The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

[riclag]

16 hours ago, jackdd said:

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.

How old are you? The reason why I ask is that at times many younger people are singled out for visa violations or suspicion  

Edited May 22, 2019 by riclag

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

How old are you! The reason why I ask is that at times many younger people are singled out for visa violations or suspicion  

In my thirties, German passport

Edited May 22, 2019 by jackdd

[riclag]

Just now, jackdd said:

In my thirties, German passport

Thanks

[fhickson]

On 5/21/2019 at 6:51 AM, jackdd said:

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.

Why would they make a problem if you had a valid visa?

 

When applying for the metv do i need to state number of entries needed, or is it unlimited entries?

[atecom]

10 minutes ago, fhickson said:

Why would they make a problem if you had a valid visa?

 

When applying for the metv do i need to state number of entries needed, or is it unlimited entries?

The airports at Bangkok sometimes give people with valid visas issues if they have a long stay history.

 

No need to state the number of entries, it's unlimited.

[JackThompson]

6 hours ago, fhickson said:

Why would they make a problem if you had a valid visa?

Immigration at some entry-points have decided the laws concerning Tourist Visas are wrong - don't like the fact that you can stay repeatedly on Tourist-type entries - so they break the law they are supposed to be enforcing.  First, they will tell you they are denying your entry because you spend "too much" (undefined) time in Thailand.  But because this is not a valid reason to deny entry per the Immigration Act, and they do not want to leave evidence of doing this, they put a stamp in your passport that you cannot afford to fund your stay - without evidence or recourse on your part to prove otherwise. 

 

After being in Thailand 4 or so months "most of the time," it would be best to use land-borders (any but Poipet, which is run by the same Immigration-clique as the Bangkok Airports) for all further entries to the country.   Chiang Mai airport might also be OK, though if denied, you still risk detention and a forced-flight out.  At a land-border, if denied entry (rare with a Visa), you can just walk back where you came from. 

 

Note, a new report indicates you must show a flight at hotel booking when entering at the Pedang Besar land crossing - even if you already have a visa.

Edited May 27, 2019 by JackThompson

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Immigration at some entry-points have decided the laws concerning Tourist Visas are wrong - don't like the fact that you can stay repeatedly on Tourist-type entries - so they break the law they are supposed to be enforcing.

Where does it say ‘in law’ that you can stay repeatedly on “Tourist-type entries”?

 

Which ‘law’ are they breaking by denying entry?

 

You’re making more false claims and misinforming people you’re presumably trying to help!

 

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Where does it say ‘in law’ that you can stay repeatedly on “Tourist-type entries”?

Law in most countries follows the "If something is not forbidden by law, then it is allowed" principle, even Thai law.

Where in Thai law does it say that it's forbidden to stay repeatedly on "tourist-type entries"?

[elviajero]

 

Quote

Where in Thai law does it say that it's forbidden to stay repeatedly on "tourist-type entries"?

I didn’t say it does. I’m not the one opining on the opinions of IO’s policing the borders and claiming non-existent laws are being broken.

 

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

I didn’t say it does. I’m not the one opining on the opinions of IO’s policing the borders and claiming non-existent laws are being broken. 

Nobody says non-existent laws are broken. IOs tell people one reason for denial and stamp another one in their passport, which shows that they are denying them arbitrarily, but there is now law which allows them to do this. So if they deny people in such a way, the IOs are abusing their official power, are detaining them illegally, are causing damage to them, and are probably breaking several other laws.

Edited May 28, 2019 by jackdd

[JackThompson]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

Where does it say ‘in law’ that you can stay repeatedly on “Tourist-type entries”?

The Immigration Act has very specific "only" reasons for denial of entry.  "Staying repeatedly on Tourist Entries" is not listed as a reason to deny entry.

 

Quote

Which ‘law’ are they breaking by denying entry?

Denying entry for a false reason / pretense.

 

Quote

You’re making more false claims and misinforming people you’re presumably trying to help!

No one has been mis-informed.  I described exactly what has happened to many.  The person I responded to now knows what could potentially happen, and how to avoid problems.  That is the most important thing.

