Camerata's Guide To The Permanent Residence Process

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, onthemoon said:

I applied successfully under the business category (starting with the 3-year work permit) and don't see why you would say that everybody would fail. To the contrary, this is the most popular way to do it, I'd say, as everybody I personally know who got PR used that option.

 

I didn't have my yet PhD back then, but I believe it gives you a higher score for education. At least it does for citizenship applications. Nothing to do with the "power" of any particular institution, but a very transparent point system. It does not matter where you graduated, as long as it is an accredited university. I bet your "old chap" did not get an endorsement letter, he just presented his degree. If the uni also wrote a letter, they will have ignored it.

 

No, I did not pay "speed-up money". What for? I never saw a reason for it. Lawyers can't do anything anyway, and rumours are that they pocked a big chunk of the money paid without receipt themselves. They cannot make you pass if you don't meet the criteria - for which you don't need a lawyer.

From above:

"...I applied successfully under the business category (starting with the 3-year work permit) and don't see why you would say that everybody would fail. To the contrary, this is the most popular way to do it, I'd say, as everybody I personally know who got PR used that option."

I add, I got PR some 28 years ago. At that time the regulations stated that applicants needed to hold a WP for three consecutive years with same employer and prove that a personal tax report for each of the three years had been submitted, paid and finalized.

 

On the day I submitted my PR application in less than an hour I was being interviewed by a very pleasant snr. officer who spoke perfect English. he mentioned "... the regulations say 3 years but in fact we don't process PR applications unless the applicant can prove at least 7 years of consecutive WPs."

 

Fortunately I could comply, in fact that full detail was within the submitted application docs. 

 

 

[onthemoon]

18 hours ago, scorecard said:

From above:

"...I applied successfully under the business category (starting with the 3-year work permit) and don't see why you would say that everybody would fail. To the contrary, this is the most popular way to do it, I'd say, as everybody I personally know who got PR used that option."

I add, I got PR some 28 years ago. At that time the regulations stated that applicants needed to hold a WP for three consecutive years with same employer and prove that a personal tax report for each of the three years had been submitted, paid and finalized.

 

On the day I submitted my PR application in less than an hour I was being interviewed by a very pleasant snr. officer who spoke perfect English. he mentioned "... the regulations say 3 years but in fact we don't process PR applications unless the applicant can prove at least 7 years of consecutive WPs."

 

Fortunately I could comply, in fact that full detail was within the submitted application docs. 

 

 

Thanks for your confirmation. It took me a bit longer (interview after 2 months or so, completion and receipt of PR after 6 years).

 

I was asking @NativeBob why he said the business way doesn't work. I think it is the most-used option to get PR.

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, onthemoon said:

Thanks for your confirmation. It took me a bit longer (interview after 2 months or so, completion and receipt of PR after 6 years).

 

I was asking @NativeBob why he said the business way doesn't work. I think it is the most-used option to get PR.

Agree, in fact I've never met (in person or online) anybody who achieved Thai PR through any other route. 

[Arkady]

I applied about the same time as Scorecard when we thought it was really difficult but it was actually much easier (and much less expensive) than it became only a few years later.  I used the business category which I can also confirm is the most widely used category and the least hassle.  The poster who said it is difficult may have confused it with the investment category which is more difficult because the business you have invested in needs to undergo detailed scrutiny in addition to yourself and you still need a WP.  So business owners are advised to apply under the business category and save the trouble.

 

The category where everyone seems to get rejected out of hand, is the humanitarian category for those who have a Thai wife and/or kids but are not working in Thailand. With a Thai spouse they may be able to make the minimum income requirement using the spouse's income.  This category may have been added with good intentions but the reality is that your application will be rejected out of hand by the good folk at CW, if you attempt to apply under this category without also having a WP which is in the list of required documents for the category.  Someone reported in this thread that he went to CW with a Thai lawyer who forced them to accept his application without a WP on the grounds that the regulations do not specifically require one (other than on the checklist) and it is after all a humanitarian category.  The lawyer did manage to get them to take his application with ill grace but we he never posted again, leading to the suspicion that his application went into the circular file at CW,  

 

