Tourist Visa Rules Changed?

[whitelion87]

Have the rules for entry in Thailand at Suvanabhumi Airport changed? In my passport, I've got 2 Tourist Visa's each 60 days and both were extended to an extra 30 days each to a total of 180 days, plus my previous stay of 11 days in Thailand (on a 30 day visa exemption) totally 191 days in Thailand this year. My TR visa's were provided by the Thai Consulate-General in Auckland, New Zealand and I use a New Zealand passport. I have never been in Thailand before this year. I do not work at all in Thailand.

 

I did overstay for 2 days during the second to last visit, since I was late to the gate - immigration was sweet about it and simpy cancelled my exit stamp and I waited those 2 days for the next TG flight from BKK to Auckland. I have never flown to any other neighbouring country for visa run's or anything like that. When I leave Thailand, it's always to Auckland, New Zealand. 

 

When I came back to Bangkok on the 8th of this month, I was asked if I come back often to do business and my response was no. They believed me after I said a few things to make them feel abit more secure (and it is true that I do not work), they then granted me the entry visa but man it felt like I someone could have just knocked me over!

 

Anyway, I was told that the next time I come through that I will have a problem entering Thailand, so now I'm wondering what's changed with the rules? I know it cannot be anything major, since she had over-ride the system and allowed me the entry visa after numerous flicking about of my passport. 

 

Clearly something has changed and no one is talking about it. The last time I've come through they never mentioned a single thing. I see on multiple websites that going through an airport is 'as formal as it gets' with departure's and arrivals - unlike land border crossings or 'visa runs'. Is there some kind of 90 day for every 180 in out sort of thing going on, are they now restricting how often visa exemptions or Tourist Visa's a person is permitted to use? Could it be that the 2 day's of overstay has really affected my ability to re-enter?

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

 

[elviajero]

I assume you were entering using visa exemption and not a tourist visa. 

There is no published limit, entering by air, on the number of visa exempt entries you're allowed, however, IO's have discretionary power to deny entry if they beleive the person is working or overusing the scheme. It's surprising that you were pulled up with your previous history.

 

Whenever possible you should use tourist visas if you want to reduce the chance of questioning on entry. It's highly unlikely the two day overstay had any influence.

[Ronuk]

I just came back in this evening through Suvarnabhumi. Seemed to be very slow and lots of checking of passports going on. It was actually the slowest I have seen it for a long time.

[muzmurray]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

I assume you were entering using visa exemption and not a tourist visa. 

There is no published limit, entering by air, on the number of visa exempt entries you're allowed, however, IO's have discretionary power to deny entry if they beleive the person is working or overusing the scheme. It's surprising that you were pulled up with your previous history.

 

Whenever possible you should use tourist visas if you want to reduce the chance of questioning on entry. It's highly unlikely the two day overstay had any influence.

 

I don't remember reading that in the rules? Most refusals are because of lack of funds?

 

If there is no published limit, how can one "overuse" the scheme?

[Suradit69]

1 hour ago, muzmurray said:

 

I don't remember reading that in the rules? Most refusals are because of lack of funds?

 

If there is no published limit, how can one "overuse" the scheme?

Obviously immigration officers have both the responsibility and authority to use their discretion.

 

Not sure where you got the notion that the majority of people refused entry didn't have funds, although being unable to explain how one is financing his/her frequent stays in Thailand would undoubtedly cause suspicion that one was working.

[muzmurray]

1 hour ago, Suradit69 said:

Obviously immigration officers have both the responsibility and authority to use their discretion.

 

Not sure where you got the notion that the majority of people refused entry didn't have funds, although being unable to explain how one is financing his/her frequent stays in Thailand would undoubtedly cause suspicion that one was working.

 

I just got it from what section is normally quoted when people are refused entry, (there have been a few pics on here).

[NoshowJones]

If only Thailand would bring out very harsh punishments on Illegal working, and enforce them, then innocent travellers would not need to go through all this hassle.

[pjthefey]

Today at Samut Prakan immigration I was given a similar warning when attempting to extend my visa.    I have 2 tourist visas, and 2 visa exemptions in my passport all extended 30 days, and was told that "soon you will have problems coming back to Thailand."

 

No one at the airport has ever said anything, but I was surprised to have a comment at the immigration office. 

 

Also normally this is an easy process,  but this time they were going through everything with a fine tooth comb, and we didn't get the extension because we didn't have the condo owner there to sign documents.    This has never been a problem in the past. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by pjthefey

[JimboJ]

Another change, from London consulate.

