Latest Non-imm 'o' Rules & Conditions?:

[SoloFlyer]

Dear Sunbelt,

I've searched through various threads, but information is somewhat conflicting.

I'm about to try to get an non-imm O for supporting Thai child. My lawyer says this is possible, but I'm unsure if he's up to speed with the new rules, even thought he called his contact at Suan Plu to check, and they say apparently ok. But it goes against what's being said here.

So I would be greateful if you could clarify.

My vitals:

Australian, under 50.

1yo child.

Not married - but court recognised myself as father.

Have Thai assets, including condominium, share portfolio.

Thai income is cash.

Currently on non-imm 'B' visa.

What are they likely to pull me up on, and where should I point the lawyer to for the new rules??

[Mahout Angrit]

So you pay a lawyer and do the work yourself !!! time to ditch the lawyer me thinks!!!

where should I point the lawyer to for the new rules??

The rules are here

http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

Edited December 18, 2006 by Mahout Angrit

[gpt]

Dear Sunbelt,

I've searched through various threads, but information is somewhat conflicting.

I'm about to try to get an non-imm O for supporting Thai child. My lawyer says this is possible, but I'm unsure if he's up to speed with the new rules, even thought he called his contact at Suan Plu to check, and they say apparently ok. But it goes against what's being said here.

So I would be greateful if you could clarify.

My vitals:

Australian, under 50.

1yo child.

Not married - but court recognised myself as father.

Have Thai assets, including condominium, share portfolio.

Thai income is cash.

Currently on non-imm 'B' visa.

What are they likely to pull me up on, and where should I point the lawyer to for the new rules??

I have just answered a similar query on another post but I can only offer you my interpretation on it:-

I am not in nor ever have been a member of the legal profession but have you read the new regulation properly? Please open in a separate window and go to page 8/13 http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

This relates to supporting a Thai national. (7/17) Concentrate on the middle column (Basis for consideration). Now look at (4) and (5). Let's simplify the wording and put them together. If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.

My reading of the regulations does not mean that you have to be over 50 to support your child.

[SoloFlyer]

gpt, that turns alot of previous interpretations upside down. I'll look forward to reading more of this in the morning.

[papakapbaan]

gpt, that turns alot of previous interpretations upside down. I'll look forward to reading more of this in the morning.

SoloFlyer:

I am in a situation very similar to yours. (Under 50)

(My income is from Belgium not Thailand. I am on a NON-O not a NON-B. My Thai daughter is 2.5. I am living with her mother but married to another Thai woman).

I was informed by some moderator yesterday that SUNBELT is on holiday.

So I am not sure you will read anything definitive that "turns the previous interpretations upside down" in the morning.

Did you read this thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=93446

In practice: customers of SUNBELT ASIA who are "below 50" are refused extension of stay on the basis of "to live with child".

Only "above 50" qualify.

Please, if you you have any news from your lawyer, POST HERE, thanks!

ADDED: PS: Regardless of the new regulations and interpretation of the regulations: it seems you will be given MULTI NON-O in Thai consulates in Australia.

If a MULTI NON-O is enough for you.

For the YEARLY EXTENSION OF STAY, the information from SUNBELT does not seem to indicate we stand a chance.

Edited December 18, 2006 by papakapbaan

[Mahout Angrit]

I have just answered a similar query on another post but I can only offer you my interpretation on it:-

I am not in nor ever have been a member of the legal profession but have you read the new regulation properly? Please open in a separate window and go to page 8/13 http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp606EN.pdf

This relates to supporting a Thai national. (7/17) Concentrate on the middle column (Basis for consideration). Now look at (4) and (5). Let's simplify the wording and put them together. If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.

My reading of the regulations does not mean that you have to be over 50 to support your child.

Just to throw in my interpretation to section 7/17. I think it reads its the Thai who is doing the supporting and he can support a child under 20 or a parent over 50 if they are aliens. The new law allows a child or a parent to live with a Thai not for the alien to support the Thai.

