Visa multicountry multichoice

[FredsterX]

I'm a citizen of Finland (EU) and the US, 59 years old, male. Until recently I was living in the UK, but I decided I want to split my life between nine months a year in Thailand (Udon Thani) and three summer months in Sweden. I'm now in Sweden, where I've registered as a resident and just bought a place to live in while here. I'm heading to California (SF) for the first two weeks of January and then coming to Thailand. I don't want to change my travel plans.

The consulate in London didn't even accept my application for an O-A retirement visa, saying the money had to be in a UK current account for the specified time, whereas I have almost all of my money in the US. The requirement makes no sense, it was not mentioned on their site, and it was not mentioned when I called and asked what the requirements were. Oh well. Instead, I went ahead and got a triple-entry tourist visa, which I believe can be extended in-country from 60 to 90 days. But I would like to get a retirement visa, or at least an O visa with retirement extensions. I have enough funds for the retirement visa. I do have a girlfriend in Thailand, but I'd like to take it slow and not marry her for at least a year.

From here, I'm not sure which option is best.

(1) I could attempt a visa in LA, but having only two weeks in the US seems to make the outcome a bit uncertain. I'm not sure it's worth the cost of the paperwork and consulate visit (fingerprinting, criminal clearance, bank statements, notarization, doctor visit, travel, car, hotel, visa fee), which according to some posting I read in TV came to $500 for one person. I am on a fairly tight budget.

(2) I could enter on the tourist visa, extend and then go to Laos or Cambodia and get a new tourist visa, which should get me from mid-January to mid-June (right?), when I plan to travel to Sweden for the summer. I could then presumably get the retirement visa in Sweden, being technically a resident here. This would make my life relatively easy in the short run, but I'd have a visa that needed extending every summer, exactly when I plan to be outside LOS. Transferring money as needed is doable.

(3) I could enter on my tourist visa, try to convert to a 90-day O visa and get the retirement extensions forever, or until I get tired of them and upgrade. I believe this might present some problems during my three-month absences, but I'm not sure. If that works, this route should mean a smaller financial investment.

I'd like to hear what people think of these options. Is there something I'm missing? In your experience, which one makes the most sense?

[steve187]

The 3 entry tourist visa will give you 3 x 60 day with extensions of 30 days, so in total 268 days, don't forget to do the last entry before the expiry date of the actual visa.

converting at local offices which offer this service to a non 'o' and then obtain a yearly extension on retirement reasons, would be the cheaper and easier way to go, with a re-entry permit, you could leave and re-enter, there would be no problem with being out of the country for 3 months at a time, as long as the renewal was not due during your absence.

Do not confuse non imm 'o' 'a' visa requiring police check etc. with a non imm 'o',

[ubonjoe]

Unless you have residency in the US you cannot apply for a OA visa there.

You could get a single entry non-o visa from one of the honorary consulates in the states without a problem. Contact info: http://www.thaiembdc.org/dcdp/?q=consulate_honorary

You might also be able to get one from the embassy or one of the 3 official consulates if you are not a resident of the US.

It has gotten harder to a change from tourist visa to a non immigrant visa. You only can do them in Bangkok, Hat Yai and Chiang Mai. But it has been reported but not confirmed yet that Chiang Mai can no longer do them anymore. It may be that only Bangkok will be able to them before long.

[FredsterX]

Steve187, thanks. I didn't know I could use the tourist visa 3x60+30.

And thank you too, UbonJoe.

For what it's worth, the LA consulate website lists among the "qualifications of an applicant" the following:
"Having the nationality of or the residence in the country where his/ her application is submitted."

What would be the advantage of a single-entry non-O visa from one of the honorary consulates?

Right now Steve's suggestion to get the O plus extensions makes the most sense. I can go to Bangkok.

[ubonjoe]

The advantage of getting the non-o is that you don't have to make 2 trips to Bangkok to do the change and take a chance that the first trip is wasted because you are short on one of the requirements.

That is the requirements for the OA visa you posted. You must be a resident.

If you are not a resident you could possibly get a non-o from the consulate in LA.

You don't really need a 3 entry tourist visa if you plan on changing to a non immigrant visa to get an extension of stay based upon retirement. A single entry visa would be enough.

[Sophon]

(3) I could enter on my tourist visa, try to convert to a 90-day O visa and get the retirement extensions forever, or until I get tired of them and upgrade. I believe this might present some problems during my three-month absences, but I'm not sure. If that works, this route should mean a smaller financial investment.

Sorry, not an answer to your questions but I'm curious about what you meant when you said you might decide to "upgrade" from retirement extensions.

Sophon