I think everyone needs to look at all the numbers 2.18, 2.19 and 2.20 all seem to relate. Just reading over 2.20 for only that of aliens with aliens, makes the 2.18, 2.19 only the opposite in nature. Foreigner to Thai or Thai Resident. If that follows true, then great as it makes sense.

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.

The immigration commissioners approval would not be needed for the over 50 option that is for other cases that might come up. That was in the clause before they added in the new line for over 50.

For over 50 it is not clear what the requirements will be. The child will certainly have to prove their ability to support you and you would probably have to prove that you cannot support yourself I suspect.

_{@ubonjoe Hard call, but certainly would leave an option open for the non qualifying retirement, divorced, or spouse passed away men, and women for that matter. Could be the person invested in a business, the child runs it and takes care of the father/mother that way. Or, could be the father/mother allocates a portion of the income coming from abroad to the child to take care. All in all it will be interesting to see the first real criteria to qualify will be.}

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.

Perhaps the translator of 327/2557 should have looked at both English translations of 777/2551 that are on the web as references. The other one has also errors, I know, but I see that it got the clause 2.18(4) almost right:

(4) In the case of a child, adopted child or child of his/her spouse, the said person must not be married, must be living with the family, and must be less than 20 years of age;

Perhaps the translator of 327/2557 should have looked at both English translations of 777/2551 that are on the web as references. The other one has also errors, I know, but I see that it got the clause 2.18(4) almost right:

(4) In the case of a child, adopted child or child of his/her spouse, the said person must not be married, must be living with the family, and must be less than 20 years of age;

Can the versions that is hosted on TV be corrected? Still it has the "fluids" thing and other typos.

I understand that the translation office that did the translation of 327/2557 and gave Thaivisa permission to make it available to the members has been informed about that particular error. For copyright reasons, we should not tinker with it ourselves, I think.