I think what you are looking to do is not covered in this section and maybe not at all.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Mahout Angrit

[jaypee]

One of the problems is that the offcial Immigration Police translations of the new Immigration Law - seems to be NOT CORRECT. According to Sunbelt Asia's more correct (I can not read Thai, so I'll take their word for it) translation of 606/2006 (enclosed as a pdf document in this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...95093&st=15 ) there are lots of error in the official one. So, before one should "throw in interpretations" - one should relate to the right translation and the practising of the 606/2006

[gpt]

One of the problems is that the offcial Immigration Police translations of the new Immigration Law - seems to be NOT CORRECT. According to Sunbelt Asia's more correct (I can not read Thai, so I'll take their word for it) translation of 606/2006 (enclosed as a pdf document in this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...95093&st=15 ) there are lots of error in the official one. So, before one should "throw in interpretations" - one should relate to the right translation and the practising of the 606/2006

Please heed your own advice! I have compared both translations, have you? The crux of the matter is the use of the words 'and' & 'or' When 'and' is used then both conditions must be met but when 'or' is used. you only have to meet one condition. e.g. 'fish and chips' is a combination of both whereas 'fish or chips' is only one. These regulations do not refer to a Thai supporting an alien rather the other way round.

I will simplify my sentence 'If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.' more.

'If the alien is supporting a Thai child or if the alien is supporting a Thai parent.' Alien supporting a Thai parent? That can't happen. can it? If the child of a Thai/Farang marriage has not taken Thai citizenship then yes it could. The main word in my modified sentence is 'or' - only one condition must be met. To meet both conditions of having a Thai child and being over 50 then the wording would be similar to ' If the alien is supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 and the alien must be 50 or over.

Now can anyone show me that in order to get a visa to support a child then you have to be over 50?

Edited December 19, 2006 by gpt

[Maestro]

Please see this new thread I started on Police Order 206/2549, paragraph 7.17, clause (4)

--

Maestro

[jaypee]

One of the problems is that the offcial Immigration Police translations of the new Immigration Law - seems to be NOT CORRECT. According to Sunbelt Asia's more correct (I can not read Thai, so I'll take their word for it) translation of 606/2006 (enclosed as a pdf document in this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...95093&st=15 ) there are lots of error in the official one. So, before one should "throw in interpretations" - one should relate to the right translation and the practising of the 606/2006

Please heed your own advice! I have compared both translations, have you? The crux of the matter is the use of the words 'and' & 'or' When 'and' is used then both conditions must be met but when 'or' is used. you only have to meet one condition. e.g. 'fish and chips' is a combination of both whereas 'fish or chips' is only one. These regulations do not refer to a Thai supporting an alien rather the other way round.

I will simplify my sentence 'If you are supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 or if you are supporting a parent, i.e. one of your parents, then that parent must be 50 or over.' more.

'If the alien is supporting a Thai child or if the alien is supporting a Thai parent.' Alien supporting a Thai parent? That can't happen. can it? If the child of a Thai/Farang marriage has not taken Thai citizenship then yes it could. The main word in my modified sentence is 'or' - only one condition must be met. To meet both conditions of having a Thai child and being over 50 then the wording would be similar to ' If the alien is supporting a child then the child must be unmarried, living with the family and under 20 and the alien must be 50 or over.

Now can anyone show me that in order to get a visa to support a child then you have to be over 50?

I am not of english speaking origin , but the first translation, I interpretated clearly as IF the alien did not have 40K monthly income – then he should show proof of 400K in the bank. In Sunbelt’s translation the 400K in the bank is dependant on that you have been granted an extension before the the new rules (socalled Grandfathered in). This to me, - is a MAJOR difference ….

