Retirement Visa in Thailand

[BrianBkyn]

I have my retirement visa and so I have been a bit out of the loop on any changes regarding applying for a retirement visa for the first time. So I was surprised when a friend in the UK who wants to get one sent me this email.

"Tried to get non-immigrant O visa today. You now need income of £1400pm or £16,000 in the bank-neither of which I have !

I am also told no visas are now issued in Thailand, including retirement visas. Did you know this ? You have to apply in your own country."

When I wrote back saying this did not sound correct to me, he replied:

"The rules apply to new applications, not you.

I have a letter in front of me now which says "it is not possible to obtain any visa in Thailand ". This is from the Royal Thai Consulate."

Is this correct? I am really surprised I haven't heard anyone talking about these changes.

Thanks.

[Jingthing]

Nothing has changed for retirement. There was a change for O visa requirements in England. Nothing to do with O-A visas.

O-A visas obtained in home country -- no change. Starting with an O-A visa is only an option and never a requirement to retire in Thailand.

O visa IS offered at many Thai immigration offices (generally major ones) as part of a two step process of applying for annual retirement extension (second step). So that letter was FALSE. It is not uncommon for Thai consulates and embasses to provide false information about the actual immigration system IN Thailand (to be fair, how would they know, they aren't here).

Retirement extensions in Thailand -- NO CHANGE.

When you say you have a retirement visa, what do you ACTUALLY have?

An O-A visa that you are still using to stay in Thailand (rather than an extension)? A current retirement extension? What exactly?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

As always misuse of the word "visa" leads to confusion.

You not have a retirement "visa" you have an Extension of Stay" based on retirement.

If your friend wishes to retire in Thailand this can still be achieved from a tourist visa. He will still have to meet the financial requirements of 800,000 in a Thai bank or a provable income of 65,000/month evidenced by a letter from the British Embassy

Edited January 3, 2014 by Sceptict11

[Mario2008]

Technically correct that you can not get a visa in Thailand, but he can convert.

However, for conversion he needs to show an income of 65,000 a month OR 800,000 in the bank in Thailand OR a combination of yearly income and money in the bank in Thailand.

[Jingthing]

Technically correct that you can not get a visa in Thailand, but he can convert.

However, for conversion he needs to show an income of 65,000 a month OR 800,000 in the bank in Thailand OR a combination of yearly income and money in the bank in Thailand.

I am curious about your language here.

If you do a change of status from a 30 day stamp or tourist visa to an O visa at Thai immigration offices as part of the two step process, how is that NOT getting a visa in Thailand? It is restricted to that one purpose (part of the retirement extension application process) but it still gets you a visa that is required for this process.

[Sceptict11]

Technically correct that you can not get a visa in Thailand, but he can convert.

However, for conversion he needs to show an income of 65,000 a month OR 800,000 in the bank in Thailand OR a combination of yearly income and money in the bank in Thailand.

I am curious about your language here.

If you do a change of status from a 30 day stamp or tourist visa to an O visa at Thai immigration offices as part of the two step process, how is that NOT getting a visa in Thailand? It is restricted to that one purpose (part of the retirement extension application process) but it still gets you a visa that is required for this process.

The conversion "visa" can only be obtained by demonstrating that the requirements for an extension can be met. The "visa" if given is immediately stamped as "used" and costs 2000 bht.

[Mario2008]

It is simply not a visa as such, as you are already in Thailand. But they consider your entry as being with a non-immigrant visa.

Another point is that with a real non-immigrant visa entry you can change the reason of stay, for example from retirement to marriage, with a conversion they will not allow you to change the reason for your stay. For that you need to leave the country and apply for a non-immigrant visa abroad.

[Jingthing]

This is the first time I have ever heard here that the visa you get from change of status for retirement extension application should not properly be called a visa. Of course it should not be called a retirement visa as it was never that (even though many people have called it that). Is this a consensus Thaivisa forum guru advice consensus that the "conversion" thing should no longer be called a visa, because it has been called a visa here for years by such authoritative people? If so, what is the authoritative suggestion that we call it precisely in future -- conversion visa? Still has the word visa in it so that doesn't make sense to me if the message now is that it is not a visa.

