Visa Overstay

[anotheruser]

This is the second report of denial of visa exempt entry, allegedly with no accompanying stamp. While rather unlikely, could it be that they are denying entry on grounds other than section 12, and doing so without a stamp?

A violation of the immigration act is the only thing they can deny entry for unless a person has been blacklisted.

At an airport the denial of entry stamp would be done. Only at border can they get away with not doing one.

I don't believe this to be true. UJ is a great guy for info in these sections but there is no reason needed to deny entry to any individual at any given time for any reason. If you look at the fine print anywhere you go it states this.

[BritTim]

This is the second report of denial of visa exempt entry, allegedly with no accompanying stamp. While rather unlikely, could it be that they are denying entry on grounds other than section 12, and doing so without a stamp?

A violation of the immigration act is the only thing they can deny entry for unless a person has been blacklisted.

At an airport the denial of entry stamp would be done. Only at border can they get away with not doing one.

I don't believe this to be true. UJ is a great guy for info in these sections but there is no reason needed to deny entry to any individual at any given time for any reason. If you look at the fine print anywhere you go it states this.

I am not saying you are wrong, but can you furnish links to this fine print, either in terms of immigration law or ministerial regulations/announcements? I can certainly recall refusals of visas being possible without giving a reason, but denial of entry (by my reading) requires one.

[anotheruser]

You can be denied entry even if you have a valid visa for any reason. A visa is permission to land at a port of any given country to land and ask permission from the immigration officers to be granted to go through. This is standard wording for any visa in any country in the world. I aam not going to google the fine print for you but I can assure you the wording is written very liberally to be on the side of the country you are trying to enter.

They will also typically state if your visa for any reason is cancelled the fees are non-refundable. This is just standard.

[BritTim]

I believe you are correct for many countries. I am still to be convinced this is true of Thailand. The main Immigration Act of 1979, and the associated ministerial regulations I have read do not (to my reading) contain the fine print you refer to. Indeed, they suggest only the Minister has the right to deny entry to anyone who cannot explicitly be denied entry pursuant to previously announced criteria.

Now, this being Thailand, the law is not always scrupulously followed, but it would still be good to know if, legally, anyone other than the Minister has the power to declare you persona non grata.

[impulse]

My dutch friend unexpectedly tried to come back to thailand today from philipines.Despite the last io telling him he wasnt banned he actually was.5 years.

But nothing on passport.He is severly pissed off

Eddy, do you know anybody is isn't on overstay?

He may not. According to the Bangkok Post, over 810,000 people had overstay penalties in October of last year. That's been reduced to "only" 486,000 in March.

I suspect there's something wrong with their numbers, but taken as written, that means almost 10 million of the 25-30 million annual visitors were on overstay back in October, and a lot of them still are.

[bkkcanuck8]

I believe you are correct for many countries. I am still to be convinced this is true of Thailand. The main Immigration Act of 1979, and the associated ministerial regulations I have read do not (to my reading) contain the fine print you refer to. Indeed, they suggest only the Minister has the right to deny entry to anyone who cannot explicitly be denied entry pursuant to previously announced criteria.

Now, this being Thailand, the law is not always scrupulously followed, but it would still be good to know if, legally, anyone other than the Minister has the power to declare you persona non grata.

The Minister has the power to declare you personal non grata with NO reason. Immigration can effectively do the same by just referencing the immigration act which IMHO is worded in such a way that it is effectively a catch-all. For example:

- "National Welfare" could effectively ban anyone that is suspected of working.

- "safeguarding morality" - could be used to ban someone from being disrespectful in a non-Thai way.

- "safeguarding peace" - could ban someone for saying a Thai should stand up for their rights ("causing conflict").

- etc.

Each of the reasons can encompass a wide set of reasons (or just a suspicion). I have no idea if their is an appeals process that exists if a visitor feels they were wrongly banned, but for most it probably would not be very accessable/affordable (and a long process).

In a news topic, I posted on 19 March that immigration officers may well be allowed to use discretion in applying the overstay ban, and I post it now also in this topic in the visa forum.

The wording of neither the English translation nor the original Thai text of the Ministerial Order 1/2558 seems to give immigration officials any discretion not to impose the period of blacklisting specified in the Order, yet Immigration Bureau commissioner Pol Lt Natthorn Prohsunthorn has been quoted as saying that "the tougher law enforcement was intended to tackle foreigners entering the country illegally, working without work permits, and transnational criminals, while those entering legally and work legally won’t be affected."