National Police Office Order

No. 606/2549 Chapter 7.17 (6)

Royal Thai Immigration Police Translation:

In the case of an alien married to a Thai woman, any party or both must have a total income of not less than Baht 40,000 per month, except for aliens who entered the Kingdom before this Order came into force and granted a permit to stay in the Kingdom. If the alien does not have the minimum income above, he shall have an account deposit in Thailand in the name of either party or both of not less than Baht 400,000. Proof of account deposit for the previous 3 months is required.

Sunbelt’s translation:

In case of the applicant who is married to a Thai wife, one of them or both of them need to have the total annual income that is averaged out not less than 40,000 Baht per month. Except for the case that the said foreign national has entered Thailand before this Order is enforced and the foreign national has been permitted to stay in the Kingdom by the result of having married to a Thai wife, then if the applicant does not have the said income, then, the latest 3 months records of the account book of any Bank in Thailand with the account name of either or both parties need to have the amount of money not less than 400,000 Baht.

But as Maestro writes: - “But again, in the end it is the original Thai text that counts, nothing else.” - TRUE !!!

[huski]

Now can anyone show me that in order to get a visa to support a child then you have to be over 50?

I heard it personally from the Pol. Lt. Col at Bangkok Immigration. You need to be over 50 to receive an extension based on support of a Thai child regardless of the age of the child. (Tilleke & Gibbons English Translation documentation was also given to me)

Makes no sense, I can meet again to see if anything has changed in the last month.

/huski

[gpt]

I am not of english speaking origin , but the first translation, I interpretated clearly as IF the alien did not have 40K monthly income – then he should show proof of 400K in the bank. In Sunbelt’s translation the 400K in the bank is dependant on that you have been granted an extension before the the new rules (socalled Grandfathered in). This to me, - is a MAJOR difference ….

Many words in English have different meanings. Some with 'ent' and 'ant' endings are, in modern uses, interchangeable. To avoid confusion, here I will only use your spelling of dependant. The topic that we are discussing here is 'child support visas'. If you are supporting a person, then that person is your dependant i.e. a child, spouse, parent, or certain other relative to whom one contributes all or a major amount of necessary financial support: She listed two dependants on her income-tax form. This is just one meaning of dependant, there are others. How does the definition that I have just given fit in with the bolded 'dependant in your text? It does not so we must look for a different definition.

I have picked out a second definition that I think will make sense, 'conditioned or determined by something else; contingent: Our trip is dependent on the weather.' Let's change the words in your sentence so that the second definition fits.

Your sentence - I interpreted clearly as IF the alien did not have 40K monthly income – then he should show proof of 400K in the bank. In Sunbelt’s translation the 400K in the bank is dependant on that you have been granted an extension before the the new rules (socalled Grandfathered in).

Reworked - "................ In Sunbelt's translation, the 400K in the bank rule applies only if you have been....."

Hope that clears it up a bit for you.

Edited December 19, 2006 by gpt

[SoloFlyer]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

They gave me 2 months and suggested I do this this and this before coming back, and I should pass. (Wont elaborate 'till their recommendations actually pass, because it doesn't fit with other requirements).

Lawyer spoke for some time to one of the senior guys at the back desks. He said the reason for this law is that there;s been too many young blokes coming here, having kids and not looking after them properly. They also said that the laws will be changing again soonish - I asked harder or easier. They said easier (read into that what you want)

[papakapbaan]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

They gave me 2 months and suggested I do this this and this before coming back, and I should pass. (Wont elaborate 'till their recommendations actually pass, because it doesn't fit with other requirements).

Lawyer spoke for some time to one of the senior guys at the back desks. He said the reason for this law is that there;s been too many young blokes coming here, having kids and not looking after them properly. They also said that the laws will be changing again soonish - I asked harder or easier. They said easier (read into that what you want)

Oh My Buddha!

So does it mean they will finally come to their senses???

Soloflyer: you are under 50 and unmarried, right? This is extremely interesting.

Do you say that with monthly income of 40K and evidences you are taking care of the child, they will "overlook" the fact you are below 50?

