Police Order 606/2549, Paragraph 7.17(4)

[Maestro]

Police Order 606/2549, paragraph 7.17(4)

I believe this subject is too important to be buried in the other thread titled “Time up for some 30 day visa runners” of – so far – 240 posts. Therefore, I am copying the two related posts from that other thread to this thread.

Some people do not want to be helped! You are taking everything out of context. (4) & (5) are not separate entities, (5) is a continuation of (4) as are all other subsections. Instead of using one long sentence, the information has been split into sections where each section contains one piece of vital information and it fits neatly into the layout of the document.

I realise that English is not your native language but you appear to have a good command of it. The last line in (4) reads '20 years of age; or' That is not how English sentences end but signifies that it continues. The first line in (5) reads 'In the case of a parent, the said' Now put those two snippets together ''20 years of age; or' 'In the case of a parent, the said'" and tidy it up a bit to read -''20 years of age or in the case of a parent, the said'. The 'or' signifies that only one of the conditions must be met, if 'and' was used in place of 'or' then both conditions must be met.

Let's rewrite the sentence using only the parts pertaining to your case.

The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM) and proof of family relationship; in the case of a child, the child must not be married, living in the family home and not over the age of 20. All information that is not relevant has been removed.

I had a quick look at that, and I am not sure I agree with you. It may refers to a visa for the child or a visa for the parent separately in each section, in which case the parent needs to be 50+ - But hey, I have jetlag and its late. I will re-read this later, but to describe the text as opaque is polite.

Oh, I spend a lot of time reading legal documents, and this isn't one - lol

cheers

Dweeb

1. Gpt, at first I had the same problem understanding 7.17(4) of Police Order 606/2549 but after Sunbelt explained it I realised that for “In the case of...” one must read “If the applicant is...”

2. English is most probably also not the native language of the person at the Immigration Bureau who translated this police order and this may explain why it is somewhat difficult to read.

3. (5) is definitely not a continuation of (4); at least this is how Immigration interprets it. However, each of the clauses (3) to (6) are individually an extension of clauses (1) and (2).

Let’s look at Immigration’s translation of clause (4) again:

child or child of his/her spouse, the said person must not be married, must be living with the family, and must be less than 20 years of age;

In plainer language:

“The foreigner must have a non-O visa. If this foreigner is a child or a child of his/her spouse, this child must be less than 20 years old”

That “or a child of his/her spouse” makes no sense, is grammatically wrong. How can a child be the child of his/her own spouse? At this point I give up and look at Sunbelt’s translation:

(4) In case of the ordinary child, adopted child, child of the marriage couple, these person need to be single/never married and has never lived as a part of the family before, and shall not be older than 20 years old,

This makes a little more sense, doesn’t it? But what does the immigration officer read? The original Thai version, of course. I cannot read Thai and therefore cannot help you with it, but I have decided to trust Sunbelt’s translation more than Immigration’s.

Clause (4) is intended for the foreign child of a person living in Thailand, to enable the child to live with his family.

--

Maestro

[gpt]

I won't copy your whole thread, "a child of his/her spouse makes no sense, is grammatically wrong. How can a child be the child of his/her own spouse?" refers to a step-child, my Thai wife could refer to my daughters from a previous marriage as 'the children of my spouse'

"(5) is definitely not a continuation of (4)" It it were not and extension of (4) then (4) would end on a full stop and not 'or,' (Sunbelt translation)

[jing jing]

Clause (4) is intended for the foreign child of a person living in Thailand, to enable the child to live with his family.

--

Maestro

Incorrect. A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa. The interpretation Sunbelt has put forth makes absolutely no sense and I'm certain that whoever was refused an extension had other issues besides being "under 50." Also, because this is new, the immigration folks may be a bit confused by their own rules.

[Maestro]

A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa.

Good thinking! There is indeed paragraph 7.18, the so-called extension for dependants.

But I still see “In the case of..” as “If the applicant is...”. In every other paragraph and clause, this is the only thing in can mean. But again, in the end it is the original Thai text that counts, nothing else.

Sunbelt is on vacation until early January and hopefully will add his comment then.

--

Maestro

[keenok]

Clause (4) is intended for the foreign child of a person living in Thailand, to enable the child to live with his family.

