30 day visa exemption refused at bkk?

[BuffaloRescue]

Hi. I'm just wondering if anyone was refused visa exemption when flying into Thailand. I was refused at land border so flew to kl and try to get back into Thailand tomorrow

Edited August 25, 2015 by ubonjoe
Edited topic title to make it question.

[ubonjoe]

You should not have a problem flying in unless you have several visa exempt entries. You could be questioned and asked to show 20k baht in cash or the equivalent.

[nowretired]

What was the stated reason for refusal?

Is there a "refused entry" stamp in your passport ?

[DanceAllNight]

flying into Thailand is certainly better than crossing by land. You should show funds, but won't likely be refused....as they would have to cover your costs flying back to point of origin. At any rate, just get a visa!

[passedout]

Last time I flew to BKK I had my 6th visa exemption stamped in my passport within last 12 months period and was told the next time I needed a visa. So I assume if you have less than 6 visa exempt stamps in the last 12 months and everything else is within the norm you should be ok.

[mgb]

You should not have a problem flying in unless you have several visa exempt entries. You could be questioned and asked to show 20k baht in cash or the equivalent.

As far as I know 10k for a single and 20k for a family.

[elviajero]

You can only be refused entry at a land or air border if you are excluded under section 12 of the immigration act.

Having x amount of visa exempt entries or other visas is not a reason for exclusion.

The land border IO acted illegally if he didn't have legal reason under section 12 to exclude you. They do it, and get away with it, at land borders because there is little consequence.

Exclusion at an airport is a big deal as it would involve extradition and you will only get excluded legally.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

You should not have a problem flying in unless you have several visa exempt entries. You could be questioned and asked to show 20k baht in cash or the equivalent.

Joe, I've never been very clear in reading here on this visa exempt issue... what does "the equivalent" mean?

Do you mean just cash in some currency other than the Thai baht, but equal to 20K baht?

What about credit or debit cards with available balance? Bank account with available balance? Or similar???

[ubonjoe]

There have been reports of immigration wanting to see the cash. Equivalent is any exchangeable currency.

[elviajero]

You should not have a problem flying in unless you have several visa exempt entries. You could be questioned and asked to show 20k baht in cash or the equivalent.

Joe, I've never been very clear in reading here on this visa exempt issue... what does "the equivalent" mean?

Do you mean just cash in some currency other than the Thai baht, but equal to 20K baht?

What about credit or debit cards with available balance? Bank account with available balance? Or similar???

Cash or travellers cheques.

It is a good idea to have 10k/20k if arriving at an airport but it's highly unlikely that the IO will ask you to show you have it.

[Suradit69]

flying into Thailand is certainly better than crossing by land. You should show funds, but won't likely be refused....as they would have to cover your costs flying back to point of origin. At any rate, just get a visa!

"as they would have to cover your costs flying back to point of origin."

No "they" wouldn't cover your costs for anything. That's why many airlines will not let you fly into Thailand without a visa unless you have paid for a flight out. You or the airline would have to pay for your flight out if you were refused entry.

[Suradit69]

You can only be refused entry at a land or air border if you are excluded under section 12 of the immigration act.

Having x amount of visa exempt entries or other visas is not a reason for exclusion.

The land border IO acted illegally if he didn't have legal reason under section 12 to exclude you. They do it, and get away with it, at land borders because there is little consequence.

Exclusion at an airport is a big deal as it would involve extradition and you will only get excluded legally.

Being refused entry does not involve extradition. The airline you flew in on most likely insisted that you already bought a ticket for a flight out. You will then fly out on the next available flight and become another country's problem.

I agree that being refused entry at the airport is unlikely, but it does not involve extradition or a special session of the UN to accomplish.

"The land border IO acted illegally"

Immigrations officers have both the right and the responsibility to use their discretion, just as embassies and consulates can refuse to issue visas. The list of reasons why a foreigner may be refused entry to Thailand includes a number of subjective evaluations as the following illustrates ...think how many people could easily fall under the description "the likelihood of being a nuisance."

(7) Having behaviour which could cause possible danger to the public; or having the likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace, safety and security of the public or to the security of the nation; or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

No foreigner has an innate legal right to enter any country he chooses and obviously citizens of some countries find it either very easy or very difficult to be admitted to other countries. Some nationals can only apply for Thai visas in their home countries where there's a big chance they'll be refused.

[elviajero]

Being refused entry does not involve extradition. The airline you flew in on most likely insisted that you already bought a ticket for a flight out. You will then fly out on the next available flight and become another country's problem.

I agree that being refused entry at the airport is unlikely, but it does not involve extradition or a special session of the UN to accomplish.

"The land border IO acted illegally"

Immigrations officers have both the right and the responsibility to use their discretion, just as embassies and consulates can refuse to issue visas. The list of reasons why a foreigner may be refused entry to Thailand includes a number of subjective evaluations as the following illustrates ...think how many people could easily fall under the description "the likelihood of being a nuisance."

