How do I extend a Non Immigrant O-A Visa

[Sceptict11]

OA visas are only issued as multiple entry now.hello

I am a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, how can I get non immigrant visa

Believe the nearest Thai Consul/Embassy to Bosnia is in Budapest.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Hi all. As far as i can see by scrolling down at speed to the end, no-one has picked up the very first statement in the OP, which i'm puzzled by : "Having applied for and been denied a Non O visa, because I am under 65..." - i appreciate that the OP's concerns moved on from that and were well-answered as usual; but if that is an incorrect reason for refusal of a Non-Imm 'O' visa since they are available for over-50s with the right funding and other requirements met, it might be worth commenting on for members who might focus in on that point as factually correct, when it isn't ? If i'm wrong on this i stand to be corrected by ubonjoe or mario !

[ubonjoe]

The embassy is making up their own rules. No embassy or official Thai consulate in your home country will issue a non-o for being 50 or over because they only do OA visas.

Honorary Thai consulates will normally do them though.

[Tapster]

Hi guys,

I'm in South Africa.

My local embassy in Pretoria will only offer me the O-A visa which is a pain as I'll need police clearance, medical examinations, etc.

Anyway, my query is:

My understanding is that I get an O-A visa as I'm over 50 and my 38-year-old farang wife will get a dependent non-O visa for 90 days and that within those 90 days she can get it extended to be a one-year visa, like mine.

Have I got it wrong?

I'm with Artist: despite 24 years as a medical professional I find the Thailand visa system a little arcane!

Cheers

[Mario2008]

Many embassies will only offer an O-A visa, but look for a honorary consulate in your area. They are not allowed to issue an O-A visa and thus will issue an non-O visa.

Your wife can only get an extension of stay once you are on an extension of stay from immigration yourself, so do apply for a nmulitple non-O visa for her if you apply for an O-A visa yourself, as you cannot apply for an extension of stay till the last 30 days of your permission to stay (which will be for 1 year on an O-A visa).

[ubonjoe]

Hi guys,

 

I'm in South Africa.

 

My local embassy in Pretoria will only offer me the O-A visa which is a pain as I'll need police clearance, medical examinations, etc.

 

Anyway, my query is:

 

My understanding is that I get an O-A visa as I'm over 50 and my 38-year-old farang wife will get a dependent non-O visa for 90 days and that within those 90 days she can get it extended to be a one-year visa, like mine.

 

Have I got it wrong?

 

I'm with Artist: despite 24 years as a medical professional I find the Thailand visa system a little arcane!

 

Cheers

Your wife will not be able to get an extension as your dependent with a OA visa entry.

.You could enter on a tourist visa and do a change of visa status to a non immigrant visa entry. You would need to meet the financial requirements for an extension of stay based upon retirement. You would need 800k baht in a Thai bank in your name only or 65k baht income or a combination of the 2 totaling 800k baht. Then after 60 to 90 days you could apply for the extension of stay.

Your wife would also need to obtain a tourist visa and extend it for 30 days to give her enough time for you to get your extension. Then she would be able to get a single entry non-o visa at a nearby embassy or consulate and then get her dependent extension during the last 30 days of her 90 day entry.

[Tapster]

@Mario2008

Thanks, that's very helpful. And it's what I'll do if I can't go for.............option two!

If I could avoid going for the O-A visa at all, that would be first prize!

@ubonjoe

Are you saying that my wife and I could waltz into Thailand with 30-day tourist visas (no application, just turn up in Thailand with my UK and her SA passports)...

and then go to immigration in Thailand (within the 30 days, obviously) and convert these into some sort of non-immigrant visas (presumably retirement for me and dependent for her) ??

I opened a K-Bank account on a tourist visa when we visited Phuket in November this year and I have the 800k THB ready, so with that in the Thai account for two months before changing to non-immigrant visas, I'm good to go?

Please don't be offended..........but given my 49% risk-averse nature, is there anywhere in the Thai Ministry of Immigration Mystery that I can verify this? I haven't seen this option in my trawlings through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website but it would be so much easier to do what you suggest, rather than police clearance, etc, etc.

Cool, man! Thanks!

[ubonjoe]

You are the only one that can do the change. Your wife would have to leave to get a non-o visa after you get your extension. You both should apply for tourist visas not just get a 30 day visa exempt entry. Your wife would have to wait at least 80 days before she could get her visa. Also you would only have 15 days to do the change with a 30 day entry because you must have 15 days remaining on your entry when you apply.

[Sceptict11]

@Mario2008

Thanks, that's very helpful. And it's what I'll do if I can't go for.............option two!

If I could avoid going for the O-A visa at all, that would be first prize!