--

Maestro

Incorrect. A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa. The interpretation Sunbelt has put forth makes absolutely no sense and I'm certain that whoever was refused an extension had other issues besides being "under 50." Also, because this is new, the immigration folks may be a bit confused by their own rules.

i agree with this interpretation. i believe the mother or father over 50 refers to the person being supported.thats how i read it and certainly makes more sense.however how the BIB interpret the ruling could have many variations.

[jing jing]

A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa.

Good thinking! There is indeed paragraph 7.18, the so-called extension for dependants.

But I still see “In the case of..” as “If the applicant is...”. In every other paragraph and clause, this is the only thing in can mean. But again, in the end it is the original Thai text that counts, nothing else.

Sunbelt is on vacation until early January and hopefully will add his comment then.

--

Maestro

Okay, look at this wording: "In the case of a child, adopted child, or child of his/her spouse.."

Who do you think "his/her spouse" refers to? Certainly not the child, wouldn't you agree? Obviously it refers to the child of the alien's (applicant's) spouse. Therefore it is only logical to assume that "child, [or] adopted child" refers to a child of the alien applicant.

[Cyberstar]

Clause (4) is intended for the foreign child of a person living in Thailand, to enable the child to live with his family.

--

Maestro

Incorrect. A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa. The interpretation Sunbelt has put forth makes absolutely no sense and I'm certain that whoever was refused an extension had other issues besides being "under 50." Also, because this is new, the immigration folks may be a bit confused by their own rules.

The term "foreign child of a person living in Thailand" is a bit off topic as far as 7.17 goes. The whole item is for applicants who are relatives of Thai nationals (or member of a Thai family as it says). Thus the proper frase is "foreign child of a Thai national living in Thailand" ... The latter oviously doesn't hold any visa which the non-national child can be included on ... So 17.7(4) does make sense.

[huski]

Clause (4) is intended for the foreign child of a person living in Thailand, to enable the child to live with his family.

--

Maestro

Incorrect. A child can already be included in a parent's non-immigrant "O" visa. The interpretation Sunbelt has put forth makes absolutely no sense and I'm certain that whoever was refused an extension had other issues besides being "under 50." Also, because this is new, the immigration folks may be a bit confused by their own rules.

It does not make sense, but since the new rules went into effect it is 100% true (as I have personally verified this with Immigration).

[lopburi3]

I believe the sense is in the perception that if you have a child you should either be married or (if under 50) should have employment (either of which can work to support extensions of stay) and the feeling that many, of the dubious class, were using illegitimate children for the purpose of obtaining long term stay (rather than having any intention of supporting them). Much like the marriage of convenience which also seems to be a target.

[LivinLOS]

Isnt this the same as before..

Say I have a non O and am here..

I can bring my farang wife and she can be a dependant on the same 800k retirement package.

I can bring my farang child here (if they are under 20)

I can bring my farang parent here (if they are over 50)

Each of them can get a dependant visa...

This is not relating to receiving a non imm O yourself for supporting a Thai dependant ??? I think your confusing the person doing the supporting and the person who is getting a farang dependant visa based on another farang supporting them here.. Doesnt seem complex to me..

My buddy is single, has a half thai kid and a non imm O based on taking care of it..

Edited December 19, 2006 by LivinLOS

[Maestro]

My buddy is single, has a half thai kid and a non imm O based on taking care of it..

Good for your buddy to have a non-O visa and be in Thailand to stay with his Thai child, but unless he already had an extension of stay on this basis before October 1 he would not be able to get such extension now unless he is at least 50 years old. This is the problem newly faced by unmarried fathers younger than 50.

--

Maestro

[gpt]

Isnt this the same as before..

Say I have a non O and am here..

I can bring my farang wife and she can be a dependant on the same 800k retirement package.

I can bring my farang child here (if they are under 20)

I can bring my farang parent here (if they are over 50)

Each of them can get a dependant visa...

This is not relating to receiving a non imm O yourself for supporting a Thai dependant ??? I think your confusing the person doing the supporting and the person who is getting a farang dependant visa based on another farang supporting them here.. Doesnt seem complex to me..

My buddy is single, has a half thai kid and a non imm O based on taking care of it..

THere are some people over here and are, naturally, worried about the new regulations and you are posting hypothetical questions? 7/17 of the regs state 'In the case of a family member of a Thai' that I hope gives you a clue to why all of the answers to your hupothetical questions will be no,

[Mahout Angrit]

THere are some people over here and are, naturally, worried about the new regulations and you are posting hypothetical questions?

We understand the concern of those affected and thats why this discusion is being held, to try to analyse the interpretation and give them a route to go down. It seems to me that an alien supporting a Thai is no longer in the regulations. Just my idea.