This is a sincere question. I am taking this seriously because the message about this comes from a Global Mod. If it was a regular member, before this, I would say the thing you convert to IS a visa, as I just did before in this thread.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Mario2008]

I call it a conversion to a non-immigrant (visa) entry.

I merely point out that you cannot get a permit to travel to Thailand when you are already inside of Thailand.

[BrianBkyn]

Thanks for the replies. I was fairly sure that there was some misinterpretation going on by someone. It sounds as if he should be able to come over here - where he recently purchased an apartment - and go thru the retirement process as he has a combination of pension plus money in a Thai account that is above 800,000 baht.

"Retirement extensions in Thailand -- NO CHANGE.

When you say you have a retirement visa, what do you ACTUALLY have?

An O-A visa that you are still using to stay in Thailand (rather than an extension)? A current retirement extension? What exactly?"

I got my retirement visa a couple of years ago and have been able to extend it the past two times without any problems.

Thanks again.

[Mario2008]

Yes, he can. But he better get a tourist visa first from a Thai consulate, or the airline might refuse him boarding.

Better for him to try one of the other Thai consuates in the UK, as they seem to be less strict than Hull.

[Jingthing]

I call it a conversion to a non-immigrant (visa) entry.

I merely point out that you cannot get a permit to travel to Thailand when you are already inside of Thailand.

But the conversion thing is technically still an O visa, yes or no? I still think yes. You NEED an O visa in your passport (or O-A) before any retirement extension application. The conversion thing serves that purpose. Obviously if you get it in Thailand, you already managed to ENTER Thailand legally in some other way (not always any kind of visa, an entry stamp would do).

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

"I got my retirement visa a couple of years ago and have been able to extend it the past two times without any problems."

You now have an extension of stay based on retirement !

You DO NOT have a "visa" which in any case are never "extended"!

Ones " permission to stay" may, if requirements are met, be extended.

I fail to understand why so many have difficulty in comprehending the basis on which they are allowed to remain in Thailand.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Sceptict11

[Mario2008]

I call it a conversion to a non-immigrant (visa) entry.

I merely point out that you cannot get a permit to travel to Thailand when you are already inside of Thailand.

But the conversion thing is technically still an O visa, yes or no? I still think yes. You NEED an O visa in your passport (or O-A) before any retirement extension application. The conversion thing serves that purpose. Obviously if you get it in Thailand, you already managed to ENTER Thailand legally in some other way (not always any kind of visa, an entry stamp would do).

With a conversion your entry is considered to be on a non-immigrant visa.

But as said, with some limitations:

- no change of reason to stay

- you must comply with the reason for an extension of stay right away (although no seasoning of money required)

[Jingthing]

OK, so it's still OK to call the conversion thing a visa. It's just a special kind of visa that doesn't have all the same features as a visa obtained outside Thailand.

[Suradit69]

This is the first time I have ever heard here that the visa you get from change of status for retirement extension application should not properly be called a visa. Of course it should not be called a retirement visa as it was never that (even though many people have called it that). Is this a consensus Thaivisa forum guru advice consensus that the "conversion" thing should no longer be called a visa, because it has been called a visa here for years by such authoritative people? If so, what is the authoritative suggestion that we call it precisely in future -- conversion visa? Still has the word visa in it so that doesn't make sense to me if the message now is that it is not a visa.

This is a sincere question. I am taking this seriously because the message about this comes from a Global Mod. If it was a regular member, before this, I would say the thing you convert to IS a visa, as I just did before in this thread.

"This is the first time I have ever heard here that the visa you get from change of status for retirement extension application should not properly be called a visa."

A visa is issued in order to enter the country. If you do this in Thailand, you are not getting a visa to enter the country, they are converting the status of your presence in the country from visa exempt entry to Non-Imm O entry. You really never have a valid Non-Imm O because it is immediately marked as used, so you could not use it to enter Thailand (again).

Immigrations does not issue visas. If you want to call it semantics you can, but they never give you permission to enter Thailand, which is what a visa does. Immigrations determines your status while present in the country. They are just changing the nature of your permission to stay from one thing to another. It's a conversion of your current status only.