@ubonjoe

Are you saying that my wife and I could waltz into Thailand with 30-day tourist visas (no application, just turn up in Thailand with my UK and her SA passports)...

and then go to immigration in Thailand (within the 30 days, obviously) and convert these into some sort of non-immigrant visas (presumably retirement for me and dependent for her) ??

I opened a K-Bank account on a tourist visa when we visited Phuket in November this year and I have the 800k THB ready, so with that in the Thai account for two months before changing to non-immigrant visas, I'm good to go?

Please don't be offended..........but given my 49% risk-averse nature, is there anywhere in the Thai Ministry of Immigration Mystery that I can verify this? I haven't seen this option in my trawlings through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website but it would be so much easier to do what you suggest, rather than police clearance, etc, etc.

Cool, man! Thanks!

Joe was suggesting you obtain tourist visas which allow an initial 60 day entry and are extendable for another 30.

Ii your case applying within the last 30 days of the tourist visa for a Non "O" visa would provide another 90 days during which application for an extension of stay should be applied for. Your wife should apply for a 30 day extension to the tourist visa and seek to obtain a single entry non "O" visa in a nearby country when she nears her "permitted to stay" date. With the non "O" she can then apply for an extension based on dependency which will match yours .

[Tapster]

mmm............excellent, Mr Bond!

Mwah...haa...haa!

This all sounds very possible, and can you, please, give me any corroboration with links from the M.o.F. Affairs, because I haven't seen anything about this.

Cheers

[Sceptict11]

mmm............excellent, Mr Bond!

Mwah...haa...haa!

This all sounds very possible, and can you, please, give me any corroboration with links from the M.o.F. Affairs, because I haven't seen anything about this.

Cheers alt=wai.gif pagespeed_url_hash=3808308681 width=20 height=20>

As they say in Thailand " up to you"

The information given is genuine.

All "detail" is not necessarily found on an English language (translated from Thai) MoFA site.

Someone may be able to provide the Thai language detail for you !

[ubonjoe]

It is not on on MFA website because it is done by immigration here.

Click on change visa (box beside it) and then 50 or over on next page ( may need IE browser for it to work) on immigration webpage here. http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=service

[Sceptict11]

It is not on on MFA website because it is done by immigration here.

Click on change visa (box beside it) and then 50 or over on next page ( may need IE browser for it to work) on immigration webpage here. http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=service

Joe ------- I just tried that link and the site does not seem to be working -------at least on the " change visa" section .

[Tapster]

@ubonjoe

Thanks very much for this. I'm a bit busy right now so I'll digest it all later.

I'll post again if there's a problem but I'm sure this will sort me out!

Great!

[zorroverde]

Since you are on a OA visa your wife and child are not eligible to get dependent extensions from immigration. If they only have single entry visas they will need to get multiple entry non-o visas.

You don't need a re-entry permit because I am certain you have a multiple entry visa.

Ubonjoe,what is the source or basis for your statement,that wife and child of a OA visa holder,holding a 90 days O visa,are NOT eligible to get

dependent extensions?

Is not clause 2.20 of the often cited police order of Nov. 2008 explicitly providing this possiblity?

[ubonjoe]

Since you are on a OA visa your wife and child are not eligible to get dependent extensions from immigration. If they only have single entry visas they will need to get multiple entry non-o visas.

You don't need a re-entry permit because I am certain you have a multiple entry visa.

Ubonjoe,what is the source or basis for your statement,that wife and child of a OA visa holder,holding a 90 days O visa,are NOT eligible to get

dependent extensions?

Is not clause 2.20 of the often cited police order of Nov. 2008 explicitly providing this possiblity?

A OA visa and non-o visa are not the same.

A dependent extension can only be obtained if you have an extension of stay based upon retirement from immigration under clause 2.22 of the police order.

A OA visa one year entry cannot be used to obtain a dependent extension because immigration does not have authority to do them.

[zorroverde]

Since you are on a OA visa your wife and child are not eligible to get dependent extensions from immigration. If they only have single entry visas they will need to get multiple entry non-o visas.

You don't need a re-entry permit because I am certain you have a multiple entry visa.

Ubonjoe,what is the source or basis for your statement,that wife and child of a OA visa holder,holding a 90 days O visa,are NOT eligible to get

dependent extensions?

Is not clause 2.20 of the often cited police order of Nov. 2008 explicitly providing this possiblity?

A OA visa and non-o visa are not the same.

A dependent extension can only be obtained if you have an extension of stay based upon retirement from immigration under clause 2.22 of the police order.

A OA visa one year entry cannot be used to obtain a dependent extension because immigration does not have authority to do them.