7/17 of the regs state 'In the case of a family member of a Thai' that I hope gives you a clue to why all of the answers to your hupothetical questions will be no,

Yes it says "In the case of a family member of a Thai" which makes me think that the Thai is doing the supporting and he can support an alien child if under 20 or an alien parent if over 50 and that is why no evidence of funds are required to do so.

Surely that is in line with immigration policy worldwide where it is the national who can support/sponsor an alien never the alien who supports/sponsors the national in order to get immigration.

In the case of an alien child supported by an alien on a permit it is covered in 7/19

[bilky]

My buddy is single, has a half thai kid and a non imm O based on taking care of it..

Good for your buddy to have a non-O visa and be in Thailand to stay with his Thai child, but unless he already had an extension of stay on this basis before October 1 he would not be able to get such extension now unless he is at least 50 years old. This is the problem newly faced by unmarried fathers younger than 50.

--

Maestro

They (the parent and kid) need to go to the immigration office and talk to them.

People keep quoting that translated PDF summary of "the rules" as if it was really the rules or something.

It is a translated summary.

I strongly suggest not taking that thing to immigration, pointing at it and raving to them about what the rules are. It's a great way to get laughed right out of the office. Anyone in this situation needs to go to the

immigration office and talk to their case officer. Ask them what to do and what serves the best interest of the child.

I did and it was a big load off my mind.

[LivinLOS]

Isnt this the same as before..

Say I have a non O and am here..

I can bring my farang wife and she can be a dependant on the same 800k retirement package.

I can bring my farang child here (if they are under 20)

I can bring my farang parent here (if they are over 50)

Each of them can get a dependant visa...

This is not relating to receiving a non imm O yourself for supporting a Thai dependant ??? I think your confusing the person doing the supporting and the person who is getting a farang dependant visa based on another farang supporting them here.. Doesnt seem complex to me..

My buddy is single, has a half thai kid and a non imm O based on taking care of it..

THere are some people over here and are, naturally, worried about the new regulations and you are posting hypothetical questions? 7/17 of the regs state 'In the case of a family member of a Thai' that I hope gives you a clue to why all of the answers to your hupothetical questions will be no,

Those were not qestions.. They were statements.. It is my understanding that all of the above can be done..

I know a guy (farang) who has adult farang sons here.. They had a dependant visa but recently became over 20.. They now need thier own..

Sounded like me that this was all garbled translation around these points..

[gpt]

[Yes it says "In the case of a family member of a Thai" which makes me think that the Thai is doing the supporting and he can support an alien child if under 20 or an alien parent if over 50 and that is why no evidence of funds are required to do so.

Much as I hate to disagree with you but the order concerns the granting of permissions for aliens to stay. If it relates, as you say, to a Thai supporting a farang, why does a Thai need a non-B visa? My wife and her family are Thai so therefore I am a family member of a Thai, the regulations refer only to aliens seeking permission to stay.

[LivinLOS]

THere are some people over here and are, naturally, worried about the new regulations and you are posting hypothetical questions?

We understand the concern of those affected and thats why this discusion is being held, to try to analyse the interpretation and give them a route to go down. It seems to me that an alien supporting a Thai is no longer in the regulations. Just my idea.

7/17 of the regs state 'In the case of a family member of a Thai' that I hope gives you a clue to why all of the answers to your hupothetical questions will be no,

Yes it says "In the case of a family member of a Thai" which makes me think that the Thai is doing the supporting and he can support an alien child if under 20 or an alien parent if over 50 and that is why no evidence of funds are required to do so.

Surely that is in line with immigration policy worldwide where it is the national who can support/sponsor an alien never the alien who supports/sponsors the national in order to get immigration.

In the case of an alien child supported by an alien on a permit it is covered in 7/19

Exactly what I am trying to say..

You can BE a dependant only if those rules apply.. Thats not the same as providing for a dependant.

Who has actually been denied in thier local immigration office so far ?? Not reading a translation and panicing but actually been turned down ?? Also where they showing the right assets to support a dependant (400k ??)

[Maestro]

Surely that is in line with immigration policy worldwide where it is the national who can support/sponsor an alien never the alien who supports/sponsors the national in order to get immigration.

Hold your horses, everybody.

1. Even though many immigration officials may not have realised it and continue to talk to applicants about “support”, the new rules are no longer about “support” but about “living with”.