And this isn't the first time you heard that because I said Immigrations doesn't issue visas in another thread and you rushed in to correct me. I conceded that you could interpret what they did as issuing a visa, but ...

I've never seen what it is they actually do, but I doubt they stick a visa in your passport. I would guess they just change the entry stamp you got when you first arrived on the visa exempt entry. Assuming that's true, then they literally don't give you a visa.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Suradit69

[Jingthing]

Can someone supply an IMAGE of what Thai immigration puts in the passport when you do a change of status in this way?

I would really like to see that.

Thanks.

I actually still think it's useful to call this conversion a visa.

That is because the "visa" or "not a visa but used as a visa" in this case is used as a REQUIRED first step before the retirement extension.

Not only any visa. MUST be a type of O visa. A tourist visa wouldn't cut it which is why some people CONVERT from a tourist visa to the O. Many people of course have entered with an O visa obtained abroad or an O-A visa. They don't need the conversion.

This insistence that there is only one possible strict definition of "visa" doesn't quite seem fully credible to me yet. I get that the people doing the conversion have already entered some other way. I still don't get why this conversion thing still isn't a visa just one that is NOT ever used for entry (not needed for that in this case) but IS used as a retirement extension preliminary requirement.

Seeing an image might help clarify this.

Anyway, many times over many years now people have asked here can people get a visa in Thailand and MANY times the answer has been: Yes, in the case of the two step process, first step CONVERSION from entry stamp or tourist visa to O and second step retirement extension. So yes I have "corrected" many people who say you need a visa from abroad to do retirement extensions because you DON'T. Sorry I am still not convinced the same language shouldn't continue to be used. The key question people are asking is do they need an O visa or O-A visa FROM abroad to get into the retirement extension system in Thailand. The answer is no. Again, is not this conversion result considered the same as an O visa from abroad for the purpose of meeting the requirement of having an O visa to begin in the retirement extension system. Seems to me nothing has changed in that regard.

If I've been wrong about this (for years now) my apologies in advance but I'm still not convinced I'm wrong. Feel welcome to convince me. A PICTURE of a conversion might help.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

Can someone supply an IMAGE of what Thai immigration puts in the passport when you do a change of status in this way?

I would really like to see that.

Thanks.

I actually still think it's useful to call this conversion a visa.

That is because the "visa" or "not a visa but used as a visa" in this case is used as a REQUIRED first step before the retirement extension.

Not only any visa. MUST be a type of O visa. A tourist visa wouldn't cut it which is why some people CONVERT from a tourist visa to the O. Many people of course have entered with an O visa obtained abroad or an O-A visa. They don't need the conversion.

This insistence that there is only one possible strict definition of "visa" doesn't quite seem fully credible to me yet. I get that the people doing the conversion have already entered some other way. I still don't get why this conversion thing still isn't a visa just one that is NOT ever used for entry (not needed for that in this case) but IS used as a retirement extension preliminary requirement.

Seeing an image might help clarify this.

Anyway, many times over many years now people have asked here can people get a visa in Thailand and MANY times the answer has been: Yes, in the case of the two step process, first step CONVERSION from entry stamp or tourist visa to O and second step retirement extension. So yes I have "corrected" many people who say you need a visa from abroad to do retirement extensions because you DON'T. Sorry I am still not convinced the same language shouldn't continue to be used. The key question people are asking is do they need an O visa or O-A visa FROM abroad to get into the retirement extension system in Thailand. The answer is no. Again, is not this conversion result considered the same as an O visa from abroad for the purpose of meeting the requirement of having an O visa to begin in the retirement extension system. Seems to me nothing has changed in that regard.

If I've been wrong about this (for years now) my apologies in advance but I'm still not convinced I'm wrong. Feel welcome to convince me. A PICTURE of a conversion might help.

Here

Note the significant differences from a normal "visa"

Note also the extension of stay done on the same day .

[Jingthing]

Thanks very much for that image and quick response! Excellent info.