As stated in the Order, it was issued "under section 16 of Immigration Act, B.E, 2522", so let us look at that section:

Section 16 : In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace ,

culture , morality , or welfare , or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group

of alien to enter into the Kingdom , the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens

from entering into the Kingdom.

It seems logical that when blacklisting a foreigner, immigration has to enter a reason for it in the database and from the above they will have the choice of the following:

• national welfare
• safeguarding the public peace
• safeguarding culture
• safeguarding morality
• safeguarding welfare
• the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of aliens to enter into the Kingdom

That's where the authority to exercise discretion in issuing a blacklist can be derived from. If immigration concludes that none of the above reasons apply to the overstaying foreigner, they can or must refrain from blacklisting him.

[ubonjoe]

My dutch friend unexpectedly tried to come back to thailand today from philipines.Despite the last io telling him he wasnt banned he actually was.5 years.

But nothing on passport.He is severly pissed off

Eddy, do you know anybody is isn't on overstay?

He may not. According to the Bangkok Post, over 810,000 people had overstay penalties in October of last year. That's been reduced to "only" 486,000 in March.

I suspect there's something wrong with their numbers, but taken as written, that means almost 10 million of the 25-30 million annual visitors were on overstay back in October, and a lot of them still are.

Somebody needs to read the entire topic that he posted yesterday. In particular this post http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/907297-a-twist/#entry10593488

"Lol only joking guys he was left back in today with no problems.

So there is no 100 enforcing of bans at present.Maybe to some but not all"

That is why that topic is closed.

[BritTim]

@bkkcanuck8 I am struggling to follow your logic. Under Section 16, the Minister indeed has wide powers to exclude particular groups from the country, based on pretty vague criteria. He has used this power to designate blacklisting terms for overstayers. However, you seem to be suggesting that, somehow, the Minister using this power to exclude one specified group gives any immigration official Section 16 powers. If I am misrepresenting your argument, please correct me. Otherwise, I disagree.

[elviajero]

@bkkcanuck8 I am struggling to follow your logic. Under Section 16, the Minister indeed has wide powers to exclude particular groups from the country, based on pretty vague criteria. He has used this power to designate blacklisting terms for overstayers. However, you seem to be suggesting that, somehow, the Minister using this power to exclude one specified group gives any immigration official Section 16 powers. If I am misrepresenting your argument, please correct me. Otherwise, I disagree.

You are right to disagree.

• IO's can only deny entry for reasons under section 12 of the immigration act.
• Section 12.10 includes denying entry for persons prohibited by the Minister under section 16.

So IMO the Minister decides who's banned under section 16, not the IO at the border. Immigration Officers can only use section 16 for specific reasons given to them by the Minister.

Section 16 is for the Minister to be able to ban a person/group not listed in section 12 should that person/group become a problem. i.e. overstayers.

[elviajero]

My dutch friend unexpectedly tried to come back to thailand today from philipines.Despite the last io telling him he wasnt banned he actually was.5 years.

But nothing on passport.He is severly pissed off

Eddy, do you know anybody is isn't on overstay?

He may not. According to the Bangkok Post, over 810,000 people had overstay penalties in October of last year. That's been reduced to "only" 486,000 in March.

I suspect there's something wrong with their numbers, but taken as written, that means almost 10 million of the 25-30 million annual visitors were on overstay back in October, and a lot of them still are.

If I remember that article correctly it wasn't saying that "810,000" [sic] had overstay penalties in October, but that it was the estimated number of overstayers in the country. Following the announcement of the bans ,and presumably a large number of overstayers exiting, the number of overstayers reduced to "486,000" [sic] by March when the bans kicked in.

There certainly aren't 10 million overstayers.

Edited April 2, 2016 by elviajero

[anotheruser]

I believe you are correct for many countries. I am still to be convinced this is true of Thailand. The main Immigration Act of 1979, and the associated ministerial regulations I have read do not (to my reading) contain the fine print you refer to. Indeed, they suggest only the Minister has the right to deny entry to anyone who cannot explicitly be denied entry pursuant to previously announced criteria.

Now, this being Thailand, the law is not always scrupulously followed, but it would still be good to know if, legally, anyone other than the Minister has the power to declare you persona non grata.

Denial of entry usually doesn't make you persona non grata. It just means that at the given time you landed you didn't meet certain criteria to be allowed entry. You can try again any time you feel that you meet such criteria. Denial of entry is not the same thing as blacklisting somebody.