Okay, look at this wording: "In the case of a child, adopted child, or child of his/her spouse.."

Who do you think "his/her spouse" refers to? Certainly not the child, wouldn't you agree? Obviously it refers to the child of the alien's (applicant's) spouse. Therefore it is only logical to assume that "child, [or] adopted child" refers to a child of the alien applicant.

2. Let us always remember that in this translation “in case of...” means “if the applicant for extension is...”

We must also remember to read the columns from left to right. Under 7.17, the first column (Sunbelt’s translation) says “In case of the foreign national is the member of the Thai national’s family...”. The second column says under clause (1), which applies to all clauses (3) to (6), “Foreigner obtains visa for temporary stay...”. In the same column, clause (4) says “In case of the...child...”, i.e. “if the foreigner is a child”. Because we always think of our problem as adult applicants for extension, we tend to forget that this clause (4) refers to children as applicants for extension.

3. “or child of his/her spouse” is a wrong translation by the Immigration Bureau. Look at the Thai original text to get the correct meaning, translated by Sunbelt as “child of the marriage couple”. I cannot read Thai but if I could I would probably find that clause (4) lists different categories of children to cover

-- foreign child of a single Thai parent

-- foreign adopted child of Thai parents

-- foreign child of married couple, of whom at least one, i.e father or mother, is Thai

Don’t ask me how a “Thai national’s family” can have a foreign child, but the rules allow for it.

People keep quoting that translated PDF summary of "the rules" as if it was really the rules or something.

It is a translated summary.

No. The English translations we have available, i.e. the translations of the Immigration Bureau and of Sunbelt, are neither an English summary of the rules nor a translation of a Thai summary of the rules. The Thai text is the full text as signed, sealed and delivered by Pol. Gen. Kowit Wattana, Commissioner-General, Royal Thai Police Headquarters, and the English translations are translations of the full Thai text.

Thai Police Order 606/2549 – Sunbelt's English translation: rules for annual extension of stay

Thai Police Order 606/2549 – Immigration's English translation

Thai Police Order 606/2549 – Thai text

--

Maestro

[bilky]

What I was shown had quite a bit more 'bulk' to it than that PDF but I'm not going

to argue about it.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that any non-thai parent of a Thai child who has

legal custody of that child and the means to support that child should talk to immigration

about their situation before making any rash decisions or worrying about it too much.

That said, it is kind of difficult for me to think of a scenerio in which a parent of a Thai child

who already has a life here would not be on some kind of support related extension already.

[gpt]

As in an earlier post of mine, child of his/her spouse also refers to a Thai step-child who has either an alien stepfather or alien stepmother

Edited December 19, 2006 by gpt

[Cyberstar]

... it is kind of difficult for me to think of a scenerio in which a parent of a Thai child

who already has a life here would not be on some kind of support related extension already.

One example: Working guys, who have a Thai child ... He could be divorced from the mother or the mother could be dead... Or he could still live in a happy family, but prefer his non-imm B due to ignorance of the benefits of the non-imm O.

//Edit by Maestro: this post is off topic, does not relate to 7.17(4)

Edited December 20, 2006 by maestro
off topic

[LivinLOS]

Can I ask again.. In my ignorance..

Is this posting and panic based on anyone being denied (yet) or is this based on a translated interpretation of a PDF posted online ???

Seems to me that the translation is close to the rules that existed (for a farang to gain ANOTHER dependant visa for someone dependant on them) so I am wondering if this is the forum over reaction to a posted translation.. Or perhaps people have already had 'NO' answers based on those facts..

Who has been denied (without going in and making a deal of the rules).. Being a supporter is not the same as being supported..

[papakapbaan]

Unfortunately, I am sure that time and practice (and Greg/Sunbelt when he will come back from holiday) will tell this forum that the Thai Immigration "law" does not recognize unmarried fathers of Thai nationals if they happen to be "younger than 50 years old".

1) The only clause in National Police Order 606/2006 (The "new rules" of 01/10/2006) where foreign parents of Thai nationals are concerned is 7.17 (in their sole capacity of parent, I mean)

2) There is actually only one alinea in there about umarried foreign parents: it is the (5)th one:

"In case of Father or Mother, the said father or mother shall be not younger than 50 years old".

PERIOD.

3) There were quite a few exegeses of the obscure clause (4) on Thaivisa recently.

However strange this may sound, this clause (4) about "in case of CHILD" concerns a FOREIGN child.