That is definitely without any doubt a VISA. Looks very, very similar to the single entry Non O visa I got in the USA. It says Non-Immigrant VISA. How is this in doubt? Nobody is saying this conversion to visa is used to enter Thailand. It isn't. It can't be. It's not needed for that. But that IS a visa. I don't see how anyone can really say that is not a non-immigrant visa. What is the benefit here of stirring the pot, adding to the confusion, of asserting a stamp like that which clearly says VISA is not really a visa? I really don't get the point of that. I also don't get the point of qualifying it with quotes. It is simply a Non Immigrant visa you get in Thailand when doing a conversion for purposes of doing a first time retirement extension application.

When people ask do I need some kind of visa to get into retirement in Thailand, it's always a yes. This visa as shown in picture is one of the options to obtain that always required visa.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

Thanks. No, that is definitely without any doubt a VISA. Looks very, very similar to the single entry Non O visa I got in the USA. It says Non-Immigrant VISA. How is this in doubt? Nobody is saying this conversion to visa is used to enter Thailand. It isn't. It can't be. It's not needed for that. But that IS a visa. I don't see how anyone can really say that is not a non-immigrant visa. What is the benefit here of stirring the pot, adding to the confusion, of asserting a stamp like that which clearly says VISA is not really a visa? I really don't get the point of that. I also don't get the point of qualifying it with quotes. It is simply a Non Immigrant visa you get in Thailand when doing a conversion for purposes of doing a first time retirement extension application.

If you cannot notice the very significant differences between the image I have posted and whatever you were given in the States you either in need of spectacles or being perverse for the pleasure of being argumentative.

Enough

[Jingthing]

Thanks. No, that is definitely without any doubt a VISA. Looks very, very similar to the single entry Non O visa I got in the USA. It says Non-Immigrant VISA. How is this in doubt? Nobody is saying this conversion to visa is used to enter Thailand. It isn't. It can't be. It's not needed for that. But that IS a visa. I don't see how anyone can really say that is not a non-immigrant visa. What is the benefit here of stirring the pot, adding to the confusion, of asserting a stamp like that which clearly says VISA is not really a visa? I really don't get the point of that. I also don't get the point of qualifying it with quotes. It is simply a Non Immigrant visa you get in Thailand when doing a conversion for purposes of doing a first time retirement extension application.

If you cannot notice the very significant differences between the image I have posted and whatever you were given in the States you either in need of spectacles or being perverse for the pleasure of being argumentative.

Enough

Yes the issuing office and dates different, the issuing in Thailand different, but the VISA part of it identical. Sorry. If the intent was to convince me that these conversions are not actually visas, the result was the exact opposite. I am now even more confident that they ARE visas. I am not being argumentative for sport. A challenge was put up on this thread to long standing language here, from myself and a number of others. I wanted this to get fully clarified. My conclusion is -- those are visas. My apologies if this exchange has annoyed you (your emotional reaction to my persistence is out of my control), but this was a totally sincere query on my part.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

Thanks. No, that is definitely without any doubt a VISA. Looks very, very similar to the single entry Non O visa I got in the USA. It says Non-Immigrant VISA. How is this in doubt? Nobody is saying this conversion to visa is used to enter Thailand. It isn't. It can't be. It's not needed for that. But that IS a visa. I don't see how anyone can really say that is not a non-immigrant visa. What is the benefit here of stirring the pot, adding to the confusion, of asserting a stamp like that which clearly says VISA is not really a visa? I really don't get the point of that. I also don't get the point of qualifying it with quotes. It is simply a Non Immigrant visa you get in Thailand when doing a conversion for purposes of doing a first time retirement extension application.

If you cannot notice the very significant differences between the image I have posted and whatever you were given in the States you either in need of spectacles or being perverse for the pleasure of being argumentative.

Enough

Yes the issuing office and dates different, the issuing in Thailand different, but the VISA part of it identical. Sorry. If the intent was to convince me that these conversions are not actually visas, the result was the exact opposite. I am now even more confident that they ARE visas. I am not being argumentative for sport. A challenge was put up on this thread to long standing language here, from myself and a number of others. I wanted this to get fully clarified. My conclusion is -- those are visas. My apologies if this exchange has annoyed you (your emotional reaction to my persistence is out of my control), but this was a totally sincere query on my part.

