The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

[atecom]

Does anyone know if the Sydney consulate still accepts proof of balance letters from the bank, or do they require bank statements?

 

Regards

~Atecom

[ubonjoe]

10 hours ago, atecom said:

Does anyone know if the Sydney consulate still accepts proof of balance letters from the bank, or do they require bank statements?

The letter would be accepted if it verified you balance for 6 months (equivalent of 200k baht).

[atecom]

Just got back from Sydney consulate, they have accepted the proof of balance letter, which just shows the balance from the day I printed it last month, at least for the time being. May have to wait to see if it causes any issues during the application process. Even though the website states that it should be a statement, their leaflets with the list of required documents that I picked up at the embassy said Proof of Balance letter was okay, so I think it may be fine also.

[Different]

On 4/20/2019 at 1:10 PM, ubonjoe said:

He got the METV but was refused a multiple entry non-o visa.

Dear ubonjoe

 

From reading Thaivisa forum for years I know many farang get their visa not from their home countries but from neighbouring countries.  The question how can know if I'm too will be qualified for another 6 METV from Thai embassy from neighbouring countries if I don't want to go back to my shithole country.????

[ubonjoe]

4 minutes ago, Different said:

Dear ubonjoe

 

From reading Thaivisa forum for years I know many farang get their visa not from their home countries but from neighbouring countries.  The question how can know if I'm too will be qualified for another 6 METV from Thai embassy from neighbouring countries if I don't want to go back to my shithole country.????

A METV has not been available at nearby embassies and consulate since it became available in 2015. It is only issued at a embassy or consulate in your home country or country of legal residence.

If think you may be referring to the 2 and 3 entry tourist visas some people called a multiple entry tourist visa, Those have not been available since the METV became available.

[Different]

5 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

A METV has not been available at nearby embassies and consulate since it became available in 2015. It is only issued at a embassy or consulate in your home country or country of legal residence.

If think you may be referring to the 2 and 3 entry tourist visas some people called a multiple entry tourist visa, Those have not been available since the METV became available.

In that case, I guess the only legal way left hassle free is to hook up with one of the ladies I dated and make it legal, right? Because I'm really worried and I don't want to leave LOS dead or alive.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, Different said:

In that case, I guess the only legal way left hassle free is to hook up with one of the ladies I dated and make it legal, right? Because I'm really worried and I don't want to leave LOS dead or alive.

There is the 1-year Non-O-ME option nearby.  But if you are not even sure which lady ...

You can get SETVs every 3 months from consulates nearby, provided you re-enter the country via law-abiding land-borders (any but Poipet/Aranyaprathet - avoid it). 

You could also get an ED Visa - based on studying a foreign language (or other things, available in some areas) - which you would extend every 3 months.  That runs about 50K/yr, including payoffs through the school to immigration, to ensure you receive full extensions.

Either would be less expense (and likely hassle) than a "wife on paper" you don't love / want to support anyway.

[Different]

On 5/3/2019 at 11:25 PM, JackThompson said:

There is the 1-year Non-O-ME option nearby.  But if you are not even sure which lady ...

You can get SETVs every 3 months from consulates nearby, provided you re-enter the country via law-abiding land-borders (any but Poipet/Aranyaprathet - avoid it). 

You could also get an ED Visa - based on studying a foreign language (or other things, available in some areas) - which you would extend every 3 months.  That runs about 50K/yr, including payoffs through the school to immigration, to ensure you receive full extensions.

Either would be less expense (and likely hassle) than a "wife on paper" you don't love / want to support anyway.

Sorry, but a wife on a paper and a friend is much better than two options you mention with all respect.

[Briggsy]

On 5/7/2019 at 3:35 PM, Different said:

Sorry, but a wife on a paper and a friend is much better than two options you mention with all respect.

We are getting seriously off topic here. I have PM'ed you.

[phuketitnet]

Has anyone been denied entry on a valid MTEV with 2 valid entries remaining and an exit flight within the visa expiry date, but having visited Thailand (legitimately) for more than 1,000 days in total on an METV?

 

It did not seem to matter that I've never overstayed and always leave when required, rarely extend the 60 day stamp, certainly in recent years, and am out of the country on some occasions for months at a time.