 

Your disagreement with me on the IOs breaking the law does not change the reality the poster could face.

Edited May 28, 2019 by JackThompson

[cbd1]

Any news about problems with 30 day Extension for METV at Chaeng Watthana? I got a couple of weeks left before the "valid until" date and would want to do a land border visa run then, instead of now. 

Do they require any more info than before? Hotel bookings, flight information, 20k thb etc or still smooth (but slow)?

Couldn't see anything about it for the last few pages in this thread. If it has a separate thread, I'd be very happy if someone pointed me in the right direction. 

[BritTim]

59 minutes ago, cbd1 said:

Any news about problems with 30 day Extension for METV at Chaeng Watthana? I got a couple of weeks left before the "valid until" date and would want to do a land border visa run then, instead of now. 

Do they require any more info than before? Hotel bookings, flight information, 20k thb etc or still smooth (but slow)?

Couldn't see anything about it for the last few pages in this thread. If it has a separate thread, I'd be very happy if someone pointed me in the right direction. 

You can usually extend any tourist entry for 30 days at an immigration office on payment of 1,900 baht. The METV does not create an exception to that rule. In theory, the granting of extensions is at the discretion of the officials, but tourist entry extensions are very rarely refused, and I have never seen a report of as denial from Chaeng Watthana.

[cbd1]

12 minutes ago, BritTim said:

You can usually extend any tourist entry for 30 days at an immigration office on payment of 1,900 baht. The METV does not create an exception to that rule. In theory, the granting of extensions is at the discretion of the officials, but tourist entry extensions are very rarely refused, and I have never seen a report of as denial from Chaeng Watthana.

I'm just reading all of these suddenly enforced requirements of documentation for people arriving by air and was a bit paranoid the last time I landed at BKK. But no one asked for anything. 

Previously, Chaeng Watthana has only asked for a form, pictures, fees and passport. Have your or anyone else read any report about needing further documentation (TM30, hotel booking receipt, return flight confirmation, etc)?

[BritTim]

19 minutes ago, cbd1 said:

Previously, Chaeng Watthana has only asked for a form, pictures, fees and passport. Have your or anyone else read any report about needing further documentation (TM30, hotel booking receipt, return flight confirmation, etc)?

Based on recent reports, if you are not staying in a hotel, a TM30 might be necessary. None of the other items is needed.

[cbd1]

54 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Based on recent reports, if you are not staying in a hotel, a TM30 might be necessary. None of the other items is needed.

Thanks for the info! I have a relatively affordable apartment, so I just signed a 1 year lease, even though I'm a tourist. Still have a while before I need the extension and can still do a visa run, so seems very solvable. The apartment is owned by a relatively big company with a lot of properties, so they might have done the TM30 already and just not given it to me. I've asked now. 

[Percy Penguin]

I got an METV from the UK a while back. One of the docs they ask for (unless you're employed) is your tax return. On the front of the tax return there is a box you have to tick if you were not resident in the UK for tax purposes. On my next return, I will have to tick that box. The return will show income from UK properties, so the fact that the box is ticked doesn't really imply that I am working abroad, but could still set alarm bells ringing.

 

I'm thinking it would be a bad idea to apply for an METV on the back of a return with the non-resident box ticked, but any thoughts / info would be good.

 

Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?

[scubascuba3]

I got an METV from the UK a while back. One of the docs they ask for (unless you're employed) is your tax return. On the front of the tax return there is a box you have to tick if you were not resident in the UK for tax purposes. On my next return, I will have to tick that box. The return will show income from UK properties, so the fact that the box is ticked doesn't really imply that I am working abroad, but could still set alarm bells ringing.
 
I'm thinking it would be a bad idea to apply for an METV on the back of a return with the non-resident box ticked, but any thoughts / info would be good.
 
Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?

you are over thinking it, for me they give the self assessment a cursory glance

[BritTim]

9 hours ago, Percy Penguin said:

Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?

That is my opinion. However, the fact that you travelled back to home country, and are entering by air from "home", is a point in your favour, I think (not a guarantee against immigration abrogating your visa, though).