Normally Thais are not good at "making exceptions".

So I really hope they FIX THIS "LAW" ASAP! Mind blowing really!

How -HOW- did they come up with this criteria "not younger than 50 years old" here??!!

Makes no sense absolutely no sense from a Western point of view.

I believe there must be several provisions in international laws and conventions to ATTACK these regulations with FEROCITY.

I am sure to check with members of my family in Belgium who are lawyers.

Edited December 21, 2006 by papakapbaan

[Lite Beer]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

They gave me 2 months and suggested I do this this and this before coming back, and I should pass. (Wont elaborate 'till their recommendations actually pass, because it doesn't fit with other requirements).

Lawyer spoke for some time to one of the senior guys at the back desks. He said the reason for this law is that there;s been too many young blokes coming here, having kids and not looking after them properly. They also said that the laws will be changing again soonish - I asked harder or easier. They said easier (read into that what you want)

Oh My Buddha!

So does it mean they will finally come to their senses???

Soloflyer: you are under 50 and unmarried, right? This is extremely interesting.

Do you say that with monthly income of 40K and evidences you are taking care of the child, they will "overlook" the fact you are below 50?

Normally Thais are not good at "making exceptions".

So I really hope they FIX THIS "LAW" ASAP! Mind blowing really!

How -HOW- did they come up with this criteria "not younger than 50 years old" here??!!

Makes no sense absolutely no sense from a Western point of view.

I believe there must be several provisions in international laws and conventions to ATTACK these regulations with FEROCITY.

I am sure to check with members of my family in Belgium who are lawyers.

I would not hold my breath if I were you as that is not what the law says.

[papakapbaan]

I would not hold my breath if I were you as that is not what the law says.

That's why I wrote:

Normally Thais are not good at "making exceptions".

So I really hope they FIX THIS "LAW" ASAP! Mind blowing really!

If they don't come to their senses, the next step for us, parents below 50, might be to attack this "law" as a negation of basic human rights.

[Maestro]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

This means that your extension will not be under rule 7.17(5) for the reason of living with your Thai child, but under rule 7.17(6) for the reason of living with your wife.

SoloFlyer, are you married? Are you older than 50?

--

Maestro

[paulsmithson]

If the english translation of police order606/2549 is correct then paragraph 7.17 to me reads that if the reason for the visa application is child support:-

The child must be unmarried

Living with the family

and less than 20 years of age

These seem quite reasonable conditions to me

If the visa is for support of a Thai parent then the parent needs to aged over 50 this could arise if the Thai parent had a child who was not a Thai national.

eg the child of a Thai/farang marriage, born outside Thailand and holding a foreign passport but now wishing to live in Thailand to support his Thai parent.

I was about to apply for a non O visa and return to Thailand with my Thai wife then convert to retirement visa.

A transfer of capital above the 800,OOO baht requirement would be made to satisfy retirement status.

However it would seem that the sum of 400,000baht would suffice under the provisions of 7.17(6) and a visa be obtained as the spouse of a Thai national.

Sunbelt could you comment on which option is the safer.

[papakapbaan]

If the english translation of police order606/2549 is correct then paragraph 7.17 to me reads that if the reason for the visa application is child support:-

The child must be unmarried

Living with the family

and less than 20 years of age

These seem quite reasonable conditions to me

The only problem is...

7.17 (4) concerns FOREIGN children.

The annual extension of stay if granted to FOREIGN children

If the visa is for support of a Thai parent then the parent needs to aged over 50

7.17 (5) concerns FOREIGN parents.

The annual extension of stay if granted to FOREIGN parents.

--> There is no more provison for CHILD SUPPORT in Thai immigration rules since 01/10/2006.

Please everybody at least face the facts.

BTW paulsmithson: the 400,000 baht deposit to apply on the basis of marriage to a Thai spouse are not accepted anymore.

Only if you have "entered Thailand before this order".

It means: entered on the valid visa (NON-O) before 01/10/2006.