I had 7 years of WP when I applied like Scorecard because in the absence of threads like this one I didn't have a clue how to apply or what the requirements were until I really looked into it.  There was a lot of misleading information around and people variously said you need 5 years or 10 years with a WP, neither of which was true.  It was officiallly 3 years and I am not sure, if 7 years' WP were required unofficially.  It was certainly not true that you had to be with the same company for 7 years or even 3 years.  A colleague of mine had to change companies because we shut down our business entity and entered into a jv with a Thai company.  He applied after less than a year with the same company and got his PR. Another colleague tried to apply  in about 2015 but was told they had just introduced a requirement to be with the same company for one year and was told to re-apply the next year, if still with the same company. Some time after that they introduced the requirement for 3 years with the same company which is the current requirement.

 

In the 90s before the xenophobic Thaksin regime put the blight on PR and citizenship applications and slowed everything down, Immigration undertook to approve all successful applications before re-opening the window for the next year's batch and were generally able to achieve this.  There was 3 batches of PR approvals in March, September and December after 3 meetings of the Committee for PR,  I was in the December batch which was nearly 12 months after I applied.  A friend who was very proud of his wife's senior police connections was approved in the June batch only 6 months after he applied.  My approval was signed by the outgoing PM and interior minister who had just dissolved parliament but made a point of clearing his desk at the Interior Ministry before he went.  Sadly hat seems a bygone age now.  Today we hear nothing but reports new measures needed to combat foreign criminals living in Thailand.  

[Arkady]

Many PRs are wondering if they really need to fill in the TDAC before arriving in Thailand.  Since it replaces the TM6 arrival card that PRs didn't have to complete, it seems illogical for them to complete the TM6's replacement.  However, there is no specific exclusion for PRs in any of the stuff put out by Immigration who have often completely forgotten about PRs when important new regulations are put out, During COVID they allowed people with WPs to come back to Thailand but left PRs without WPs stranded until enough people complained.   When they introduced multi-entry visas for NON-Bs they forgot to include PRs in the order and we had to continue buying re-entry visas one by one for another year, until someone got around to issuing a new order.  

 

This website seems to require PRs to complete the TDAC  https://tdac.in.th/#who-must-submit . If you scroll down you will find this:
 

2. Personal Information

• Date of birth
• Occupation
• Gender
• Visa number (if applicable)
• Country of residence
  Long-term or permanent foreign residents in Thailand are advised to select 'Thailand' under 'Country of Residence', which will be available once the system is activated.
• City/State of residence
• Phone number

It is hard to know by foreign permanent residents they mean genuine PRs or other long-term foreign residents, including those on some of the new fangled, costly long-term visas introduced by the Prayudh government with weird names like digital nomad visas.  However, taken at face value it looks as if PRs do have to comply, even though there is no logic to this, given that they are, well, permanent residents who didn't have to complete TM6s and have blue tabien baans showing where they live, even if they and the majority of the Thai population mat not live at their registered addresses.  Perhaps when they realise the pointlessness of this, in a year or more's time they will issue an order exempting PRs but I am not holding my breath.  On the other hand it seems pretty easy to fill in the form and "Kingdom of Thailand" is indeed on the menu of countries of residents on the form. 

 

For those unable to fill it in, there is a limited assisted service.  So PRs who feel they shouldn't fill it in, can use the assisted service, if they are told they should have filled it in.  Anyway it seems you can fill it in any time within 72 hours of arrival.  So you should be able to do it in front of the Immigration counter. 

 

For PRs who are travelling in May and are uncertain, it might be an idea to ask the advise of the IO who stamps you out at the airport when you leave.

[Arkady]

There are reports in the media that Anutin is making a play to consolidate all Immigration matters including PR, work permits and citizenship.  The Post ran with it today but this Thai post in the Standard, whatever that may be, is a bit more detailed. https://www.facebook.com/thestandardth/posts/update-กระทรวงมหาดไทยจ่อตั้งกรมกิจการคนเข้าเมือง-กรมใหม่ดูแลคนเข้าเมืองทั้งระบบว/1028475329411810/ . It seems a big power grab that would take a lot of functions away from the police and the Labour Ministry and probably increase government costs considerably as well as, no doubt, make everything harder for foreigners, if it ever comes to pass, even though consolidation would be rational and ought to simplify things.  Everything might also move out of town to Lam Lukka or somewhere for Bangkok residents.  I am sure the police and Labour Ministry will resist as far as possible. It would be a big wipe out for the police which is directly under the PM's office.  It seems to call for a new Immigration Act which has not been amended since 1979 I think.  Here is a google translate.

