Jump to content

Refusal of one month extension to Tourist Visa


Recommended Posts

From another thread:

"My friend was recently refused a one month extension to his Tourist Visa at his local immigration centre in the south (on the grounds that he had too many TV's in his passport)."

 

 

 

Is this common nowdays and if it happens do one get 7 day stamp instead?
Is there difference between different immigration offices?
How many TV's  are too many?

Edited by thaitero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While, technically, granting of the extension is at the discretion of the immigration official, this report is extremely unusual. Indeed, should it occur to anyone else on the tourist entry extension, I would suggest checking into a hotel for a night in another immigration district and trying again for the extension there.

Edited by BritTim
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consequences of trying to remain in Thailand indefinitely on TVs rears its head yet once again.   You can argue all day long about just how many back-to-back or closely spaced tourist visas and/or visa exempt entries it really takes to get a denied entry, or the fairness or consistency of the enforcement here vs there vs over yonder, but sooner or later you will get bit.

 

PS   Successfully obtaining a visa is NOT a guarantee of entry!  For the 10,000th time, the consulate issuing you the visa and the IO when you enter represent two different branches of the govt.  (One is the Foreign Ministry, the other the police.)  The IO can deny you entry, even with a valid visa, if he thinks he has the grounds to do so (e.g., suspects you're working illegally, or trying to live in Thailand permanently, etc.). 

Edited by hawker9000
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, glegolo said:

In worst case scenario, this guy maybe already got that 7 day stamp, so he will be screwed anyhow.... And have to go out of Thailand, and arrange with a VISA there...

 

Glegolo

He would not of gotten the 7 days to leave the country unless they accepted the application and collected the 1900 baht fee and then denied the extension.

More than likely the officer would not accept the application. Just a rogue immigration officer in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

The consequences of trying to remain in Thailand indefinitely on TVs rears its head yet once again.   You can argue all day long about just how many back-to-back or closely spaced tourist visas and/or visa exempt entries it really takes to get a denied entry, or the fairness or consistency of the enforcement here vs there vs over yonder, but sooner or later you will get bit.

 

PS   Successfully obtaining a visa is NOT a guarantee of entry!  For the 10,000th time, the consulate issuing you the visa and the IO when you enter represent two different branches of the govt.  (One is the Foreign Ministry, the other the police.)  The IO can deny you entry, even with a valid visa, if he thinks he has the grounds to do so (e.g., suspects you're working illegally, or trying to live in Thailand permanently, etc.). 

You are 100 % correct. I've been working in a consular section of an embassy (in another lifetime, it feels) and warned certain applicants that a visa does not guarantee the entry, and that their money would never be refunded... and many people still thought that I was joking!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hobobo said:

You are 100 % correct. I've been working in a consular section of an embassy (in another lifetime, it feels) and warned certain applicants that a visa does not guarantee the entry, and that their money would never be refunded... and many people still thought that I was joking!

Well... sure, if there is evidence that the person attempting entry is a criminal, broke (might be a drain on state-resources), or is violating published rules of entry.  Otherwise, they would certainly be admitted - logically speaking, of course - which may not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

Well... sure, if there is evidence that the person attempting entry is a criminal, broke (might be a drain on state-resources), or is violating published rules of entry.  Otherwise, they would certainly be admitted - logically speaking, of course - which may not apply.

Not really true.  The "evidence" need be nothing more than a suspicion in the IO's mind, arrived at by viewing your passport AND with your full record of entries & exits in front of him on the computer screen.  Things like answers to his questions, cash in your pocket, onward ticketing, etc., CAN make things better or worse (if he even asks...); it's all a matter of his discretion.  We're talking about those trying to remain indefinitely on tourist visas or using visa-exempt entries, not the criminal or the broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...