Look again !

Did your "visa" have to be used immediately ?

Look carefully !

Look for the significant differences all there for those who wish to see

[Jingthing]

I am 100 percent aware of the differences. No need to make a federal case about this. I see it is USED differently than the Non O visa I got which I got abroad and I used later than the issue date. I see it is issued in Thailand. I already knew those differences would exist before seeing the picture but the picture is good.

The question here was can these conversion thingies properly be called Non-immigrant VISAS. I'm sorry if anyone mistakenly thought I was asserting there are no differences than a visa obtained abroad. I wasn't. The question was are these Thai immigration issued thingies actually still VISAS.

Again, my conclusion is that I also see it still is in every sense also a Non-immigrant visa. It is labeled clearly as such. There is no good reason not to call it as such, a bona fide Non-immigrant Visa, in my opinion.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[beechguy]

I am 100 percent aware of the differences. No need to make a federal case about this. I see it is USED differently than the Non O visa I got which I got abroad and I used later than the issue date. I see it is issued in Thailand. I already knew those differences would exist before seeing the picture but the picture is good.

The question here was can these conversion thingies properly be called Non-immigrant VISAS.

Again, my conclusion is that I also see it still is in every sense also a Non-immigrant visa. It is labeled clearly as such. There is no good reason not to call it as such, a bona fide Non-immigrant Visa, in my opinion.

One good reason, would be not to create any more confusion than there already is. Look at how many redundant questions get asked on this page, usually on a daily basis. Many can't seem to even get their head around the 90 day address reports, as simple as that is.

[Jingthing]

I am 100 percent aware of the differences. No need to make a federal case about this. I see it is USED differently than the Non O visa I got which I got abroad and I used later than the issue date. I see it is issued in Thailand. I already knew those differences would exist before seeing the picture but the picture is good.

The question here was can these conversion thingies properly be called Non-immigrant VISAS.

Again, my conclusion is that I also see it still is in every sense also a Non-immigrant visa. It is labeled clearly as such. There is no good reason not to call it as such, a bona fide Non-immigrant Visa, in my opinion.

One good reason, would be not to create any more confusion than there already is. Look at how many redundant questions get asked on this page, usually on a daily basis. Many can't seem to even get their head around the 90 day address reports, as simple as that is.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is that if someone wants to retire in Thailand and asks do I need to get a non-immigrant visa abroad to enter the retirement system in Thailand, the correct answer is NO but if you don't you need to do a conversion to a non-immigrant visa at a Thai immigration office in Thailand. The rules are the rules. There are never any retirement extensions issued without there FIRST being an initial non-immigrant visa being granted. Not sure the facts can be made much clearer than that. Things are as complicated as they have to be. My point is to add a muddiness to the question about whether these in-country conversions to Non immigrant visas are really visas is an unnecessary muddiness.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Sceptict11]

I am 100 percent aware of the differences. No need to make a federal case about this. I see it is USED differently than the Non O visa I got which I got abroad and I used later than the issue date. I see it is issued in Thailand. I already knew those differences would exist before seeing the picture but the picture is good.

The question here was can these conversion thingies properly be called Non-immigrant VISAS.

Again, my conclusion is that I also see it still is in every sense also a Non-immigrant visa. It is labeled clearly as such. There is no good reason not to call it as such, a bona fide Non-immigrant Visa, in my opinion.

One good reason, would be not to create any more confusion than there already is. Look at how many redundant questions get asked on this page, usually on a daily basis. Many can't seem to even get their head around the 90 day address reports, as simple as that is.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is that if someone wants to retire in Thailand and asks do I need to get a non-immigrant visa abroad to enter the retirement system in Thailand, the correct answer is NO but if you don't you need to do a conversion to a non-immigrant visa at a Thai immigration office in Thailand. The rules are the rules. There are never any retirement extensions issued without there FIRST being an initial non-immigrant visa being granted. Not sure the facts can be made much clearer than that. Things are as complicated as they have to be. My point is to add a muddiness to the question about whether these in-country conversions to Non immigrant visas are really visas is an unnecessary muddiness.

