How do I extend a Non Immigrant O-A Visa

[Sceptict11]

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.

I hope others are not tempted to follow this "logic" as disappointment will surely be the result.

[zorroverde]

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.

Very interesting indeed and I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the chronology of Thai visa history in the 21. century.Since when exactly are existing non-im OA vias?

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

As the OA requires its first extension at earliest 12 months after entry,the dependents of an retiree would be left hanging in the air with at least 3 visa runs due before they could avail themselves of the first extension of the head of family.I can't believe that such a serious discrimination of family members is intended by Thai legislation and law enforcement. I also can't see any logical reason for that.

[Sceptict11]

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

[zorroverde]

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

[Sceptict11]

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

That comment confirms my original suspicion !

Please do not feed it !

[OJAS]

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

That comment confirms my original suspicion !

Please do not feed it !

Hear hear - judging from his rambling postings his agenda is obscure in the extreme IMHO, not to mention completely oblivious to rhyme or reason!

[Maestro]

...Fact is that non-im OA visa did not exist when this police order was promulgated in Nov.2008...

Wrong: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nxIuMFlaruw/TuD6lp4SsQI/AAAAAAAAKZw/jM2ZC1qkdZk/s460/Non-O-A%2520multiple%2520entries%2520Washington%252020080925.gif

[Maestro]

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

[zorroverde]

...Fact is that non-im OA visa did not exist when this police order was promulgated in Nov.2008...

Wrong: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nxIuMFlaruw/TuD6lp4SsQI/AAAAAAAAKZw/jM2ZC1qkdZk/s460/Non-O-A%2520multiple%2520entries%2520Washington%252020080925.gif

Thanks for the link,Maestro.I was obviously wrong,just trying to find a logical explanation for the lack of applicable rules for non-im OA visas.

[zorroverde]

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

If there is no known specific rule in regard to non-im OA visas then we have a legal void,causing nasty consequences for the dependent

family members of a retiree.Conclusion:Retirees should by all means avoid to get the OA visa in their respective home country ...

[ubonjoe]

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

If there is no known specific rule in regard to non-im OA visas then we have a legal void,causing nasty consequences for the dependent

family members of a retiree.Conclusion:Retirees should by all means avoid to get the OA visa in their respective home country ...

The OA visa is only good for a single person or for a married couple if both can qualify for it.

I always worn people about the dependent extension problem in topics about the OA visas.

The Thai embassies and official consulates will not tell applicants for OA visas about it or will give false info to encourage people to apply for the visa. I suspect it is because they are ill informed about extensions.

There was a recent discussion about a embassy telling an applicant for the OA visa that the multiple entry non-o visas they sold to him for his dependents allowed them stay to for a year. They were on overstay because of this with the wife needing to pay the 20k baht overstay fine. The resolution for their problem was for the the child to get an extension for education and his wife getting an extension as their caregiver which requires putting 500k baht in the bank here.

[zorroverde]

...

Are you then deriving the rule you are mentioning from the wording of 2.22?

Is there any other law or reg dealing with non-im OA visas and the consequences it produces for dependents of their holders?

...

As far as I know, there is no other rule dealing with it. If you find any, it will be appreciated if you post a copy or a link to it here.

For other readers who may wonder what rule 2.22 or Police Order 777/2551 is, it can be looked up here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=153821

If there is no known specific rule in regard to non-im OA visas then we have a legal void,causing nasty consequences for the dependent

family members of a retiree.Conclusion:Retirees should by all means avoid to get the OA visa in their respective home country ...

The OA visa is only good for a single person or for a married couple if both can qualify for it.

I always worn people about the dependent extension problem in topics about the OA visas.

The Thai embassies and official consulates will not tell applicants for OA visas about it or will give false info to encourage people to apply for the visa. I suspect it is because they are ill informed about extensions.

There was a recent discussion about a embassy telling an applicant for the OA visa that the multiple entry non-o visas they sold to him for his dependents allowed them stay to for a year. They were on overstay because of this with the wife needing to pay the 20k baht overstay fine. The resolution for their problem was for the the child to get an extension for education and his wife getting an extension as their caregiver which requires putting 500k baht in the bank here.

Thanks,Ubonjoe,for the proposed solution.I was aware of it,but I trusted the info given by the General Consulate abroad,so the objections by the local immigration regarding dependent -based extensions were hitting us like a lightning out of blue sky.In the end we obtained the dependent extensions in BK,but maybe we were simply lucky this time.Next year wife and daughter will go the edu/caregiver (guardian) way and I will squeeze out of my OA another 11 months or so by re-entering on the very last moment before visa expiration.Thanks again for bearing with me...

[zorroverde]

Mario

Suspect you and others are dealing with a committed T-r-o-l-l

It will go away if not fed.

Well,Sceptict11,not sure whether I should put on this shoe.At least I am not following my own obscure agenda like so many visa handlers and immigration

lawyers under the disguise of senior and super members who consider this forum as a trap for catching naive prey....

That comment confirms my original suspicion !

Please do not feed it !

Hear hear - judging from his rambling postings his agenda is obscure in the extreme IMHO, not to mention completely oblivious to rhyme or reason!

Thank you,OJAS,for your invaluable contribution.You are right,I should keep my sentences shorter so even the mentally handicapped can understand:)

As to rhyme,is that a new forum rule??What about limericks or rap?

[JetSetterSteve]

Hi All and thanks for your posts; we resolved this issue today and I thought I woud post the definitive answer. My wife and daughter are on an O visa and had overstayed, daughter age 12. We crossed into Burma to pay the fine and re-enter. The fine was 500 Baht/day (31 days) and our daughter was not fined as we were told because she was under 15. So there's the answer. Immigration was actually very pleasent to deal with.