(7) Having behaviour which could cause possible danger to the public; or having the likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace, safety and security of the public or to the security of the nation; or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

No foreigner has an innate legal right to enter any country he chooses and obviously citizens of some countries find it either very easy or very difficult to be admitted to other countries. Some nationals can only apply for Thai visas in their home countries where there's a big chance they'll be refused.

You're right. I was wrong to say "extradition". I was meaning expulsion.

Anyone refused entry will be asked to leave and remain in the custody (not necessarily detained) of immigration until they have organised a flight out. That may or may not involve the airline that brought them to the country.

Immigration Officers enforce the law they don't make it. They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

[moto77]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

[elviajero]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

No its not it's based on the law.

The fact that some IO's don't abide by the rules and the law is a different matter.

IO's do not have unlimited discretion.

[nowretired]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

MOTO 77

A detailed explanation of what you believe to be "TOTALLY WRONG" would be appreciated by us ill-informed chaps.

Thanks

[moto77]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

MOTO 77

A detailed explanation of what you believe to be "TOTALLY WRONG" would be appreciated by us ill-informed chaps.

Thanks

Their discretion to allow entry is broad.

They can (and often do) refuse people for having too may previous entries.

They can refuse entry on suspicion alone--they do not need proof.

They do not have to admit you because you happen to meet the entry requirements.

i.e. So pretty much what I said. Totally wrong.

[nowretired]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

MOTO 77

A detailed explanation of what you believe to be "TOTALLY WRONG" would be appreciated by us ill-informed chaps.

Thanks

Their discretion to allow entry is broad.

They can (and often do) refuse people for having too may previous entries.

They can refuse entry on suspicion alone--they do not need proof.

They do not have to admit you because you happen to meet the entry requirements.

i.e. So pretty much what I said. Totally wrong.

Sorry to say but I believe you to be "totally wrong" !

End of debate ............

[moto77]

Sorry to say but I believe you to be "totally wrong" !

End of debate ............

LOL... I could care less. I didn't post it for you. You can believe the moon is made of cheese if you like.

I posted it so that people can be aware of misinformation. Anyone who NEEDS to know and doesn't believe me can ask an attorney and they will be told the same thing.

[elviajero]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

MOTO 77

A detailed explanation of what you believe to be "TOTALLY WRONG" would be appreciated by us ill-informed chaps.

Thanks

Their discretion to allow entry is broad.

They can (and often do) refuse people for having too may previous entries.

They can refuse entry on suspicion alone--they do not need proof.

They do not have to admit you because you happen to meet the entry requirements.

i.e. So pretty much what I said. Totally wrong.

They cannot legally do any of the things you accuse them of.

If you beleive they have the powers you claim then point us to the Act granting those powers.

You seem to be confusing what some IO's do with what they are legally allowed to do. Big difference.

[anotheruser]

You can't be serious? They have the right to do whatever they want to. Entering a foreign country is a privilege and one that can be revoked without any explanation necessary. If you read the fine print on any visa ever granted by any country in the world you will know that it can be revoked at any time with no reason offered.

[moto77]

They cannot legally do any of the things you accuse them of.

If you beleive they have the powers you claim then point us to the Act granting those powers.

You seem to be confusing what some IO's do with what they are legally allowed to do. Big difference.

I'm not going to argue, because I cannot cite Thai law, nor can you. However I can provide US cases and tell you that it works the same way everywhere. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but you should stop providing this information, because it is not true. (You can say, "that's just US law" if you wish, and I would then tell you to cite Thai case law... however, barring you providing the Thai case law, I'm done here because this is pointless.)

Generally, federal courts have considered a consular officer’s decision unreviewable and, thus, have refused to review a visa denial.1 Known as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability or consular absolutism, this practice first emerged in two appellate cases in the 1920s and from the INA’s grant of broad discretion to consular officers. In United States ex rel. London v. Phelps,2 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in dicta, refused to review a visa denial because of the diplomatic nature of granting and denying visas.3 In United States ex rel. Ulrich v. Kellogg,4 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit argued that review was unavailable because the Immigration Act of 1924 lacked a provision granting review over consular officers’ decisions.5 Section 104(a) of the INA states that [t]he Secretary of State shall be charged with the administration and the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and all other immigration and nationality laws relating to (1) the powers, duties, and functions of diplomatic and consular officers of the United States, except those powers,duties, and functions conferred upon the consular officers relating to the granting or refusal of visas . . . .6 Courts interpret this provision as granting consular officers broad authority over visa decisions.7

1. See, e.g., Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“For the greater part of this century, our court has therefore refused to review visa decisions of consular officials.”); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 970 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The doctrine of nonreviewability of a consul’s decision to grant or deny a visa stems from the Supreme Court’s confirming that the legislative power of Congress over the admission of aliens is virtually complete.”); Rivera de Gomez v. Kissinger, 534 F.2d 518, 519 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (affirming a district court’s decision to withhold jurisdiction to review a consular officer’s decision because Supreme Court precedent foreclosed it); Pena v. Kissinger, 409 F. Supp. 1182, 1184, 1187–88 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (recognizing that a lawful permanent resident petitioning for a foreign spouse has standing to seek review but holding that Mandel and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability preclude any meaningful review).