If what you say is true as soon as the "visa" is stamped used it ceases to be of any value --------------ie--------it is a dead visa !

The humour will be lost on a Yank !

It derives from the "dead Parrot" sketch which many Brits will remember !

[Jingthing]

I am 100 percent aware of the differences. No need to make a federal case about this. I see it is USED differently than the Non O visa I got which I got abroad and I used later than the issue date. I see it is issued in Thailand. I already knew those differences would exist before seeing the picture but the picture is good.

The question here was can these conversion thingies properly be called Non-immigrant VISAS.

Again, my conclusion is that I also see it still is in every sense also a Non-immigrant visa. It is labeled clearly as such. There is no good reason not to call it as such, a bona fide Non-immigrant Visa, in my opinion.

One good reason, would be not to create any more confusion than there already is. Look at how many redundant questions get asked on this page, usually on a daily basis. Many can't seem to even get their head around the 90 day address reports, as simple as that is.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

My point is that if someone wants to retire in Thailand and asks do I need to get a non-immigrant visa abroad to enter the retirement system in Thailand, the correct answer is NO but if you don't you need to do a conversion to a non-immigrant visa at a Thai immigration office in Thailand. The rules are the rules. There are never any retirement extensions issued without there FIRST being an initial non-immigrant visa being granted. Not sure the facts can be made much clearer than that. Things are as complicated as they have to be. My point is to add a muddiness to the question about whether these in-country conversions to Non immigrant visas are really visas is an unnecessary muddiness.

If what you say is true as soon as the "visa" is stamped used it ceases to be of any value --------------ie--------it is a dead visa !

The humour will be lost on a Yank !

It derives from the "dead Parrot" sketch which many Brits will remember !

True that.

I've had a dead visa in my passport for several years now.

Immigration still wants to know about it upon each extension.

So the in-country ones are "dead" quicker. Their value is the same as my long dead abroad visa, as a requirement for a Non-immigrant visa before starting with retirement extensions.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[DogNo1]

How about this language? A thirty-day visa-exempt entry can, within the thirty-day time period, be converted into a USED "O" visa at immigration giving the holder the right to stay for ninety days after the date of the conversion. The holder can then, within the final forty-five days of this ninety day period, upon meeting the financial and other requirements, apply for a year-long extension of stay based on retirement, marriage, etc.

Does this sound clear?

[Sceptict11]

How about this language? A thirty-day visa-exempt entry can, within the thirty-day time period, be converted into a USED "O" visa at immigration giving the holder the right to stay for ninety days after the date of the conversion. The holder can then, within the final forty-five days of this ninety day period, upon meeting the financial and other requirements, apply for a year-long extension of stay based on retirement, marriage, etc.

Does this sound clear?

Look at the information I posted.

The used "O visa" lasted as long as it took the immigration officer to stamp in the extension of stay !

Maybe 30 seconds !

Edited January 3, 2014 by Sceptict11

[smo]

How about this language? A thirty-day visa-exempt entry can, within the thirty-day time period, be converted into a USED "O" visa at immigration giving the holder the right to stay for ninety days after the date of the conversion. The holder can then, within the final forty-five days of this ninety day period, upon meeting the financial and other requirements, apply for a year-long extension of stay based on retirement, marriage, etc.

Does this sound clear?

From the excellent pic posted by Sceptict11, it appears to me that he got everything done on the same day of Nov 28 2012: entering Thailand via Phuket, converting his visa-exempt entry stamp to an non-imm "used" visa, and obtaining the retirement extension good till Feb 25 2014, basically one year from the date he was allowed to stay till on his initial entry stamp which is Feb 25 2013 (90 days starting Nov 28 2012).

So is the wait till "within the final forty-five days of this ninety day period, upon meeting the financial and other requirements, apply for a year-long extension" necessary? Or can one does everything on the same day just as Sceptict11 did, providing one meets all the financial and other requirements (bank letter, embassy affidavit, etc.)? Or am I missing something?

I'm going to go through this ordeal in February so please correct me if I"m wrong on any of the steps, thanks.