We are now almost 3 months later so pressumably, even if you entered Thailand before 01/10/2006, you do not have time to apply and be "granthfathered" anymore, unless you already had an extension of stay ("under consideration") on this visa.

Now the total monthly income of "both parties" (husband and wife) must be 40,000 Baht.

BTW In other words: There is no more provison for SPOUSE SUPPORT in Thai immigration rules since 01/10/2006.

Edited December 22, 2006 by papakapbaan

[papakapbaan]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

This means that your extension will not be under rule 7.17(5) for the reason of living with your Thai child, but under rule 7.17(6) for the reason of living with your wife.

SoloFlyer, are you married? Are you older than 50?

--

Maestro

NO, not married, below 50.

(But he has CHILD CUSTODY)

Every unmarried parent below 50 should be very interested in the outcome of his case.

But, as lite beer said: "I would not hold my breath if I were you as that is not what the law says."

Hopefully they'll fix this "law". Something is just seriously wrong.

And BTW: They are not forced by any international convention to grant status to umarried foreign parents but the use of the "above 50" criteria here is probably in violation of human rights, and it can be legally challenged.

[bilky]

The child has rights - not only internationally but also in Thailand (of course).

That is why I stand by my (often repeated) statement that "solo" non-Thai parents who have legal

custody (by court order) and the means to support their children and the ability to to prove that they

are doing that to an acceptable level have nothing to worry about.

My personal experince is that all govenment offices (that I have dealt with - and that is quite a few)

are VERY diligent about protecting the best interest of the child.

Of course that works two ways - if something they consider not to be in the best interest of the child

comes up.

Immigration officials are not monsters. They are people - and in my experience they are professional

and if treated with the respect that they expect they will do all they can (but of course not to the

extent of risking their job) to help. Talk to them.

[Maestro]

NO, not married, below 50.

(But he has CHILD CUSTODY)

So here he have a man, SoloFlyer,

-- younger than 50 years

-- not married

-- father of a Thai child

and Suan Phlu immigration tells his that he can get an annual extension with evidence of monthly income of 40,000 Baht.

This must be good news for quite a few on this forum. The “child support” extension is back, through a backdoor, i.e. not included in the new rules.

Papakapbaan, hopefully this solves your problem and if it does, better get the name of that immigration official quickly from SoloFlyer, and perhaps also his lawyer’s name.

SoloFlyer, must the income be from employment in Thailand (work permit, tax ID), or can it also be foreign income (embassy certification, supporting documents)?

I understand your application is still pending, SoloFlyer, but once it is approved please do post it in this forum. Start a new topic so that your post won’t get buried.

--

Maestro

[lopburi3]

I would not jump to any conclusions as SoloFlyer posted this last night:

Have been advised it might be necessary to do the registration thing.

Can someone elaborate a bit for me about what it means, technically. I'm told to do it we just got to go down to the 'khet' and sign up, and that we can void it just as easily. But what does it involve in terms of rights - access to child, income, property, separation - and what does it mean in the eyes of Australian law?

Appreciated.

[Maestro]

I would not jump to any conclusions as SoloFlyer posted this last night:

Have been advised it might be necessary to do the registration thing.

One of those “yes, but...” situations? An official says yes, but attaches a lot of conditions that are difficult, perhaps even impossible, to meet (“registration thing”)? An income requirement would make sense, though, like for the married man’s extension of stay. Fortunately, it is only a Police Order, which, unlike a law, can be changed very easily if the competent authority decides to so.

--

Maestro

[papakapbaan]

I would not jump to any conclusions as SoloFlyer posted this last night:

Have been advised it might be necessary to do the registration thing.

Can someone elaborate a bit for me about what it means, technically. I'm told to do it we just got to go down to the 'khet' and sign up, and that we can void it just as easily. But what does it involve in terms of rights - access to child, income, property, separation - and what does it mean in the eyes of Australian law?

Appreciated.