[jackdd]

29 minutes ago, BritTim said:

That is my opinion. However, the fact that you travelled back to home country, and are entering by air from "home", is a point in your favour, I think (not a guarantee against immigration abrogating your visa, though).

Another point might be that when applying for the METV, you prove you have about 200k THB in a bank account. When IOs arbitrarily deny people they stamp reason 12.2 in the passport which basically means that this person doesn't have money. That's obviously a bit problematic if the person recently proved that they have money to the embassy / consulate (and depending on the country, the visa holder even showed that he is employed there).

If an IO would deny a person for 12.2, this would mean that the IO declares the embassy / consulate which issued the visa as incompetent. If the denied person contacts the embassy and complains about this, maybe they would initiate an official complain about the IO because they don't like to be called imcompetent to do their job.

 

For a SETV you usually don't prove funds (i know, at some places you have to show 20k THB), so the above situation would not arise.

[elviajero]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:21 AM, jackdd said:

Nobody says non-existent laws are broken.

JackThompson; " so they break the law they are supposed to be enforcing."

 

I'm waiting to see evidence of the law the IO's are breaking.

 

Quote

IOs tell people one reason for denial and stamp another one in their passport, which shows that they are denying them arbitrarily, but there is now law which allows them to do this.

They are denying based on discretionary powers given by the IB/IC/MoI.

 

If they were denying based on time spent in the country it would be unlawful in the absence of a law or regulation allowing them to use that. But they aren't.

 

There are several reasons why they don't need to set a hard and fast rule, but they do not need to when denying long term tourists because they can legitimately be denied under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9.

 

They are lawfully denying entry using formal procedure and reasons listed in the immigration act.

 

Quote

So if they deny people in such a way, the IOs are abusing their official power, are detaining them illegally, are causing damage to them, and are probably breaking several other laws.

Show me the law that states a foreigner must be let in to the country. I can show you the law that allows immigration to lawfully detain anyone they do not want to allow entry to.

 

 

You/others may not like how they do things, but it is what it is. As Ive written many times; the alternative is to set hard rules through regulation. That would not stop them denying entry, in fact the numbers of denials would almost certainly increase. Why you/others want that is beyond me when you're supposed to be on the side of the long term tourist!

 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

The Immigration Act has very specific "only" reasons for denial of entry.  "Staying repeatedly on Tourist Entries" is not listed as a reason to deny entry.

And they are not denied using that reason.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

Denying entry for a false reason / pretense.

They are denying entry based on the specific reasons listed in the immigration act.

 

Regardless of the underlying reason they can and do use other legitimate reasons.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

No one has been mis-informed.  I described exactly what has happened to many.  The person I responded to now knows what could potentially happen, and how to avoid problems.  That is the most important thing.

You mis-inform all the time based on your limited experience and anti-immigration bias.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

Your disagreement with me on the IOs breaking the law does not change the reality the poster could face.

The reality is simple. Anyone staying long term in the country as a tourist is potentially going to get denied. It's not due to individual IO's, but immigration policy. You have all the evidence you need but do not want to accept it. The fact that the consulates stamp passports with a message along the lines of what the IO's are saying at the border is evidence enough. But for you it's all about cliques, lawless airports, corruption (without money being asked for) etc.

[BritTim]

38 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There are several reasons why they don't need to set a hard and fast rule, but they do not need to when denying long term tourists because they can legitimately be denied under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9.

Why restrict the reason to 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9. It would be just as lawful to deny entry under, say, 12.4 or 12.7. How does someone prove they are not mentally unstable? The immigration official can just say that is what they believe. Indeed, since the underlying reason for the denial is that immigration thinks someone would have to be crazy to spend many months in Thailand as a genuine tourist, 12 (4) would seem the most logical reason for the denial. Further, how do we know someone is not a danger to the public? Again, the official could claim that, in his opinion, it is the case.

Edited May 30, 2019 by BritTim

[elviajero]

20 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Why restrict the reason to 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9. It would be just as lawful to deny entry under, say, 12.4 or 12.7. How does someone prove they are not mentally unstable? The immigration official can just say that is what they believe. Indeed, since the underlying reason for the denial is that immigration thinks someone would have to be crazy to spend many months in Thailand as a genuine tourist, 12 (4) would seem the most logical reason for the denial. Further, how do we know someone is not a danger to the public? Again, the official could claim that, in his opinion, it is the case.