With all due respect for an experienced longtime Star Member of TV who with patience and knowledge helps us newbies through the maze of Thai immigration regulations I dare to disagree with your opinion:

First of all,I didn't say anywhere that non-OA visa and non-O visa would be the same.Secondly,if you read carefully the wording of 777/2551 clause 2.20 there is not said anywhere that the holder of an non-OA visa needs to have gotten his/her first extension before his dependents can avail of this extension clause.It simply says "...of an alien who has been permitted temporary stay under clauses....(2.22 retirement among others).

Now,if a non-OA visa holder is entering the country,he/she gets the first stamp "admitted to stay until...".With that the condition required by 2.20

is given,i.e having been permitted temporary stay.

Even if we have sometimes the impression that Tahi immigration laws could be a bit more welcoming with retirees,I would not think that they would

be on purpose wanting to condemn the dependants of an retiree,permited himself to stay for one year upon entry,to numerous visa runs until the head of family has got his first extension from local immigration one year later.I simply don't want to insinuate that this kind of vexatious harrassment of family members of an retiree is the official policy of Thai immigration.

In all fairness,Ubonjoe, I have to admit that you are not alone with your interpretation of 2.20.I have heard the same from Samui immigration and also from a so-called law firm in BK.

In spite of all advice and opinion to the contrary I got recently from Bangkok immigration w.o any problem for wife and daughter an extension of their

non-O 90 days visas up to the date when my own "admitted to stay" period ends.Totally in line with the wording of the regulation of reference and the info we got at the Thai General consulate where our visas had been issued.

[ubonjoe]

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

[zorroverde]

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

Interesting,if it is so clearly stated in the rules,would you be so good as to quote the relevant part?

[Sceptict11]

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

Interesting,if it is so clearly stated in the rules,would you be so good as to quote the relevant part?

As you seem so certain of your position why not just simply share your knowledge ?

[Maestro]

zorroverde, I would like to suggest that you scan and post the stamp of your current permission to stay in your passport so that we may know what you actually have and explain matters to you accordingly.

[Maestro]

...

First of all,I didn't say anywhere that non-OA visa and non-O visa would be the same.Secondly,if you read carefully the wording of 777/2551 clause 2.20 there is not said anywhere that the holder of an non-OA visa needs to have gotten his/her first extension before his dependents can avail of this extension clause.It simply says "...of an alien who has been permitted temporary stay under clauses....(2.22 retirement among others).

Now,if a non-OA visa holder is entering the country,he/she gets the first stamp "admitted to stay until...".With that the condition required by 2.20

is given,i.e having been permitted temporary stay...

I think I see where the muddle is. When you arrive with a non-OA visa, with the arrival stamp "ADMITTED <date> UNTIL <date>" you are being "permitted temporary stay", but with this stamp you are not being "permitted temporary stay under clause 2.22" of Police Order 777/2551. Do you see the difference now?

[zorroverde]

There is no need for interpretation. It is stated clearly in the rules and is immigration policy.

If you were fortunate enough to get the extensions that is fine but that does not guarantee that the next person that tries will.

I can only render advice on what I know to be fact. And that there have been many that were denied the extension.

Interesting,if it is so clearly stated in the rules,would you be so good as to quote the relevant part?

As you seem so certain of your position why not just simply share your knowledge ?

Just read my post #47.If not clear enough,just ask.

[zorroverde]

...

First of all,I didn't say anywhere that non-OA visa and non-O visa would be the same.Secondly,if you read carefully the wording of 777/2551 clause 2.20 there is not said anywhere that the holder of an non-OA visa needs to have gotten his/her first extension before his dependents can avail of this extension clause.It simply says "...of an alien who has been permitted temporary stay under clauses....(2.22 retirement among others).

Now,if a non-OA visa holder is entering the country,he/she gets the first stamp "admitted to stay until...".With that the condition required by 2.20

is given,i.e having been permitted temporary stay...

I think I see where the muddle is. When you arrive with a non-OA visa, with the arrival stamp "ADMITTED <date> UNTIL <date> you are being "permitted temporary stay", but with this stamp you are not being "permitted temporary stay under clause 2.22" of Police Order 777/2551. Do you see the difference now?

That is a good,valid and constructive argument,not as so many others of "the pope has spoken" type.Really a muddle!When you are issued

a non-OA visa abroad (i.e outside Thailand),you are still required to give a reason and you are scrutinized accordingly,in my case for "retirement".You don't get a OA just so...Did I then get my temporary stay granted under 2.22 or not? After checking 777/2551 again I have to admit that you may be right,as this police order is dealing with extensions,not with with the issuing of visas.Inside Thailand the temporary permit of stay is a 2-stepped process:First conversion of tourism visa to non-O.Then extension to 1 year.The same abroad is 2 steps in one.But same result.In both cases the retiree is admitted to stay for 1 year.Looks to me like a legal void,because it would be unethic and discriminatory to favour retiree families who obtained their retiree/dependents extensions after having converted their tourist visa inside Thailand to a non-O and subsequently to a retiree/dependents extension compared to families who have applied for their visa abroad.My point of view is shared by the visa issuing General Consulate which assured us that they couldn't give wife and daughter an OA,but only an O 90 days which could w.o problems be extended to a total admitted stay of 365 days after the 90 days period.Obviously this view was shared by BK immigration when we asked for an dependents extension.Why should the law or the absence of a specific law punish those who are following the instructions given on all Thai embassy websites,i.e getting their first visa in their country of origin as being the normal way?