Indeed, I will NOT hold my breath.

-SoloFlyer has child custody. He is divorced/separated from the mother of his child.

I don't have child custody. I am living with the mother of my child.

(But for sure child custody can be granted even when the father is still living with the mother. So I'm probably not in front of a wall here).

-SoloFlyer is working in Thailand. So basically he could just show 50,000/m instead of 40 and be granted an extension on the basis of employment (with other conditions for the employer, OK)

I have no work in/income from Thailand.

-Finally, it seems, indeed, that they advised SoloFlyer "the other day" to... get married(?)!... (I'm not following BTW)

Edited December 22, 2006 by papakapbaan

[Maestro]

-Finally, it seems, indeed, that they advised SoloFlyer "the other day" to... get married(?)!... (I'm not following BTW)

(I would be in front of a wall here. Cf. my story if interested)

Aha! So the “registration thing” SoloFlyer mentioned could be the marriage registration. This brings us back to SoloFlyer being given an extension for living with his wife (married man’s extension)

Breathe out, Papakapbaan.

--

Maestro

[Sunbelt Asia]

Dear Sunbelt,

I've searched through various threads, but information is somewhat conflicting.

I'm about to try to get an non-imm O for supporting Thai child. My lawyer says this is possible, but I'm unsure if he's up to speed with the new rules, even thought he called his contact at Suan Plu to check, and they say apparently ok. But it goes against what's being said here.

So I would be greateful if you could clarify.

My vitals:

Australian, under 50.

1yo child.

Not married - but court recognised myself as father.

Have Thai assets, including condominium, share portfolio.

Thai income is cash.

Currently on non-imm 'B' visa.

What are they likely to pull me up on, and where should I point the lawyer to for the new rules??

Sorry but you don't qualify under this criteria for a one year extension of stay unless you get married or you had a extension of stay before Oct 1st 2006. You do qualify for a 60 day extension of stay to visit your child ( every year)

If the english translation of police order606/2549 is correct then paragraph 7.17 to me reads that if the reason for the visa application is child support:-

The child must be unmarried

Living with the family

and less than 20 years of age

These seem quite reasonable conditions to me

You are reading it wrong. The only condition is the parent is over 50 years old. It does not matter how old the Thai child is.

If the visa is for support of a Thai parent then the parent needs to aged over 50 this could arise if the Thai parent had a child who was not a Thai national.

eg the child of a Thai/farang marriage, born outside Thailand and holding a foreign passport but now wishing to live in Thailand to support his Thai parent.

Different extension of stay clause.

I was about to apply for a non O visa and return to Thailand with my Thai wife then convert to retirement visa.

A transfer of capital above the 800,OOO baht requirement would be made to satisfy retirement status.

However it would seem that the sum of 400,000baht would suffice under the provisions of 7.17(6) and a visa be obtained as the spouse of a Thai national.

Sunbelt could you comment on which option is the safer.

In order to get a extension of stay based on marriage, you need a income of 40K per month. Only old applicants before Oct 1st, 2006 have the option of having 400K in the bank.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[Sunbelt Asia]

Went down to Suan Lum the other day. Yes, their interpretation is that the 'supporter' be over 50. And have monthly income of 40k. Having a fixed deposit of 400k didn't seem to matter.

If you were over 50 years old, then you would not need 40K monthly income as you have a Thai child.

The only reason you need 40K per month is they are telling you to get married.

They gave me 2 months and suggested I do this this and this before coming back, and I should pass. (Wont elaborate 'till their recommendations actually pass, because it doesn't fit with other requirements).

They gave you a 60 day extension to visit your child.

The fact remains if you are under 50 years old, you cannot get a extension of stay to take care of your child( even if you have court papers giving you custody) The only exception is if you had the extension of stay before Oct 1st 2006.

www.sunbeltasiagroup.com

[SoloFlyer]

Thanks for the clarification, even well after the OP. Seems your info is correct.