 

I also recently married to a Thai which carried no weight, but haven't yet moved to a marriage visa.

 

I have been told I must get a Non-O visa in order to return, which is fine, if a little inconvientant having to visit another country after just returning from holiday.

 

While granted this is a long time to be on a tourist visa, I can imagine there might be others in a similar situation whereby they've been here an exceedingly long time, but have not married or do not plan to marry - I do get this living situation isn't what the METV is really supposed to be for.

 

At no point was any payment suggested and the whole process seemed completely above board to all involved, so there must be some knowledge of this ruling within immigration.

 

Has anyone else fallen foul to this ruling? Is this even an official rule for METV? It's the first I've heard about it, but immigration were certainly concerned I'd been here this long without converting to a Non-O visa.

 

I'm going through the proper motions as required for a Non-O, so this is purely a out of interest post and hopefully a helpful caution to others, if this is indeed the official stance.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, phuketitnet said:

Has anyone been denied entry on a valid MTEV with 2 valid entries remaining and an exit flight within the visa expiry date, but having visited Thailand (legitimately) for more than 1,000 days in total on an METV?

 

It did not seem to matter that I've never overstayed and always leave when required, rarely extend the 60 day stamp, certainly in recent years, and am out of the country on some occasions for months at a time.

 

I also recently married to a Thai which carried no weight, but haven't yet moved to a marriage visa.

 

I have been told I must get a Non-O visa in order to return, which is fine, if a little inconvientant having to visit another country after just returning from holiday.

 

While granted this is a long time to be on a tourist visa, I can imagine there might be others in a similar situation whereby they've been here an exceedingly long time, but have not married or do not plan to marry - I do get this living situation isn't what the METV is really supposed to be for.

 

At no point was any payment suggested and the whole process seemed completely above board to all involved, so there must be some knowledge of this ruling within immigration.

 

Has anyone else fallen foul to this ruling? Is this even an official rule for METV? It's the first I've heard about it, but immigration were certainly concerned I'd been here this long without converting to a Non-O visa.

 

I'm going through the proper motions as required for a Non-O, so this is purely a out of interest post and hopefully a helpful caution to others, if this is indeed the official stance.

Your experience is not unique. It has only been in the last year or so that immigration has started denying entry to those with actual tourist visas (denial of visa exempt entry has been going on longer). There is no officially published regulation on when immigration can decide to abrogate tourist visas. It happens sometimes at certain airports and the land crossing at Poipet/Aranyaprathet. It never happens at some other entry points.

[Briggsy]

4 hours ago, phuketitnet said:

Has anyone been denied entry on a valid MTEV with 2 valid entries remaining and an exit flight within the visa expiry date, but having visited Thailand (legitimately) for more than 1,000 days in total on an METV?

Yes, me. I was denied entry with a brand new METV from the UK. METV's as @BritTim states, are definitely fair game [for denial of entry] now along with visa exempts, SETV's and ED visas. The stringent extra conditions to obtain one and the extra cost therefore seem pointlessly redundant.

[riclag]

5 hours ago, phuketitnet said:

Has anyone been denied entry on a valid MTEV with 2 valid entries remaining and an exit flight within the visa expiry date, but having visited Thailand (legitimately) for more than 1,000 days in total on an METV?

 

It did not seem to matter that I've never overstayed and always leave when required, rarely extend the 60 day stamp, certainly in recent years, and am out of the country on some occasions for months at a time.

 

I also recently married to a Thai which carried no weight, but haven't yet moved to a marriage visa.

 

I have been told I must get a Non-O visa in order to return, which is fine, if a little inconvientant having to visit another country after just returning from holiday.

 

While granted this is a long time to be on a tourist visa, I can imagine there might be others in a similar situation whereby they've been here an exceedingly long time, but have not married or do not plan to marry - I do get this living situation isn't what the METV is really supposed to be for.

 

At no point was any payment suggested and the whole process seemed completely above board to all involved, so there must be some knowledge of this ruling within immigration.

 

Has anyone else fallen foul to this ruling? Is this even an official rule for METV? It's the first I've heard about it, but immigration were certainly concerned I'd been here this long without converting to a Non-O visa.