 

UPDATE: The Ministry of Interior is preparing to establish the Department of Immigration, a new department to oversee the entire immigration system. Today (April 29), it was reported that Anutin Charnvirakul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Immigration Review Committee, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior, in late 2024 to propose the establishment of a subcommittee to establish the Department of Immigration. Because the Ministry of Interior has missions related to security, taking care of the happiness and well-being of the people from birth to death, both Thais and foreigners, as well as missions regarding various rights under other laws resulting from traveling in and out of the Kingdom, such as applying for residence in the Kingdom, applying for work permits, applying for Thai nationality/losing Thai nationality, and applying to have a name in the population register. In addition, an important document from 2017 that was recently disclosed states that the Cabinet had resolved on January 10, 2017 that the Ministry of Interior would be the main host in considering and proposing guidelines for integrating missions related to immigration, with the Office of the Council of State (the committee 😎) being the new legislative body called ‘Immigration Act’ to officially support the establishment of the ‘Department of Immigration’ A letter from the Office of the Secretariat to the Cabinet signed by Thiraphong Wongsiwawilas, Deputy Secretary-General to the Cabinet, stated that this new law is urgently needed because the current immigration management system is scattered among several agencies, including the Ministry of Interior, the Royal Thai Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Labor, which results in duplication and lack of unity. The document also lists three important guidelines: 1. Agree in principle to combine immigration-related missions from several agencies under a single agency, with the Ministry of Interior as the center. 2. Have the Ministry of Interior draft a new Immigration Act and coordinate with relevant agencies, including the Council of State, to obtain a comprehensive and systematic law. 3. Agree in principle to establish the Department of Immigration and have the State Enterprise Policy Committee and the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC) jointly consider the format and guidelines for establishing this new department systematically. Although this project began in 2017, there has only been clear progress in the current government. Under the push of Anutin Charnvirakul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, it is expected that the Department of Immigration will become an important cog in the government's drive for a comprehensive population management system and may affect structural changes in the Immigration Bureau (IB) and the Department of Employment in the future. .

[onthemoon]

19 hours ago, Arkady said:

There are reports in the media that Anutin is making a play to consolidate all Immigration matters including PR, work permits and citizenship.  The Post ran with it today but this Thai post in the Standard, whatever that may be, is a bit more detailed. https://www.facebook.com/thestandardth/posts/update-กระทรวงมหาดไทยจ่อตั้งกรมกิจการคนเข้าเมือง-กรมใหม่ดูแลคนเข้าเมืองทั้งระบบว/1028475329411810/ . It seems a big power grab that would take a lot of functions away from the police and the Labour Ministry and probably increase government costs considerably as well as, no doubt, make everything harder for foreigners, if it ever comes to pass, even though consolidation would be rational and ought to simplify things.  Everything might also move out of town to Lam Lukka or somewhere for Bangkok residents.  I am sure the police and Labour Ministry will resist as far as possible. It would be a big wipe out for the police which is directly under the PM's office.  It seems to call for a new Immigration Act which has not been amended since 1979 I think.  Here is a google translate.

 

