpinx]

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!

As I said in another thread - the immigration officer dealing with my "income only" method was happy with the embassy letter and sight and a copy of my original government pension letter. Intrerestingly he knew exactly what he was looking for - he'd obviously seen this letter several times before. I wasn't asked for supporting information for my income, but I did have originals and copies of it all in my bag and ready - just in case

As with everything when dealing with immigration - you are basically being interviewed by the officer and your "qualifications" reviewed. It pays to make a good impression

[theoldgit]

Post containing insults and direct Consular telephone numbers removed.

[spambot]

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 guess if Immigration would only accept statements from source they would / should have informed the embassy's so that the letters they produce are not based upon anything other than that - And bearing in mind that when I made the application at the British Embassy they had the source letters as well as the bank statements.

I do hope to progress this down to get an answer and will report back - I think its going to be a long haul though - First I have started with the channels that everyone would have pointed me back to in the first place - So if nothing comes from these - I will have to hope that I can find a process that someone has followed before that gave them access to their information. Unfortunately I am not yet clear what works and what doesn't, but will keep pushing and prodding. After all if the British Embassy has had one of their letters rejected and then called unacceptable - should they not have a responsibility to determine why - Or at least I hope they see it the same way.

[spambot]

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.

So it would seem :+(

[spambot]

For next year you might want to put the whole 800K in a Thai bank at least 90 days before applying for your extension and then try using the income letter first without showing them the bank letter to see what happens and if they reject you based on that notation they put in your records this year then use your bank letter. We all know the rules of the game change from year to year, location to location and officer to officer but that bank letter is always your ace in the hole.

Actually that is good thinking - And a solid suggestion that is a - what to do next - type thinking.

[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?

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

If the officer did not know about the said bank then she was ignorant of it's existence. We don't need favours from these people, we just need them to follow their own rules and explain why they cannot when they do not.

[Jingthing]

I am not buying didn't know the name of the bank explanation. There must be thousands of banks in the world. There's got to be another reason.

[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.

If the officer did not know about the said bank then she was ignorant of it's existence. We don't need favours from these people, we just need them to follow their own rules and explain why they cannot when they do not.

I hate to be the one to gently remind you that you DO need a favour from immigration officers - you are an uninvited guest in their country. They are enpowered to interpret the rules as they see fit. As I said above - they are interviewing applicants - not rubber-stamping them.

[rwdrwdrwd]

I wonder if this is anything to do with association with Hull (in Yorkshire), it is true that there was a big crackdown on visas issued from there, and I remember reading somewhere on here that it had been specifically targeted as the reputed source of lots of invalid visas (possibly fakes stating Hull?)

They might have their eye out for Yorkshire..

[Jingthing]

I wonder if this is anything to do with association with Hull (in Yorkshire), it is true that there was a big crackdown on visas issued from there, and I remember reading somewhere on here that it had been specifically targeted as the reputed source of lots of invalid visas (possibly fakes stating Hull?)

They might have their eye out for Yorkshire..

Interesting theory. As I stated before their extreme reaction is a hint to me that they did suspect fraud of some kind. Not that their thinking was logical, don't see a connection between the name of a bank and a consulate, so this remains a mystery.

[JLCrab]

As referenced Post #16 the US Embassy Income Affidavit only mentions as source "United States Government and/or other sources".

[Jingthing]

The officers always have the right to ask for additional information about income claims from anyone with an income letter from any embassy. In this case, sadly, all we have are clues as to the exact nature of their objection.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[evadgib]

Jpinx @#39 said:

I hate to be the one to gently remind you that you DO need a favour from immigration officers - you are an uninvited guest in their country.

Your 'uninvited guests' are in fact fare paying passengers and should be treated in the same uniform manner their spouses can expect in their partners homelands. That includes no gender-based exemption that currently prevails for Thai males married to foreign women here.

Edited December 1, 2013 by evadgib

[spambot]

As referenced Post #16 the US Embassy Income Affidavit only mentions as source "United States Government and/or other sources".

Interesting that if source is defined as "United States Government and/or other sources". - Its not very specific as a terminology and so anything that was seen as a problem in my case will not have been because of the general nature(source = Bank), but more a specific instance of terminology (Bank = Yorkshire Bank) - But what was being thought by the officer is just a mystery.

[ubonjoe]

It seems the UK embassy is just putting to much information on income letter that can cause confusion. There is really no need to put the sources of income on letter.

[jpinx]

Jpinx @#39 said:

I hate to be the one to gently remind you that you DO need a favour from immigration officers - you are an uninvited guest in their country.

Your 'uninvited guests' are in fact fare paying passengers and should be treated in the same uniform manner their spouses can expect in their partners homelands. That includes no gender-based exemption that currently prevails for Thai males married to foreign women here.

Paying for a ticket gives no privileges other than for transportation.

We are discussing an application based on retirement using the income and savings combination method. Nothing to do with gender-bias, marriage, spouses or rules in any partners homelands.

Edited December 1, 2013 by jpinx

[Jingthing]

It seems the UK embassy is just putting to much information on income lett that can cause confusion. There is really no need to put the sources of income on letter.

Surely a case of less is more. There are no red flags if there are no flags.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[evadgib]

...in that case you might want to review the ol' 'uninvited' chestnut as it is a complete red herring.

