Curious about Visa Section: 2.18 line 5 (parents/or father and mother)

[Holy Cow]

Can anyone clarify this for section #2.18 line 05:

In the case of being a family member of a Thai national (applicable only to parents, spouse, children, adopted children, or spouse’s children):

(5) In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year.

In case the father of mother requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of father or mother must be 50 years of age or over.

For other necessary cases, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Immigration Bureau is granted the authority to make decisions regarding approval on a case-by-case basis.

I have a couple/few questions:

1. For line 5 stated above, can that be thought in 2 different meanings, ie., 1.) Parent, and then 2.) covering Father or Mother?

2. Is it posible for a/the Thai child if adult to step up and support the foreign father or mother if over 50yrs?

3. I am just seeing the 50yr addition to the support thing. Is this new?

Has my last question ever been addressed or mentioned as viable or a potential thing of the future? Certainly they would not want to break up a family or anything. Just say that social security takes the age of 67 to get, so for some that is not an option. Just curious, as presently I do not seem to have any worries.

[ubonjoe]

That is for extensions of stay issued by immigration not visas.

That line was just added to the new immigration order that went into effect on August 29th.

The intent of it is for an adult Thai child to support their parent.

There is no additional information available other than what is in the clause.

[Holy Cow]

So in some respect, that is a postive mention move for some in the future. That might make things easier, as long as there is a loving family..

How about the age being 50 now? That is a brand new addition as well?

Anyway, I am very intereseted on this topic. Hope to see and read more for the best.

[ubonjoe]

The 50 years old is only for that line in the clause. It is not for the normal extension for being the parent of a Thai.

[Maestro]

Holy Cow, it is a faulty translation.

For "In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain...",
read "In the case of a parent, that parent must maintain..."

For "In case the father of mother requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of father or mother must be...",
read "In case a parent requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of that parent must be..."

If you are interested, you can find the original Thai text here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/3139-useful-immigration-information-visa-descriptions/?p=2613047#entry2613047. For a discussion of the translation, you would have to post in the Thai language forum.

[Colabamumbai]

So I read that you are under 50 and that waiting for pension at 67 you must be from Canada, the U.K. or Australia where they have recently raised the age for Old Age Pension to 67 if you are under 50 now. I will let those with more experience answer your questions.Good luck now.

[Holy Cow]

@Maestro. Seems is how it is interpreted. Not to say that is is a translation issue, TIT.

It reads: Under 50 needs funds, and this is 100% given, but over 50 either can be:

1.) 50 yrs old + can be supported by Thai chiled,

or

2.) 50yrs or older needs no funds to show.

Now the no showing funds I find hard to accept, so leaving the other? Maybe that will resolve itself soon. Thnx!

@Colabamumbai. Sorry to say you are wrong on 2 counts. I am over 50, and I am not from the countries you mentioned. Thnx for your input anyway.

[Holy Cow]

Sorry. Meant: "Not to say that it is not a translation issue, TIT. Not to say that is is a translation issue, TIT.

[Maestro]

If you are the parent of a Thai national and your age is 50 or more and you live with your Thai child, you do not have to show income or funds.

From Immigration Bureau Order 138/2557, which relates to Immigration Bureau Order 327/2557:

5. Only for Criteria (5) paragraph 1 and (6), the applicant must attach a funds deposit certificate issued by a bank in Thailand and a copy of a bankbook, or attach documents proving that the parents or alien husband earns an average monthly income of no less than Baht 40,000 throughout the year, such as any particular individual income tax return together with payment receipt, evidence of receiving retirement pension, evidence of receiving interest from funds deposit, or evidence of having other funds issued by the relevant agency. An affidavit must also be submitted confirming the alien’s marital or parental status with a Thai national.

The financial requirement applies only to paragraph 1 of clause 2.18(5) of Immigration Bureau Order 327/2557, not to paragraph 2, perhaps to put the foreign over-50 father of a Thai child on equal terms with the foreign over-50 father of a foreign child who has permanent residence (clause 2.19)

[Holy Cow]

So in reality, criteria 5 has nothing to do with a 50 year old foreigner who lives with his or her Thai National child(ren), but I would gather it is really still brought into question if child is under age. I have it in my thoughts that it would be when child is over 18 and parent over 50.

This looks like to me in transaltion to be missing a number: (In case the father of mother requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of father or mother must be 50 years of age or over?

Should read: 2.18(6): In case the father of mother requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of father or mother must be 50 years of age or

over....Next having directly follow relating to 2.18(6) : For other necessary cases, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Immigration Bureau is granted the authority to make decisions regarding approval on a case-by-case basis.

and then

2.18(7) In Case of Marriage to a Thai woman.

Does this seem correct? All in all it does not have anything to do me me at this time, but could in the futrue if that is the way it spells out.