UPDATE: The Ministry of Interior is preparing to establish the Department of Immigration, a new department to oversee the entire immigration system. Today (April 29), it was reported that Anutin Charnvirakul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Immigration Review Committee, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior, in late 2024 to propose the establishment of a subcommittee to establish the Department of Immigration. Because the Ministry of Interior has missions related to security, taking care of the happiness and well-being of the people from birth to death, both Thais and foreigners, as well as missions regarding various rights under other laws resulting from traveling in and out of the Kingdom, such as applying for residence in the Kingdom, applying for work permits, applying for Thai nationality/losing Thai nationality, and applying to have a name in the population register. In addition, an important document from 2017 that was recently disclosed states that the Cabinet had resolved on January 10, 2017 that the Ministry of Interior would be the main host in considering and proposing guidelines for integrating missions related to immigration, with the Office of the Council of State (the committee 😎) being the new legislative body called ‘Immigration Act’ to officially support the establishment of the ‘Department of Immigration’ A letter from the Office of the Secretariat to the Cabinet signed by Thiraphong Wongsiwawilas, Deputy Secretary-General to the Cabinet, stated that this new law is urgently needed because the current immigration management system is scattered among several agencies, including the Ministry of Interior, the Royal Thai Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Labor, which results in duplication and lack of unity. The document also lists three important guidelines: 1. Agree in principle to combine immigration-related missions from several agencies under a single agency, with the Ministry of Interior as the center. 2. Have the Ministry of Interior draft a new Immigration Act and coordinate with relevant agencies, including the Council of State, to obtain a comprehensive and systematic law. 3. Agree in principle to establish the Department of Immigration and have the State Enterprise Policy Committee and the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC) jointly consider the format and guidelines for establishing this new department systematically. Although this project began in 2017, there has only been clear progress in the current government. Under the push of Anutin Charnvirakul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, it is expected that the Department of Immigration will become an important cog in the government's drive for a comprehensive population management system and may affect structural changes in the Immigration Bureau (IB) and the Department of Employment in the future. .

This is one thing where I agree with Anutin. I had discussions with different govt people about PR and citizenship and the whole inefficiency of the processes, but nobody wants to put energy into changing it as there are many Ministries and Departments involved, and they would have to coordinate and convince. With everything in one department, we would have somebody to talk to.

[Arkady]

4 hours ago, onthemoon said:

This is one thing where I agree with Anutin. I had discussions with different govt people about PR and citizenship and the whole inefficiency of the processes, but nobody wants to put energy into changing it as there are many Ministries and Departments involved, and they would have to coordinate and convince. With everything in one department, we would have somebody to talk to.

 

There is definitely a logic to combining PR and citizenship and putting the initial processing of applications in the same department that does the later processing.  That is what the Prayudh government attempted to do with citizenship and the first Thaksin government attempted to do combining PR and citizenship.  The Thaksin government attempt met fierce resistance from the police but we never found out why the Prayudh government attempt failed or why the revised citizenship ministerial regulations were never implemented.  However, putting all of Immigration and WPs into the same department nationwide as well would be a huge undertaking.

 

Since everything to do with PR and citizenship always gets harder, I am suspicious that any changes would be for the worse for applicants.

[scorecard]

11 minutes ago, Arkady said:

 

There is definitely a logic to combining PR and citizenship and putting the initial processing of applications in the same department that does the later processing.  That is what the Prayudh government attempted to do with citizenship and the first Thaksin government attempted to do combining PR and citizenship.  The Thaksin government attempt met fierce resistance from the police but we never found out why the Prayudh government attempt failed or why the revised citizenship ministerial regulations were never implemented.  However, putting all of Immigration and WPs into the same department nationwide as well would be a huge undertaking.

 

Since everything to do with PR and citizenship always gets harder, I am suspicious that any changes would be for the worse for applicants.

 

Here's a twist.

 

An old buddy from Oz has just completed the 2 years back in Oz to get the OAP and portability. He worked in LOS for around 18 years with WP for the same employer but WP expired after he left Thailand and went back to Oz.

 

Now soon back to LOS and a job all arranged with a similar employer, with WP.

 

He's found an agent to investigate whether he'll need to now complete 3 years with WP with same employer (starting soon as per paragraph just above).

 

Agent spoke to someone in Gov't. connected to PR matters (I don't know who) who advised 'more WPs not needed, the existing 18 years of WPs will very likely be accepted as proof of WPs'. (Taxes all paid).

 

My understanding was that PR applicants has to hold a WP at time of application and had to prove they had held the same WP for current and 3 preceding years.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

 

 

[onthemoon]

14 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Here's a twist.

 

An old buddy from Oz has just completed the 2 years back in Oz to get the OAP and portability. He worked in LOS for around 18 years with WP for the same employer but WP expired after he left Thailand and went back to Oz.

 

Now soon back to LOS and a job all arranged with a similar employer, with WP.

 

He's found an agent to investigate whether he'll need to now complete 3 years with WP with same employer (starting soon as per paragraph just above).

 

Agent spoke to someone in Gov't. connected to PR matters (I don't know who) who advised 'more WPs not needed, the existing 18 years of WPs will very likely be accepted as proof of WPs'. (Taxes all paid).