Last year it was 25 pounds for a 60 day tourist visa, plus 25 for each reentry.

This year it is still 25 for the basic visa, but 125 for multiple entry.

 

More interesting, the stamp I was given at Suvarnabumi is for 90 days.  I assume I cannot get an extension on this, which saves a trip to immigration. 

 

The web site of the London consulate still says that the maximum stay is 60 days on a tourist visa, and extensions are at the sole discretion of the immigration officer.

 

Last year I did one reentry and two extensions from 60 to 90 days.

 

BTW, I have had short overstays in the past, but these do not seem to have caused a problem.

[ubonjoe]

37 minutes ago, JimboJ said:

More interesting, the stamp I was given at Suvarnabumi is for 90 days.  I assume I cannot get an extension on this, which saves a trip to immigration. 

If you have a tourist visa the 90 day stamp you got is an error. You should of only gotten 60 days.

You should have the error corrected and apply for the 30 day extension or only stay for 60 day and go out for a new entry if you have a multiple entry visa.

If you stay for more than 60 days and leave the country a diligent immigration officer could notice the error causing you to be fined for an overstay.

[JimboJ]

So it's my fault if immigration make an error?  Probably.

I'll check at the Pattaya office, where I am now.

[rogeroc]

1 hour ago, JimboJ said:

Another change, from London consulate.

Last year it was 25 pounds for a 60 day tourist visa, plus 25 for each reentry.

This year it is still 25 for the basic visa, but 125 for multiple entry.

 

More interesting, the stamp I was given at Suvarnabumi is for 90 days.  I assume I cannot get an extension on this, which saves a trip to immigration. 

 

The web site of the London consulate still says that the maximum stay is 60 days on a tourist visa, and extensions are at the sole discretion of the immigration officer.

 

Last year I did one reentry and two extensions from 60 to 90 days.

 

BTW, I have had short overstays in the past, but these do not seem to have caused a problem.

 

When i was at the London Embassy a couple of weeks ago a guy in the queue was saying that he got 90 days on a single entry tourist visa as he was over 65, but it cost £50 not £25. Is there any truth in this?

[rogeroc]

2 hours ago, pjthefey said:

Today at Samut Prakan immigration I was given a similar warning when attempting to extend my visa.    I have 2 tourist visas, and 2 visa exemptions in my passport all extended 30 days, and was told that "soon you will have problems coming back to Thailand."

 

No one at the airport has ever said anything, but I was surprised to have a comment at the immigration office. 

 

Also normally this is an easy process,  but this time they were going through everything with a fine tooth comb, and we didn't get the extension because we didn't have the condo owner there to sign documents.    This has never been a problem in the past. 

 

In the past 2 years i have had 2 visas (pre METV) 1 double entry, 1 triple entry and 5 Visa Exempt entries, 2 with extensions. When i went to Hua Hin immigration for the last extension i was warned that i should get a retirement visa and when i last arrived at BKK on Visa Exempt i was briefly questioned. I am wondering if staying in Thailand more than 50% of the time is a trigger for questioning. 

[ubonjoe]

20 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

When i was at the London Embassy a couple of weeks ago a guy in the queue was saying that he got 90 days on a single entry tourist visa as he was over 65, but it cost £50 not £25. Is there any truth in this?

Going by the fee for the visa and his age I am certain he got a single entry non-o visa not a tourist visa.

[SaintLouisBlues]

5 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Yes, there are probably very many illegals working and on overstay in Thailand, and that's why, If they were given an automatic two year jail sentence

Even with Thailand's abysmal jails, how much would that cost the Thai taxpayer?

[overherebc]

To the OP.

Just flew back from Auckland and all passengers were being asked to show a visa or flight out of Thailand.

[koo]

1 hour ago, rogeroc said:

 

 I am wondering if staying in Thailand more than 50% of the time is a trigger for questioning. 

 

Reading these topics (many of them, over the years), it really seems like a trend that if you are staying more than half of your time (90 days over 180 days or 180 days in a year), you clearly are not a tourist any more. That is why  Immigration starts frowning upon you exempt entries or even back to back tourist visas. 

 

Ubonjoe & other 'seniors in this field', do you agree on that trend?  And if yes, is there any way of fixing this - other type of visa maybe?

[NoshowJones]

36 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Even with Thailand's abysmal jails, how much would that cost the Thai taxpayer?