2. 22 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1927).

3. See id. at 290 (“Whether the consul has acted reasonably or unreasonably is not for us to determine. Unjustifiable refusal . . . may be ground for diplomatic complaint by the nation whose subject has been discriminated against. . . . It is beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”).

4. 30 F.2d 984 (D.C. Cir. 1929).

5. See id. at 986 (“We are not able to find any provision of the immigration laws which provides for an official review of the action of the consular officers in such case by a cabinet officer or other authority.”); see also Nafziger, supra note 16, at 30 (noting that the court’s interpretation of the Immigration Act of 1924 later led to a negative inference of review of consular officer’s decisions in section 104(a) of the INA).

6. 8 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (2012) (emphasis added).

7. See Nafziger, supra note 16, at 30 (arguing that it is incorrect to infer nonreviewability from section 104(a) of the INA because that section merely confirms a consular officer’s powers rather than points to nonreviewability or even broad discretion).

[nowretired]

Cut and past from Google ?

[Phatcharanan]

IO's have the discretion to refuse you entry.

They are not required to give you an explanation as to why.

[elviajero]

You can't be serious? They have the right to do whatever they want to. Entering a foreign country is a privilege and one that can be revoked without any explanation necessary. If you read the fine print on any visa ever granted by any country in the world you will know that it can be revoked at any time with no reason offered.

"They" (IO's) do not have the right to do whatever they want. That is simply not true.

You are confusing a countries right to immigration policy with an IO''s rights when enforcing it. Big difference.

[Fab5BKK]

"...as they would have to cover your costs flying back to point of origin."

???

Could you develop a bit?

flying into Thailand is certainly better than crossing by land. You should show funds, but won't likely be refused....as they would have to cover your costs flying back to point of origin. At any rate, just get a visa!

[elviajero]

They cannot legally do any of the things you accuse them of.

If you beleive they have the powers you claim then point us to the Act granting those powers.

You seem to be confusing what some IO's do with what they are legally allowed to do. Big difference.

I'm not going to argue, because I cannot cite Thai law, nor can you. However I can provide US cases and tell you that it works the same way everywhere. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but you should stop providing this information, because it is not true. (You can say, "that's just US law" if you wish, and I would then tell you to cite Thai case law... however, barring you providing the Thai case law, I'm done here because this is pointless.)

I can cite Thailand's immigration law which is all that matters. US law is irrelevant.

Nowhere does it state in Thai Immigration Law or Ministerial Regulation or Immigration Police Orders that IO's have any of the discretionary or unilateral decision making powers being claimed.

What Thai immigration policy does do is lay out the rights of the foreigner and conditions for entry in to the country.

Again. You are confusing a countries laws and rights over immigration policy with an individual IO's right's when enforcing that law.

[elviajero]

IO's have the discretion to refuse you entry.

They are not required to give you an explanation as to why.

Please give an example of such discretion and the law or regulation that allows it.

Section 22 of the immigration act says you're wrong.

Section 22 : In the instance where the competent official discovers that an alien is forbidden from entering into the Kingdom under the provisions of Section 12 , the competent official shall have authority to order said alien by written notification to leave the Kingdom. If said alien is not satisfied with the competent official’s order , he ( alien ) may appeal to the Minister. The order of the Minister shall be final.

[anotheruser]

Elviajero, you can cite any laws you want but it is generally known that a nation is not obligated to let a foreign national in and the laws of that nation do not apply to foreigners.

[AYJAYDEE]

They do not have the right to refuse anyone for any reasons other than granted by law. They may be able to use discretion within that law but it's very limited and certainly doesn't include exclusion for having x amount of previous visa exempt entries. If an IO wanted to exclude someone for "the likelihood of being a nuisance" they would have to justify it to senior officers. Immigration must then give the foreigner written notice to leave. The foreigner has the right to appeal to a higher authority.

Embassies and Consulates can only refuse visas that they offer if the applicant cannot provide all requested supporting documentation. Again, they don't make law they issue visas based on the law.

Agreed that no foreigner has the automatic right to enter but as long as they meet the entry requirements an IO cannot legally refuse entry. IO's turning foreigners away at borders and telling them to go and get visas are acting unlawfully, and discretion doesn't come in to it.

That's TOTALLY WRONG information. I'm not planing to get into an argument about the discretion of immigration officers, but it is virtually unlimited. You shouldn't be putting information like this out there, as it is based on your false assumptions, not the law.

No its not it's based on the law.

The fact that some IO's don't abide by the rules and the law is a different matter.

IO's do not have unlimited discretion.

yes they do