Thank you, you are Great Maestro!

Does this make sense?

I

[ubonjoe]

There is no missing number.

They just added in the new the line under (5) for being over 50 and being supported by a child as an additional option.

The one about the immigration commissioner was already there in the previous order.

[Holy Cow]

@ubonjoe . I concur. Thnx

[GarryP]

I have printed the orders and read and re-read them with interest. I was hoping that since my wife has passed away, I could get an extension based on my son instead. That does not appear possible as my son is 25 years old and I am not under his maintenance. I am over 50 and working. It looks like I will have to change over to the one stop service and extend my visa based on my employment, something I was hoping to avoid.

[Maestro]

For an application under 2.18(5), second paragraph, the age of the child is officially of no relevance, but reading between the lines the child must obviously be in a position to "maintain" you. The rules mention no requirement of documents to prove this. The rules also do not mention that the Thai national with whom you claim to live must accompany you for the application, but this requirement has become an established fact (de facto rule)

[GarryP]

For an application under 2.18(5), second paragraph, the age of the child is officially of no relevance, but reading between the lines the child must obviously be in a position to "maintain" you. The rules mention no requirement of documents to prove this. The rules also do not mention that the Thai national with whom you claim to live must accompany you for the application, but this requirement has become an established fact (de facto rule)

That is how I read it too.

[Maestro]

327/2557 makes it look like the parent must be 50 years or older in all cases. Only from the fact that 138/2557 excludes a parent over 50 from the financial requirements makes it apparent that a parent younger than 50 can also apply but must meet the financial requirements.

In my opinion, the text for the parent extension has got messed up somewhat with this latest revision of the rules.

[ubonjoe]

The problem GarryP has is that immigration is saying that he cannot use his child as a basis for his extension because he is over 20 years old. The are misreading the clause and using (4) that is for children to get the extension as the basis for the 20 year old age limit.

[Holy Cow]

@ubonjoe. Not sure GarryP said that as it appears instances mentioned for the why not, and that doesn't seem true as if he really did go to immigration and tried..

1. Perhaps he thinks based on a younger child when we are not discussing this? Of course the younger child could not maintain him, but a 25 year old could within means and is willing to do so with good relationship.

2. What is the defintion of maintain? Incapcitated and must take care of or taking care of because of family and is dad or mom?

3. 50 and working?

GarryP quote:I was hoping that since my wife has passed away, I could get an extension based on my son instead That does not appear possible as my son is 25 years old and I am not under his maintenance. I am over 50 and working.

[ubonjoe]

@ubonjoe. Not sure GarryP said that as it appears instances mentioned for the why not, and that doesn't seem true as if he really did go to immigration and tried..

1. Perhaps he thinks based on a younger child when we are not discussing this? Of course the younger child could not maintain him, but a 25 year old could within means and is willing to do so with good relationship.

2. What is the defintion of maintain? Incapcitated and must take care of or taking care of because of family and is dad or mom?

3. 50 and working?

GarryP quote:I was hoping that since my wife has passed away, I could get an extension based on my son instead That does not appear possible as my son is 25 years old and I am not under his maintenance. I am over 50 and working.

He has a topic posted about what he was told by immigration both in person and by phone.

The have told him that he cannot get an extension based upon being the parent of a Thai because his child is over 20. Which is not what the rues say under (5). There is no maximum age for the child. He has the income required to do the extension.

He started trying to do this before the over 50 line was added to the clause.

[GarryP]

@ubonjoe. Not sure GarryP said that as it appears instances mentioned for the why not, and that doesn't seem true as if he really did go to immigration and tried..

1. Perhaps he thinks based on a younger child when we are not discussing this? Of course the younger child could not maintain him, but a 25 year old could within means and is willing to do so with good relationship.

2. What is the defintion of maintain? Incapcitated and must take care of or taking care of because of family and is dad or mom?

3. 50 and working?

GarryP quote:I was hoping that since my wife has passed away, I could get an extension based on my son instead That does not appear possible as my son is 25 years old and I am not under his maintenance. I am over 50 and working.

He has a topic posted about what he was told by immigration both in person and by phone.

The have told him that he cannot get an extension based upon being the parent of a Thai because his child is over 20. Which is not what the rues say under (5). There is no maximum age for the child. He has the income required to do the extension.

He started trying to do this before the over 50 line was added to the clause.

Actually that was not me. It was a poster named "touch" (post no. 15) who posted on my thread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/751014-annual-extensions-based-on-natural-thai-child-of-over-20-years-old/

I haven't actually contacted anyone at immigration about this yet and am following developments on this site.

Facts:

I am 51 years old, 52 in December.

I am working with a work permit.

My current visa is a category B (obviously) which was issued in 1990.