 

My understanding was that PR applicants has to hold a WP at time of application and had to prove they had held the same WP for current and 3 preceding years.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

 

 

 I for one am surprised, as I thought the gap would mean that he will have to start again from zero years. I myself had a gap (albeit for 3 years) and it was so. Well, that was more than 20 years ago. Things change, and even if the regulations don't change, government officials and their interpretations change.

[onthemoon]

14 hours ago, Arkady said:

 

There is definitely a logic to combining PR and citizenship and putting the initial processing of applications in the same department that does the later processing.  That is what the Prayudh government attempted to do with citizenship and the first Thaksin government attempted to do combining PR and citizenship.  The Thaksin government attempt met fierce resistance from the police but we never found out why the Prayudh government attempt failed or why the revised citizenship ministerial regulations were never implemented.  However, putting all of Immigration and WPs into the same department nationwide as well would be a huge undertaking.

 

Since everything to do with PR and citizenship always gets harder, I am suspicious that any changes would be for the worse for applicants.

The current problem is that so many ministries and departments are involved. The police are the coordinators now., but everybody wants to have a say. I would have no problem if the police would take the lead in the future - as long as it can be one department, as suggested. The current system is highly inefficient and therefore costly for the govt.

[Arkady]

On 5/2/2025 at 6:26 PM, scorecard said:

 

Here's a twist.

 

An old buddy from Oz has just completed the 2 years back in Oz to get the OAP and portability. He worked in LOS for around 18 years with WP for the same employer but WP expired after he left Thailand and went back to Oz.

 

Now soon back to LOS and a job all arranged with a similar employer, with WP.

 

He's found an agent to investigate whether he'll need to now complete 3 years with WP with same employer (starting soon as per paragraph just above).

 

Agent spoke to someone in Gov't. connected to PR matters (I don't know who) who advised 'more WPs not needed, the existing 18 years of WPs will very likely be accepted as proof of WPs'. (Taxes all paid).

 

My understanding was that PR applicants has to hold a WP at time of application and had to prove they had held the same WP for current and 3 preceding years.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

 

Sorry to say but I think the chances of this working are about as close to zero as you could get.  There are many of this type of agent around who try to give false hopes, so you will hire them and then change their phone number and disappear.  Like the one that was taking fees off farang retirees with a story that they had opened up a new PR category for foreigners who had been on retirement or marriage visas for 10 years.  Vaporized after collected enough cash from the gullible. 

 

There is no substitute for going down to CW and asking them or even calling them.  They provide a free service.

[Arun Mai]

On 4/1/2025 at 6:25 PM, rimmae2 said:

It is not currently possible as of 5 days ago.

 

Following may be of interest.

 

 

Hi...  Have you obtained a new non-quota immigrant visa since using the e-gates for exits?  Did you have any problem with immigration officer on arrival, as you must have only stamps for entering the country but none for leaving, is that correct?

[scorecard]

41 minutes ago, Arun Mai said:

Hi... Have you obtained a new non-quota immigrant visa since using the e-gates for exits? Did you have any problem with immigration officer on arrival, as you must have only stamps for entering the country but none for leaving, is that correct?

Very interesting.

 

Are you saying that PR holders who us the e.gates don't need to get a stamp in their passport re exit and re-entry? In other words e.gate out and in is covered by an older non-quota immigrant visa?

[scorecard]

On 4/27/2025 at 7:29 AM, onthemoon said:

Thanks for your confirmation. It took me a bit longer (interview after 2 months or so, completion and receipt of PR after 6 years).

 

I was asking @NativeBob why he said the business way doesn't work. I think it is the most-used option to get PR.

 

That's my understanding too. 

[Arun Mai]

15 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Very interesting.

 

Are you saying that PR holders who us the e.gates don't need to get a stamp in their passport re exit and re-entry? In other words e.gate out and in is covered by an older non-quota immigrant visa?

For the sake of clarity, I am not making any assertions.  I'm attempting to better understand @rimmae2 experience.