Why would you be surprised that a countries immigration policy favours the country and not the alien? The power is all with the IO’s. 

 

They use 2 and 3 as they are relevant to the underlying reason for denial. If you’ve spent months in the country you haven’t satisfied 2, and are possibly/likely doing 2. As most long term tourists now know to carry cash they can’t use 9 much these days.

 

I suppose they could claim the ‘tourist’ was really a prostitute (8), but it’s not really needed when 2 can be used in virtually every case.

Edited May 30, 2019 by elviajero

[BritTim]

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Why would you be surprised that a countries immigration policy favours the country and not the alien? The power is all with the IO’s. 

 

They use 2 and 3 as they are relevant to the underlying reason for denial. If you’ve spent months in the country you haven’t satisfied 2, and are possibly/likely doing 2. As most long term tourists now know to carry cash they can’t use 9 much these days.

 

I suppose they could claim the ‘tourist’ was really a prostitute (8), but it’s not really needed when 2 can be used in virtually every case.

We clearly disagree on the intentions of those who drafted the Immigration Act. It is my belief that they wanted immigration officials to have very limited discretion: only denying entry for the reasons (real reasons) in Section 12 of the Act (also not allowing officials to allow in those excluded under Section 12). Allowing officials to cite any reason under Section 12 they like without the slightest real basis or evidence for doing so makes a mockery of the Act's intentions.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, BritTim said:

We clearly disagree on the intentions of those who drafted the Immigration Act. It is my belief that they wanted immigration officials to have very limited discretion: only denying entry for the reasons (real reasons) in Section 12 of the Act (also not allowing officials to allow in those excluded under Section 12). Allowing officials to cite any reason under Section 12 they like without the slightest real basis or evidence for doing so makes a mockery of the Act's intentions.

Part of the acts intention is to give power to IO's through the Immigration Commission/Minister of Interior to police the countries borders. 

 

Some reasons listed in section 12 are clearly written in vague terms to give IO's the very discretion you believe they shouldn't/don't have. And section 16 gives the Minister ultimate power to instruct immigration/IO's to deny entry to whoever the minister authorises.

 

How does someone accused of entering to work prove they aren't? Answer; they cant. And the act is deliberately written that way. The same applies to many of the reasons listed.

 

Everything that has happened since 2006 backs up the fact that the authorities (IC/MoI) have ordered all concerned - from Consuls to border IO's - to get tough on long term tourism, and they are using whatever lawful means they can.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by elviajero

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And section 16 gives the Minister ultimate power to instruct immigration/IO's to deny entry to whoever the minister authorises.

We absolutely agree on that. However, what is the point if every immigration official has the same power?

[sampson]

So I've got my usual pre trip paranoia.

 

Going in just before the end of back to back METV's.  Spent around 7 months of 12 in LoS.  Heading in around 3 days before the enter before date.  Am i better going in over land from Malaysia given the only other option will be into Swampy./ Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

 

Also, I haven't done a 30 day extension on this visa, is it possible to extend another 30 days even when the METV enter before date has passed?  

[BritTim]

22 minutes ago, sampson said:

So I've got my usual pre trip paranoia.

 

Going in just before the end of back to back METV's.  Spent around 7 months of 12 in LoS.  Heading in around 3 days before the enter before date.  Am i better going in over land from Malaysia given the only other option will be into Swampy./ Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

 

Also, I haven't done a 30 day extension on this visa, is it possible to extend another 30 days even when the METV enter before date has passed?  

For safety, entering by land might be best.

 

Yes, any tourist entry can be extended for 30 days. Your visa, and its expiry date, has no effect on the extension of your permission to stay.

[Briggsy]

4 hours ago, sampson said:

Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

I was denied on a brand new METV from the UK. I provided all the documentation required (proof of funds, UK employment, return flight, hotel booking). This was not even considered by Suwannaphum immigration. I was swiftly denied entry with no discussion.

 

METV's are now fair game for denial. Use a land entry.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Briggsy