My extensions since 1991, including the present one done at the end of July, were based on being married to a Thai.

My salary was used as income to support the extensions.

My wife died recently.

My son is 25 and working.

I have now re-read the Orders in combination with each other and agree with Ubonjoe that I do in fact qualify for an extension by simply replacing my wife with my son. I would not be claiming I am supporting him, simply that I am the father of a Thai person and that person (my son) would need to go to immigation with me when I do my extension. Oviously, I would need evidence proving the relationship as indicated in Order No. 138/2557.

I understand that Criteria (4) is for the extension of visas for children, adopted children, or spouse's children, not the extension for the parent.

I will read the Thai versions of the Orders tomorrow and see whether my interpretation changes.

[paz]

I haven't actually contacted anyone at immigration about this yet and am following developments on this site.

Facts:

I am 51 years old, 52 in December.

I am working with a work permit.

My current visa is a category B (obviously) which was issued in 1990.

My extensions since 1991, including the present one done at the end of July, were based on being married to a Thai.

My salary was used as income to support the extensions.

My wife died recently.

My son is 25 and working.

I have now re-read the Orders in combination with each other and agree with Ubonjoe that I do in fact qualify for an extension by simply replacing my wife with my son. I would not be claiming I am supporting him, simply that I am the father of a Thai person and that person (my son) would need to go to immigation with me when I do my extension. Oviously, I would need evidence proving the relationship as indicated in Order No. 138/2557.

I understand that Criteria (4) is for the extension of visas for children, adopted children, or spouse's children, not the extension for the parent.

I will read the Thai versions of the Orders tomorrow and see whether my interpretation changes.

I'm afraid you can't apply under criteria (4), because your son is older than 20, and supporting himself.

About criteria (5), I think there must be a translation problem, or other major confusion, because its wording is clear: "in case of Thai parents".

That is, the foreigner applicant have Thai parents. I recognise that is absurd, because someone having even one Thai parent has Thai nationality and does not need to deal with Immigration. But perhaps the regulation wanted to cover this corner case too, in this sense it goes to saying, if your parent is Thai he/she must have proof of funds, or be over 50 and maintained by you the foreigner

Again, I'm perfectly aware that would be the only case when a Thai national has to show proof of funds, however going by strict reading I can't come to other conclusion.

Please let us know what is your interpretation of the Thai version:

Are criteria (4) and (5) with its entire verbiage, both referring to a foreigner having a Thai children, with the foreigner possibly over 50 and maintained by the Thai children ?

Because if that is the case, how it's possible that criteria (5) reverses the parental names "children/parent" ?

[Maestro]

OK, so now we are no longer talking about the OP but about the case of GarryP. His immigration office apparently is, as Ubonjoe figures, wrongly applying the child's maximum age limit of 2.18(4) to 2.18(5)

I have no reason to suspect that the English translations are incorrect, and this is the recent chronology of the parent extension:

Year 2006

Police Order 606/2549, clause 7.17

Criteria

(5) In the case of a parent, the said person must be 50 years of age or over.

Documents

[no financial requirement]

Year 2008

Criteria, Police Order 777/2551, clause 2.18

(5) In the case of a parent, that parent must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year.

Documents, Immigration Bureau Order 305/2551, clause 2.18

5. Only for Criteria (5) and (6), the applicant must attach a funds deposit certificate issued by a bank in Thailand and a copy of a bankbook, or attach documents proving that the parents or alien husband earns an average monthly income of no less than Baht 40,000 throughout the year, such as any particular individual income tax return together with payment receipt, evidence of receiving retirement pension, evidence of receiving interest from funds deposit, or evidence of having other funds issued by the relevant agency.

Year 2014

Criteria, Immigration Bureau Order 327/2557, clause 2.18

(5) In the case of a parent, that parent must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year or must have deposited funds of no less than Baht 400,000 to cover expenses for one year.

In case the parent requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of that parent must be 50 years of age or over.

Documents, Immigration Bureau Order 138/2557

Only for Criteria (5) paragraph 1 and (6), the applicant must attach a funds deposit certificate issued by a bank in Thailand and a copy of a bankbook, or attach documents proving that the parent or alien husband earns an average monthly income of no less than Baht 40,000 throughout the year, such as any particular individual income tax return together with payment receipt, evidence of receiving retirement pension, evidence of receiving interest from funds deposit, or evidence of having other funds issued by the relevant agency. An affidavit must also be submitted confirming the alien’s marital or parental status with a Thai national.

Conclusion

None of the three versions in the past eight years specified a maximum age for the Thai child for the this parent extension. Also the parent extension under 325/2557, clauses 2.11, 2.19 and 2.20 have no limit on the child's age, in these cases a foreign child.