[Maestro]

Just read my post #47.If not clear enough,just ask.

Post #47 is the post where you assume that the permission to stay given with the arrival stamp is the same as a permission to stay under clause 2.22 of Police Order 777/2551. However, this is not so.

[zorroverde]

?

zorroverde, I would like to suggest that you scan and post the stamp of your current permission to stay in your passport so that we may know what you actually have and explain matters to you accordingly.

Maestro,I doubt that this would be a smart move,as I have no interest in revealing our identity.For some reasons none of the members of this forum

are revealing their identity.Making our case traceable might have dire consequences....Just second thoughts.

We,me,wife and daughter arrived a couple of months ago the same day in Thailand.We had been issued visas abroad,for me a non-OA (M) as retiree,for them a non-O .I was admitted to stay for 365 days,they for 90 days.Before their permitted stay finished,they applied at BK immigration for an extension as dependents,based on my own permitted stay of 365 days as retiree,.It was granted until the same date as my own.

I agree now that our case seems not to be contemplated in 777/2551 2.20,as this regulations deal with extensions and I don't need an extension for the the next 12 or more months.But why should Immigration discriminate against families where the head of family got his retiree visa abroad and not as an extension of stay or conversion from tourist visa inside the country?There may be a legal void or there is another piece of legislation unknown to us.In any case Immigration acted in a fair and equitable way,w.o the need for tea money or exorbitant fees paid to visa handlers or law firms.

[Mario2008]

The idea is that you scan it but make details that can identify you unreadable, those are not needed anyway.

That means no passport number or number of the extensions or visa for example.

[zorroverde]

Just read my post #47.If not clear enough,just ask.

Post #47 is the post where you assume that the permission to stay given with the arrival stamp is the same as a permission to stay under clause 2.22 of Police Order 777/2551. However, this is not so.

Why is this not so,pls elaborate...

After carefully analysing 2.22,I appears that this ,my case is ticking all boxes of the 2.22 requirement.

The only difference is that under 4.) the account deposit has to be proved at a bank abroad and not at a Thai bank.Also,that the non-im O,issued previously abroad required an extension 90 days after entry,whereas on the OA you get the full 365 days admission immediately upon entry/arrival.

It seems that 777/2551 has not been amended to newer developments like the introduction of the non-im OA visa which came into existence only about 2 years ago,i.e 3 years after at its promulgation in Nov.2008.

Consequently,giving the dependents of a retiree holder of an non-im OA visa an extension of stay completing the 365 days stay of the head of family,can only be considered as a logical further development of this somewhat dated police order.Both,the info given at the issuing Thai General Consulate,as well as the practice we experienced at the BK immigration seem to confirm my view.

[Mario2008]

The O-A visa is much older than since 2008, let alone 2011. The 2008 rules also didn't change anything for retirees.

But on an O-A visa entry you are not on an extension of stay, you are on a visa entry. The rules require that for an extension of stay as a dependent, the person you are depended of is on an extension of stay.

[zorroverde]

The idea is that you scan it but make details that can identify you unreadable, those are not needed anyway.

That means no passport number or number of the extensions or visa for example.

Pls read my post #58 in reply to Mario.It may answer some of your doubts.I agree, with some parts of the scan made unreadable I wouldn't give too much away.But what would you gain in knowledge of the facts?Or are you doubting the facts as described by me?

The core of the problem seems to be that there is the opinion of some immigration staff that the case of retirees given an non-im OA visa abroad is

not the one contemplated in 777/2551 clause 2.22.Fact is that non-im OA visa did not exist when this police order was promulgated in Nov.2008.

But the verification requirements and verification procedure as to solvency are nearly identical,only that the deposit to be proved has to be in the country

of the applicant.All other requirements of 2.22 are unchanged.So it is only logical that 2.22 should also be applied to non-im OA visas issued abroad

and the resulting temporary stays permitted upon arrival.Any other policy would result in an unacceptable discrimination of dependent familiy members

of retirees with OA visas.This my view is shared by the General Consulate which had issued our visas and obviously also by BK immigration when

they granted said extensions to my wife and daughter.