(Strange because they mix foreign parents with foreign children in the same rules. But logical in a "THAI <-> ALIEN" logic)

GPT: If you had any doubt, just consider the sentence that you "conveniently" ignored in your reading above: "these person (sic) (...) has never lived as a part of the family before". No idea why they have it, but this condition and several of the other conditions indicate that they are talking about foreign children, like the children from a previous marriage. (They write: "child of his/her spouse" for example).

---> Do your mind (I'm telling myself). This is Thailand. They used to recognize the status of an unmarried foreign parent of a Thai national before 01/10/2006. After this date, they don't recognize it anymore if the parent is "younger than 50 years old".

(Applicants who were accepted for yearly extension of stay before 01/10/2006 are "grandfathered")

Don't (DON'T!) try to understand the Thai logic here!

(Don't add: or anywhere else)

If you try, you can only come up with the conclusion that either:

- They really genuinely like/welcome older people and dislike/fear younger ones.

Most probably for reasons of social order, then. (?)

- They consider it's actually the child (grown up child only?) who "supports" the parent above 50. (@@)

It has been suggested (by Sunbelt) that it was not necessarily financially: more like "emotionally", let's say.

Quite valid but surely valid for parents below 50 as well!!!

Indeed, there is no provision in the Thai immigration rules anymore for child support. They only talk about "to live with child". There is no financial requirements/criteria anymore to qualify for yearly extension of stay.

This last point is good news for parents above 50, surely, and nobody will criticize it.

(It's not so often that money does not come on the table in Thailand!)

But the whole regulation is TOTALLY MIND BLOWING for parents below 50!

---

BOTTOM LINE:

Foreign Parents of Thai Nationals Below 50 Years Old Have NO STATUS in Thailand if unmarried.

No more provision for "Child Support" in Thai Immigration "law".

[papakapbaan]

That said, it is kind of difficult for me to think of a scenerio in which a parent of a Thai child

who already has a life here would not be on some kind of support related extension already.

See my story:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=97178

And NO, it's NOT difficult to imagine many, many other scenari. (i...?)

Anyway...

What does your statement imply?

That from now on, new foreign parents of Thai children must know the score and pack their things and head back home before it's too late (before the "Thai child already has a life here")?

I'm not going to swallow that!

They can dance on their head at the Immigration/Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They will never beat this:

If a child is born in Thailand from a Thai mother living and working in Thailand and a Farang father financially self-sufficient, the obvious choice for a place to live for the family is... THAILAND.

Age or marital status of the father are not part of this equation.

(BTW you can replace "father" or "mother" by "father/mother" of course).

//Edit by Maestro: this post if off topic, does not relate to 7.17(4)

[papakapbaan]

//Edit by Maestro: this post if off topic, does not relate to 7.17(4)

But it 100% relates to 7.17(5).

I thought we were discussing the issue of extension of stay for foreign parents be it on basis on being parents above 50 (alinea 5) or having a Thai child below 20 (as SOME people seem to read in alinea (4) but incorrectly for sure)

Kindly: are we really off-topic?

Edited December 20, 2006 by papakapbaan

[gpt]

Just a quick note on my circumstances. I am English with 3 daughters and 5 grandchildren from a previous marriage. I live in Bangkok with my Thai wife who was not married before and does not have any children. We have no children and do not want any. There have been a few posters on similar threads saying "We're alright Jack, screw you, we don't care!" some posters who are in a bit of a pickle over the new regulations have complained, and quite rightly, about that attitude. We are leaving on Friday to spend Christmas with the family. I am having a few days off and I saw this thread and decided to offer a detached view, Sometimes, if you are too close you cannot see the wood for the trees!

papakapbaan said "GPT: If you had any doubt, just consider the sentence that you "conveniently" ignored in your reading above: "these person (sic) (...) has never lived as a part of the family before". No idea why they have it, but this condition and several of the other conditions indicate that they are talking about foreign children, like the children from a previous marriage. (They write: "child of his/her spouse" for example)." I did not conveniently omit that sentence - it only appears in the Sunbelt version. The Immigration version is the complete opposite.

Using Sunbelt's version "these person (sic) (...) has never lived as a part of the family before". Can one definition of family be the one parent and one child. Yes it can, we have heard of one parent families. Using Sunbelt, 'has never lived as a part of the family before' If it has not lived with either the Thai or the Farang, it must be an orphan.