 

As I understand it @rimmae2 has been using the e.gates at Suwannabumi for exiting Thailand without any pre-registration (I may be wrong on this).  As I understand it, he has not been using e.gates on arrival.  Therefore, presumably, he only has stamps coming into the country but none for leaving.  I was also curious whether he had since renewed his non-quota immigrant visa, as that is when it would be subject to most scrutinisation.  Presumably, if he has done this several times the immigration upon entry must have noticed he only has entry stamps and they have not said anything about it.

 

As I say, I'm attempting to better understand @rimmae2 experience.

[scorecard]

On 5/9/2025 at 1:38 PM, Arkady said:

 

Sorry to say but I think the chances of this working are about as close to zero as you could get.  There are many of this type of agent around who try to give false hopes, so you will hire them and then change their phone number and disappear.  Like the one that was taking fees off farang retirees with a story that they had opened up a new PR category for foreigners who had been on retirement or marriage visas for 10 years.  Vaporized after collected enough cash from the gullible. 

 

There is no substitute for going down to CW and asking them or even calling them.  They provide a free service.

 

I had my PR interview, 2 hrs (28 years ago) with a senior immigration officer who spoke perfect English. Only this officer, no other people in the room.

 

I remember he mentioned that the PR main criteria is work permits and then strong indicators that the foreigner is making strong contributions to the development of Thailand. (He did also mention that he was aware of many PR applicants who were rejected because, although they held WPs for several years, they were not contributing to the development of Thailand.)

 

He asked for the name / position and telephone numbers of 3 Thai staff who were working with me and who spoke English.

 

He asked me to remain with him, and he called all 3 work colleagues, spoke very pleasantly to each of them in English for about 5 to 10 minutes and asked them for details of what they were learning from me, whether I expected them to use their new knowledge / experience in their work, and asked for their detailed comments whether their new knowledge / experience was valuable for their future work and valuable for Thailand and why?  

[scorecard]

5 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

I had my PR interview, 2 hrs (28 years ago) with a senior immigration officer who spoke perfect English. Only this officer, no other people in the room.

 

I remember he mentioned that the PR main criteria is work permits and then strong indicators that the foreigner is making strong contributions to the development of Thailand. (He did also mention that he was aware of many PR applicants who were rejected because, although they held WPs for several years, they were not contributing to the development of Thailand.)

 

He asked for the name / position and telephone numbers of 3 Thai staff who were working with me and who spoke English.

 

He asked me to remain with him, and he called all 3 work colleagues, spoke very pleasantly to each of them in English for about 5 to 10 minutes and asked them for details of what they were learning from me, whether I expected them to use their new knowledge / experience in their work, and asked for their detailed comments whether their new knowledge / experience was valuable for their future work and valuable for Thailand and why?  

 

I'm aware of foreigners being told that PR is basically automatic is they have held a valid visa for 10 years.

 

Just one example: An early twenties Indian man and his Indian wife in several MBA courses that I was lecturing. They had been invited by the boys' Indian uncle (who was a Thai citizen to both come to Thailand and he would sponsor them to improve their education and help them to get well settled into life and work in Thailand.

 

The uncle owned several large successful companies in Thailand and in India. He had requested his personal lawyer to get full details of what visas his nephew and nephew's wife  needed for Thailand, the progression to PR and then to citizenship.

 

The lawyer then gave all the details to the nephew and his wife. Including 'After 10 years in Thailand, with any visa, PR is automatic, then 5 years more and Thai citizenship is automatic.

 

I carefully told my students 'I'm quite sure that's not correct. They insisted 'but that's what uncle's lawyer told us'. The conversation ended to start the lesson.

 

Monday morning of the next week, the young Indian spoke to me 'you are correct, that's not how Thai PR works. His uncle had made some calls and eventually spoke to a snr cop at the police HQ who was assigned to PR admin. Cop told uncle 'the info you have been given is very wrong', and he shared the correct process.

 

Uncle spoke to his lawyer who was adamant he was correct and then added 'but I'm sure you can pay....'

 

End of story lawyer was sacked. Indian uncle interviewed a potential new lawyer and said 'tell me how Thai PR works'.

 

Potential new lawyer's response copied the new info uncle had gained from snr. cop at police HQ. he got the job.

 

Uncle then introduced his nephew with wife to the new lawyer and said 'this is my nephew and his wife, you are now their personal lawyer and I want you to start gathering all the details / documents to be ready to guide them to apply for PR when appropriate.