 

I'm going through the proper motions as required for a Non-O, so this is purely a out of interest post and hopefully a helpful caution to others, if this is indeed the official stance.

how old are you and was your  passport pages  full of stamps. Did you have a women IO stop you ? Where did this happen?

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The stringent extra conditions to obtain one and the extra cost therefore seem pointlessly redundant.

The extra conditions are not meant as a pass to allow the visa holder to live permanently in the country. They are meant to demonstrate the person can afford multiple trips to Thailand over a six month period, and that they have a reason (job/business) to go home to.

 

The visa is meant for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits.

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The extra conditions are not meant as a pass to allow the visa holder to live permanently in the country. They are meant to demonstrate the person can afford multiple trips to Thailand over a six month period, and that they have a reason (job/business) to go home to.

 

The visa is meant for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits.

I could be wrong but I think someone's age triggers a inquire by a IO,seeing that IO's may have suspicion  on people working here illegally

[riclag]

I find it very suspicious that a Thai embassy in other countries vetts and issues these visa's only to have them further vetted after the fact at the port of entry

[Briggsy]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

The extra conditions are not meant as a pass to allow the visa holder to live permanently in the country. They are meant to demonstrate the person can afford multiple trips to Thailand over a six month period, and that they have a reason (job/business) to go home to.

 

The visa is meant for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits.

I actually don't broadly disagree with you. However in arguing against my statement, you have actually supported what I stated.

 

(The whole thing is possibly indicative of a political battle between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bangkok Immigration Department)

[Caldera]

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

The visa is meant for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits.

They could have designed it as described by you, allowing only short visits. Instead, on paper, it allows multiple 60-day visits - and each visit can be extended by another 30 days at the discretion of the local immigration office on top.

 

I have to agree with those who argue that the Thai authorities simply have no consistent policy towards long-term tourism. Many embassies and consulates seem happy to issue METVs back to back as long as their conditions are being met. Most immigration offices extend those visits routinely. Most land borders don't make up additional rules or second-guess the consular officer's decision. At the other end of the spectrum, we have Poi Pet and most airports that take a hostile stance towards people who spend "too much" time in Thailand on tourist visa. I'd call it a mess.

[BritTim]

4 hours ago, Briggsy said:

(The whole thing is possibly indicative of a political battle between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bangkok Immigration Department)

That is my view. The real reasons for these denials of entry cannot be made public because the Immigration Bureau is not supposed to be able to double guess the consular officials on whether people should have been issued visas.

[jacko45k]

16 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The stringent extra conditions to obtain one and the extra cost therefore seem pointlessly redundant.

You would think so. But can I ask under what criteria are people being turned away under, mostly? The one I heard of recently was simply not having the 20,000 cash or equivalent on arrival at the main airport. Of course finances had been proven to obtain the visa, and the person was not expecting further checks. 

[BritTim]

54 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

17 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The stringent extra conditions to obtain one and the extra cost therefore seem pointlessly redundant.

You would think so. But can I ask under what criteria are people being turned away under, mostly? The one I heard of recently was simply not having the 20,000 cash or equivalent on arrival at the main airport. Of course finances had been proven to obtain the visa, and the person was not expecting further checks. 

Until a year or two ago, immigration officials were looking for proper reasons under Section 12 of the Immigration Act when they wanted to deny entry. Almost invariably this was illegal working or lack of the 20,000 baht. However, they now almost always (mis)use Section 12 (2) "Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom" which they are twisting to mean being in Thailand as a tourist for too long is inappropriate. I am quite sure this was never supposed to be the meaning.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

The visa is meant for people living outside of Thailand that want to make multiple short visits.

Quote please of ANY immigration or government official who actually said this. Until and unless you provide one this is just your OPINION. It doesn't even make sense as people coming for multiple short visits will just enter visa exempt - the entire point of SETV and METV is to give the ability to stay 60 days at a time implying longer stays. And FWIW the Thai embassy in my country actually has a recent sign that says you are limited to 90 days in 180 days on visa exempt entries (which is actually false - although they will give you trouble after 6 exempt entries in a year), but entries are not limited using tourist visas.