[paz]

OK, so now we are no longer talking about the OP but about the case of GarryP. His immigration office apparently is, as Ubonjoe figures, wrongly applying the child's maximum age limit of 2.18(4) to 2.18(5)

I have no reason to suspect that the English translations are incorrect, and this is the recent chronology of the parent extension:

...

Conclusion

None of the three versions in the past eight years specified a maximum age for the Thai child for the this parent extension. Also the parent extension under 325/2557, clauses 2.11, 2.19 and 2.20 have no limit on the child's age, in these cases a foreign child.

Maestro, sorry but I still don't get it. Criteria (4) refers to a Thai children of a foreign parent, as the sentence ",,,, must live with the alien" implies. Yes / no ?

[Maestro]

Yes, 2.18(4) is for a foreign child below the age of 20 who applies for an extension of stay to live with his Thai father or mother. This is where the immigration officer in question may have got the wrong idea that the application of a parent who applies under 2.18(5) to live with his Thai child can only be accepted if the child is not older than 20 years.

P.S. Actually, the translation of 2.18(4) makes not sense. The whole clause 2.18 is about a foreigner "being a family member of a Thai national. The child applying for the extension is obviously a foreigner, therefore to say it "must live with the alien as part of the family" makes no sense. Something must be wrong with that translation.

[paz]

Yes, 2.18(4) is for a foreign child below the age of 20 who applies for an extension of stay to live with his Thai father or mother. This is where the immigration officer in question may have got the wrong idea that the application of a parent who applies under 2.18(5) to live with his Thai child can only be accepted if the child is not older than 20 years.

P.S. Actually, the translation of 2.18(4) makes not sense. The whole clause 2.18 is about a foreigner "being a family member of a Thai national. The child applying for the extension is obviously a foreigner, therefore to say it "must live with the alien as part of the family" makes no sense.

Yes, that part is contradictory, Maybe the translations has to be reviewed after all.

Things being as you said, please ignore my answer to GarryP above, and sorry for the confusion.

[Maestro]

I can't read Thai and the Thai letters are like hieroglyphs to me, but I bet the word คนต่างด้าว (alien) is nowhere in the Thai text of clause 2.18(4) of 327/2557

[ubonjoe]

The translations of 327/2557 and 777/2551 clause 2.18 (4) are identical. I suspect they used alien because it was the nearest word they could come up with to use.

From 777/2551.

"(4) In the case of children, adopted children, or spouse’s children, said children, adopted children, or spouse’s children must not be married, must live with the alien as part of the family, and must not be over 20 years of age; or"

I just cannot see how immigration could construe that (4) sets an age limit for (5). It makes no sense at all unless they are just using it as an excuse not to do it.

[paz]

I can't read Thai and the Thai letters are like hieroglyphs to me, but I bet the word คนต่างด้าว (alien) is nowhere in the Thai text of clause 2.18(4) of 327/2557

Indeed. My Thai is no better, but it seems to me the construct is "living with the family there". Not alien.

[GarryP]

I can't read Thai and the Thai letters are like hieroglyphs to me, but I bet the word คนต่างด้าว (alien) is nowhere in the Thai text of clause 2.18(4) of 327/2557

2.18(4).png

I confirm that the word คนต่างด้าว (alien) is nowhere in the Thai text of clause 2.18(4) of 327/2557. Thus, the English translation is incorrect.

Here is my translation, which is slightly different from the translation provided on TV:

"(4) In the case of children, adopted children, or spouse's children under their care, said children, adopted children, or spouse's children must not be married, must live as part of that family, and must not be over 20 years of age, except in case of illness or disability and inability to live alone without the support of the father or mother; or"

This is why I believe this section relates to extensions for foreign children only. We need to look at section (5) for extensions for the foreign father or mother based on having Thai children.

Again, I agree with Ubonjoe's interpretation. Next time I do my 90 day report, I will go to Chaengwattana instead of Major Hollywood and consult with some of the officers there. That is, in early January 2015. However, hopefully, someone will have already extended on this basis by then and be able to give the lowdown.

[Holy Cow]

Factual Conclusion? = Zero

Assumption conclusion? 50 year old foreigner has a light switch at the end of the tunnel to find in order to possibly turn it on.

In the end, it can probably be submitted if you can convince the interviewing officer, but final say would be under the consideration of the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner of Immigration.

For me it looks as that GarryP has Thai family, paid his dues of time and should for most considerations deserve the Immigrations stamp of approval. Not everyone has a child, or a child at that age. He has made it this far, and not a fly by night just got off the boat.

2.18(5)(6): In case the father of mother requests to be under maintenance of children, the age of father or mother must be 50 years of age or For other necessary cases, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Immigration Bureau is granted the authority to make decisions regarding approval on a case-by-case basis.