Edited December 1, 2013 by evadgib

[spambot]

Jpinx @#39 said:

I hate to be the one to gently remind you that you DO need a favour from immigration officers - you are an uninvited guest in their country.

Your 'uninvited guests' are in fact fare paying passengers and should be treated in the same uniform manner their spouses can expect in their partners homelands. That includes no gender-based exemption that currently prevails for Thai males married to foreign women here.

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.

If the officer did not know about the said bank then she was ignorant of it's existence. We don't need favours from these people, we just need them to follow their own rules and explain why they cannot when they do not.

I hate to be the one to gently remind you that you DO need a favour from immigration officers - you are an uninvited guest in their country. They are enpowered to interpret the rules as they see fit. As I said above - they are interviewing applicants - not rubber-stamping them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with both of you. unfortunately if Immigration do do something the way they want to do it - Jpinx is right if its what they have decided and they believe that they have the right to do it that way and they do do it that way - You or me or anyone else - only have an option to lump it of leave (it). But also couldn't agree more with you evadgib - It shouldn't happen.

Edited December 1, 2013 by spambot

[meechai]

Where the wording says

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

I know nothing about the income method as I use the cash here in Thai bank method.

But I wondered since this statement just reads you have income in a Yorkshire bank if

possibly that is the reason for rejection? Has that always been allowed & now changing?

As it would not necessarily mean you have funds for living on hand here?

Just wondering & thought I would ask is it that different than the cash on hand method?

[Jingthing]

No! There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to IMPORT even one baht of your stated income letter income. This has NOT changed to be a requirement. There are grey areas in this report but if there was a national rule change to require that claimed income to be IMPORTED, we would know about for sure in some kind of grand announcement. That would be huge (and unwelcome).

Edited December 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[pmarlin]

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

Not true, I have never had a problem and done several.

[meechai]

No! There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to IMPORT even one baht of your stated income letter income. This has NOT changed to be a requirement. There are grey areas in this report but if there was a national rule change to require that claimed income to be IMPORTED, we would know about for sure in some kind of grand announcement. That would be huge (and unwelcome).

Thanks that is good to know.

I have rental income in the US but never tried the income method.

Seemed easier to just put the required amount in a Thai bank.

But if you need not even bring the money in.......That is easier

Does make you wonder a bit though. Since I assumed the whole point is to show you

have funds here to live on. Hence the months of seasoning required for the cash method

Ah well TIT

Edited December 1, 2013 by meechai

[jpinx]

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

Not true, I have never had a problem and done several.

Same for me -- income method with embassy letter worked without a hitch.

P.S All without any Thai bank

Edited December 1, 2013 by jpinx

[evadgib]

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

Not true, I have never had a problem and done several.

As you're unlikely to hold a passport for each of the countries in question and haven't visited every office in the Kingdom you might like to reconsider the above.

Edited December 1, 2013 by evadgib

[TaoNow]

I believe this is the scenario I was worried about, and which I raised on a few previous posts (years ago).

Pensions don't always come in automatic monthly payments for life. You can cash in the entire amount or take it as an annually paid annuity, depending on the type of pension(s) you have.

Let's say I cashed out my pension and then go to the US Embassy in Bangkok and swear that I have the ability to pay myself 65,000+ baht a month for the coming year, assuming I have at least $26,000+ in a liquid account somewhere in the world.

That should, in theory, satisfy Immo requirements, since they are looking for financial viability, not a regular source of retirement income.

But if they will not accept a foreign bank statement/letter as the source of monthly income, then that could force people without the monthly automatic pension payment to use the 800,000 baht "bond" method. (Jingthing pipe down).

It would be interesting if anyone else has had this experience with an Immo office since there may be a number of ex-pats here without guaranteed monthly pension income who do not want to park 800,000 in Thailand (even for 3 months) but have the liquid resources held in their home countries (or elsewhere).

[spambot]

No! There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to IMPORT even one baht of your stated income letter income. This has NOT changed to be a requirement. There are grey areas in this report but if there was a national rule change to require that claimed income to be IMPORTED, we would know about for sure in some kind of grand announcement. That would be huge (and unwelcome).

Thanks that is good to know.

I have rental income in the US but never tried the income method.

Seemed easier to just put the required amount in a Thai bank.

But if you need not even bring the money in.......That is easier

Does make you wonder a bit though. Since I assumed the whole point is to show you

have funds here to live on. Hence the months of seasoning required for the cash method

Ah well TIT

As Jpinx says there is no requirement to do both - All three methods are self contained options 1. Only need an income letter 2. Deposited funds with Thai bank or 3. combination of these two - Well that's whats available to most people (not me).

Interestingly my income also comes (mostly) from rental and I did show my paperwork agreement from Estate agent that was signed by tenants and then tied to the exact deposits regularly into my account on the date around the same of each month of the dated agreement (I also have a sum invested in a fixed five year bond) - For each all proof was made available and shown at British Embassy - I also had the same information with me at immigration - However at immigration they were not up for dialogue they were only interested in talking between themselves and reading what was on the letter - occasionally saying Yorkshire bank if I asked what the issue was holding up signature.

[monkeycountry]

I think more often than not these kinds of nonsense problems is immigrations way of asking for some tea money.

[JLCrab]

The US Embassy affidavit states that you "affirm that I receive US$ __ every month" and that should IMM request you would need to show a deposit in some bank of that amount every month.