[Briggsy]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

You would think so. But can I ask under what criteria are people being turned away under, mostly? The one I heard of recently was simply not having the 20,000 cash or equivalent on arrival at the main airport. Of course finances had been proven to obtain the visa, and the person was not expecting further checks. 

As @BritTim states, Section 12 (2) and (3).

[ThaiBunny]

8 hours ago, BritTim said:

That is my view. The real reasons for these denials of entry cannot be made public because the Immigration Bureau is not supposed to be able to double guess the consular officials on whether people should have been issued visas.

A visa entitles you to travel to a country and, if admitted, imposes the conditions for your stay. It is entirely up to the Immigration Officer to determine whether to admit the visa holder. True of every country I've ever visited that requires visas including the USA

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

8 hours ago, BritTim said:

That is my view. The real reasons for these denials of entry cannot be made public because the Immigration Bureau is not supposed to be able to double guess the consular officials on whether people should have been issued visas.

A visa entitles you to travel to a country and, if admitted, imposes the conditions for your stay. It is entirely up to the Immigration Officer to determine whether to admit the visa holder. True of every country I've ever visited that requires visas including the USA

You would find it instructive to read the Thai Immigration Act. The law specified there is what the Thai immigration officials are supposed to follow, not the law of other countries you have visited. The Immigration Act is very clear about when immigration officials should deny entry. It lists the criteria for denying entry in Section 12 of the Act. The Act further makes clear that only the Minister is allowed discretion in denying entry or allowing entry countermanding the Act's rules. When denying entry, officials must indicate which reason under Section 12 of the Act is the basis of the denial, and you are supposed to be able to appeal the denied entry.

 

On the other hand, the embassies (who are under a different ministry) are permitted to set any conditions for issuing visas they think fit, and can deny you a visa without being required to give a reason (either before or after you have paid the application fee for the visa). There is no appeal process.

[riclag]

17 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

A visa entitles you to travel to a country and, if admitted, imposes the conditions for your stay. It is entirely up to the Immigration Officer to determine whether to admit the visa holder. True of every country I've ever visited that requires visas including the USA

So after meeting the requirements of a METV at a Thai Embassy  ,,vetting a passport,showing a itinerary,having a departure ticket ,proof of income and employment.Before or after that obtaining a flight to here,Upon entering you still can be  denied,Hogwash

[ThaiBunny]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

vetting a passport

Embassies don't "vet" passports.  Unless it's got some visible evidence of misdemeanour in it they accept it at face value. They don't have access to Immigration computers

[ThaiBunny]

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

You would find it instructive to read the Thai Immigration Act. The law specified there is what the Thai immigration officials are supposed to follow, not the law of other countries you have visited. The Immigration Act is very clear about when immigration officials should deny entry. It lists the criteria for denying entry in Section 12 of the Act. The Act further makes clear that only the Minister is allowed discretion in denying entry or allowing entry countermanding the Act's rules. When denying entry, officials must indicate which reason under Section 12 of the Act is the basis of the denial, and you are supposed to be able to appeal the denied entry.

 

On the other hand, the embassies (who are under a different ministry) are permitted to set any conditions for issuing visas they think fit, and can deny you a visa without being required to give a reason (either before or after you have paid the application fee for the visa). There is no appeal process.

How exactly does that contradict what I wrote? That an IO can refuse entry is not disputed, and he must give reasons.  That has nothing to do with whether a visa has been issued. There's nothing to say he must admit everyone who has a visa

[JackThompson]

51 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

How exactly does that contradict what I wrote? That an IO can refuse entry is not disputed, and he must give reasons.  That has nothing to do with whether a visa has been issued. There's nothing to say he must admit everyone who has a visa

The point is, they are frequently using a False Reason to deny-entry, in many cases.  The reason for rejection stamped is a lie, and what they tell the traveler the "real reason" is - "Too much time in Thailand" - is not a valid reason to reject-entry under the Immigration Act.  If the police in most any civilized country are caught doing something like this, they face criminal charges - but not in Thailand.

[jackdd]

Out of the last 12 months i spent more than 11 months on METVs in Thailand. Recently entered at CNX after a three day trip out of the country to activate a new entry. No problems, no questions asked by the IO.