Fair point, maybe there is some way the prisoners could earn their keep to save the taxpayers money.

[SaintLouisBlues]

6 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Fair point, maybe there is some way the prisoners could earn their keep to save the taxpayers money.

I think you'll find that is illegal under international agreements. The Chinese are routinely critcized for using their prisoners as "slave labor"

[NoshowJones]

10 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

I think you'll find that is illegal under international agreements. The Chinese are routinely critcized for using their prisoners as "slave labor"

You mean Thailand actually bothers about international agreements.

[SaintLouisBlues]

9 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

You mean Thailand actually bothers about international agreements.

It's evident they care quite a lot about how the outside world perceives them, otherwise why is the Generalssimo forever carrying on about how well the junta is perceived by other countries

[NoshowJones]

4 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

It's evident they care quite a lot about how the outside world perceives them, otherwise why is the Generalssimo forever carrying on about how well the junta is perceived by other countries

Some poster mentioned recently about the way Thai immigration treat expats with certain hoops they have to go through being against some sort of rights. I can't remember which.

[SaintLouisBlues]

4 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Some poster mentioned recently about the way Thai immigration treat expats with certain hoops they have to go through being against some sort of rights. I can't remember which.

Which rights were they? I don't recall the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including a section on how many hoops any individual country's Immigration Department can demand applicants jump through, or a limit on them.

 

Your original response was that the Thais should implement slave labor in their prisons for those convicted of immigration offences so as to cover the cost of their imprisonment, rather than be a burden on the Thai taxpayer, and act as a disincentive for others to offend. I've never seen any criminal system anywhere in the world where disincentives actually work in lowering the rate of offending, but it's something that keeps the Laura Norder brigade happy, so doubtless it makes you happy

[SaintLouisBlues]

13 hours ago, Ronuk said:

I just came back in this evening through Suvarnabhumi. Seemed to be very slow and lots of checking of passports going on. It was actually the slowest I have seen it for a long time.

It's all part of a new TAT "Amazing Thailand" campaign to encourage foreign visitors

[jeab1980]

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

I assume you are entering using visa exemptio n and not a tourist visa. 

There is no published limit, entering by air, on the number of visa exempt entries you're allowed, however, IO's have discretionary power to deny entry if they beleive the person is working or overusing the scheme. It's surprising that you were pulled up with your previous history.

 

Whenever possible you should use tourist visas if you want to reduce the chance of questioning on entry. It's highly unlikely the two day overstay had any influence.

Op clear he says this  Used 2 x Tourist visas both extend at immigration And 1 x visa exempt. And not been in thailand before this year

 

 

[sanemax]

13 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Some poster mentioned recently about the way Thai immigration treat expats with certain hoops they have to go through being against some sort of rights. I can't remember which.

 

  So, a person posted something, who you cannot remember who posted it about something that you cannot remember what he actually posted and there was some kind of rights, but you cannot remember exactly which rights that he was referring too .

[BritTim]

31 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

I've never seen any criminal system anywhere in the world where disincentives actually work in lowering the rate of offending

 

That is putting things too strongly. It does not seem to deter most serious crime, but does have an affect on some classes of "crime". As an example, in countries where drunk driving can lead to loss of license and short jail terms, the rates of drunk driving plummet.

 

Short jail terms can have benefits. They can be combined with supportive programs for the prisoners to resolve the issues that led to offending in the first place. This minimizes the rate of recidivism. The Dutch experience is instructive, though too few prisoners has its own problems. They are closing jails putting prison guards out of work, and importing prisoners from other countries to keep others open.

 

Overall,  I am in sympathy with your general view that punishment is more a way of making society feel better than having any other beneficial effect.

[NoshowJones]

38 minutes ago, sanemax said:

 

  So, a person posted something, who you cannot remember who posted it about something that you cannot remember what he actually posted and there was some kind of rights, but you cannot remember exactly which rights that he was referring too .

So! Does it bother you?

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jeab1980 said:

Op clear he says this  Used 2 x Tourist visas both extend at immigration And 1 x visa exempt. And not been in thailand before this year

That's correct. What's your point?

[johnno2]

I've got an aussie mate who works off shore in Australia and is married to a thai lady here. he comes in for 3 weeks every 2 months. immigration said that because he is plainly coming here NOT as a tourist, he should get a visa  from the Melbourne thai embassy. so its a crack down on people coming here repeatedly on a tourist visa but who aren't a tourist.