Let's move away from the wood to get a better look at the trees! Look at 7/11 - I don't think that there is any doubt in anyone's mind that for consideration both conditions have to be met, have a visa and confirmation. There are other examples where two conditions have to be met.

Now, get back to 7/17 (Sunbelt), Clause (5) ends in a full stop so we will only be concerned with (1) to (5). Clauses (1) & (2) have to be met; in the case of (3), (4) & (5) the 'or' is offering options and not all conditions have to be met.

Look at 7/19, alien child, spouse, parent of an alien. Sunbelt's wording is exactly the same as 7/17 in 'Considerations'. Does your interpretation of this mean that in the case of an alien, married, under 50 and with children that he cannot bring his children into the Kingdom.

I was only trying to help, I am not joining the "I'm alright, Jack brigade" but wish you all well and I will take no further part in this thread.

Edited December 20, 2006 by gpt

[papakapbaan]

Look at 7/19, alien child, spouse, parent of an alien. Sunbelt's wording is exactly the same as 7/17 in 'Considerations'. Does your interpretation of this mean that in the case of an alien, married, under 50 and with children that he cannot bring his children into the Kingdom.

He most definitely CAN.

But that's because he himself is permitted to stay on a totally different basis (7.1, 7.2 etc.)

(I did not double check every alinea but you can quickly see it concerns "strong" categories like business or charity - and basically people that Thailand asked for... but not family!).

SO yes, definitely

• -married (I assume you mean with foreign spouse) (but Thai or foreign spouse is the same here).
  -permitted to stay for any of the listed reasons ( = other then "family")
  -below 50 (in this case it does not matter)
  

CAN definitely bring his FOREIGN children to live with him (ONLY IF BELOW 20, note)

(But THIS age limit is quite logical and understandable)

//Edit by Maestro: not related to 7.17(4). I am marking but not deleting these off-topic posts for the sole purpose that anyone wishing to browse only the posts discussing 7.17(4) can easily identify and skip unrelated posts.

Edited December 20, 2006 by maestro
off topic

[Maestro]

Using Sunbelt's version "these person (sic) (...) has never lived as a part of the family before". Can one definition of family be the one parent and one child. Yes it can, we have heard of one parent families. Using Sunbelt, 'has never lived as a part of the family before' If it has not lived with either the Thai or the Farang, it must be an orphan.

I found this “has never lived as part of the family before” very puzzling when I first read it weeks ago and I remain equally puzzled today. Translation error?

To understand it the way it is written, first I would have to get a picture of what this Thai family with a foreign child looks like and I simply can’t get this picture. If I could, I would have to ask myself if it means never having lived with the family before in Thailand, or anywhere in the world.

Since I doubt that anyone reading this is in this particular situation covered by 7.17(4), I might as well forget it. By now, I believe it has been established that 7.17(4) cannot be used by a foreign father younger than 50 to apply for an annual extension to live with his Thai child in Thailand – unfortunately.

--

Maestro

[pschef]

People keep quoting that translated PDF summary of "the rules" as if it was really the rules or something.

It is a translated summary.

I strongly suggest not taking that thing to immigration, pointing at it and raving to them about what the rules are. It's a great way to get laughed right out of the office. Anyone in this situation needs to go to the

immigration office and talk to their case officer. Ask them what to do and what serves the best interest of the child.

Hi Guys, U know I dont post that often, but Sunbelt told me.... I my case I can get that visa extention, based on living with a thai KID. Last year based on Retired. Previous years on Marriage. Ok Now the raised the bar. But we are families. we have committed our lives to them. I dont understand why we cant do this way??? Ok I think this over 50 is strange, but just think. Most guys married to Thai Ladies are in fact over or close to that age. Maybe they givnng us a break. Lets see, I will go soon, sunanlplu and talk with the nice lady. But I taKe Sunbelt uper Lawer 2. Then all u unbelever can follow us Crap. BTW I showed they above translation to my friend, She is a high officer in Immigration. She told me its completely correct to the word. Have fun and let me know ur experiences

//Edit by Maestro: not related to 7.17(4) but to 7.17(5)

[keenok]

if ever a thread needed to be closed this is it!! everybody disagrees on the interpretation of the rules .NOBODY can say for sure .each individual officer will have his take on the new rules and that is that.it will be up to each individual to present themselves to the authorities,state your case and see how you go.this thread only serves to confuse and intimidate those people who are looking for reliable information.the truth is NOBODY knows how these rules will play themselves out yet. we will all have to wait and see. so please close it.