Acceptable purpose of visit for non O based on pension?

[virgomjh]

I am travelling from UK to Thailand soon with my elderly father and Thai wife for a 90 day stay. The main purpose of this trip is to help my father to decide whether to move to Thailand full time next year with us. I could apply for a 90 day non O based on my marriage, and my father could apply for a 90 day non O visa based on pension. But my father is not entering with intention of retiring there on this trip, and I am concerned that he cannot validly state ‘retirement’ on the application form as the purpose of his visit, and am not sure what he should say if we are asked about purpose at the immigration desk on entry? 

Should we apply for 60 day Tourist Visas for this trip, with a view to extending them for 30 days, or am I being overly cautious?

[tonray]

Tell them Retirement and not worry so much.

[Maestro]

Porpose of visit: explore possibility of retirement.

 

Some embassies force the applicant to get a non-O/A visa when he just writes "retirement"

[perthperson]

The purpose of your fathers visit could be simply stated as Tourism or as above "Explore possibility of retirement"

[virgomjh]

2 hours ago, perthperson said:

The purpose of your fathers visit could be simply stated as Tourism or as above "Explore possibility of retirement"

I had got it into my head that anyone visiting for tourism had to apply for and enter on a tourist visa, and that non O visas were only granted for purposes other than tourism. In the case of pensioners, I thought that a non O could only be used to enter for long term retirement either through multiple non O entries, or with the intention of applying for a 12m extension.

So just to clarify, are you saying that a pensioner can obtain a non O just for being in receipt of state pension regardless of purpose, and legitimately use it for tourism?  

[BritTim]

14 minutes ago, virgomjh said:

I had got it into my head that anyone visiting for tourism had to apply for and enter on a tourist visa, and that non O visas were only granted for purposes other than tourism. In the case of pensioners, I thought that a non O could only be used to enter for long term retirement either through multiple non O entries, or with the intention of applying for a 12m extension.

So just to clarify, are you saying that a pensioner can obtain a non O just for being in receipt of state pension regardless of purpose, and legitimately use it for tourism?  

Yes. At one time, you could enter Thailand on a Non O visa just "to visit family and friends". Now, the criteria for issuing a Non O are somewhat narrower. However, if you can satisfy the documentation requirements (and, in the UK, proving you are in receipt of a state pension does that) you can be issued a Non O visa, and do what you like when you enter Thailand short of breaking any laws.

[Kenegg]

Agree with BriTim a non o can be obtained with proof of state pension for reason of visiting family...but also a setv would fit purpose and can be obtained more easily from a consulate in the UK.

[sandy102uk]

I have had a Non O multiple entry visa based on pension for many years from UK. For purpose of visit I always put "retired". Never had a problem.

[virgomjh]

18 hours ago, BritTim said:

However, if you can satisfy the documentation requirements (and, in the UK, proving you are in receipt of a state pension does that) you can be issued a Non O visa, and do what you like when you enter Thailand short of breaking any laws.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate that once you have entered you can do what you like, but do you agree with poster above that theoretically you could state ''Tourism'' as the purpose of visit for a pensioner non O visa? Not suggesting that my father would state that for this upcoming visit, but just trying to establish for future ref whether pensioners have to be careful to avoid stating ''Tourism'' as the visit purpose on their non O applications, or whether it is an acceptable purpose of visit for them?

 

[perthperson]

3 minutes ago, virgomjh said:

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate that once you have entered you can do what you like, but do you agree with poster above that theoretically you could state ''Tourism'' as the purpose of visit for a pensioner non O visa? Not suggesting that my father would state that for this upcoming visit, but just trying to establish for future ref whether pensioners have to be careful to avoid stating ''Tourism'' as the visit purpose on their non O applications, or whether it is an acceptable purpose of visit for them?

 

I personally believe you are 'over thinking' this matter and should write whatever you are comfortable with on the form or seek advice directly from the Embassy/Consulate.

[virgomjh]

12 hours ago, Kenegg said:

also a setv would fit purpose and can be obtained more easily from a consulate in the UK.

Don't know about consulates but both SETV and Non O can be obtained easily by post from London embassy and little difference between the two applications. Its the same form - only difference is that 90 day non O on basis of pension just requires a photocopy of DWP pension letter. SETV costs £25 less for application fee but you will have to make a trip to immigration and pay £45 for an extension. Personally think non O is preferable if you go postal route via London embassy, - non O is marginally cheaper overall and avoids immigration visit.

[virgomjh]

11 hours ago, sandy102uk said:

I have had a Non O multiple entry visa based on pension for many years from UK. For purpose of visit I always put "retired". Never had a problem.

Thanks for that - it certainly supports perthperson's suggestion that I am overthinking it! But still interested to know whether it is ok to state Tourism on a non O pensioner application!

 

Website states evidence of adequate finance (B20k per person) required for all Non Immigrant visas - d0 you bother submitting a bank statement with your applications, or is this one of those requirements that is just overlooked?

[sandy102uk]

I recall my first app for a non O multiple at my local honorary consulate. I was advised not to put tourist as purpose of visit. Now I have to apply ny

[sandy102uk]

Oops! Apply to London embassy. I have never submitted a bank statement. Just a copy of my pension entitlement from DWP

[Kenegg]

When I applied for my muti o I was 65 in receipt of state pension and still working full time...state pension secured the visa and I put visiting friends and family....once you have got the visa...immigration in Thailand does not care where you are visiting or tourism as long as you leave when your visa expires or extend.

[overherebc]

On 07/07/2017 at 11:35 PM, virgomjh said:

Thanks for that - it certainly supports perthperson's suggestion that I am overthinking it! But still interested to know whether it is ok to state Tourism on a non O pensioner application!

 

Website states evidence of adequate finance (B20k per person) required for all Non Immigrant visas - d0 you bother submitting a bank statement with your applications, or is this one of those requirements that is just overlooked?

 

20k is to show if asked on arrival.

[JackThompson]

38 minutes ago, overherebc said:

20k is to show if asked on arrival.

That amount may also be asked in the form of a bank-statement by the Thai Consulate, who each make up their own rules, which vary over time.  I would think if you are providing pension-info, this would not be necessary in this case.

 

To summarize these two different requirements: Provide bank-statements with paperwork for the Consulate, upon request, but have another 20K worth of cash or travelers checks to show upon arrival.

[virgomjh]

Thanks for all your feedback on this topic! Think its reasonable to conclude from the cases posted here that immigration is not too concerned whether pensioner non O's are being used for tourism, as long as the applicant doesn't state that in the application and goes with any of the other purposes suggested by the posters above. I was initially concerned that pensioner non o's were for people intending to retire long term in Thailand and that a 12m extension might be expected, which I can see now is not the case or at least not implemented in that way. In my case we are visiting the family of my wife, so I will just state something along the lines of ''retired and visiting family'' on the application. Thanks again to everyone for helping to clarify this.

[virgomjh]

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 7:27 AM, JackThompson said:

That amount may also be asked in the form of a bank-statement by the Thai Consulate, who each make up their own rules, which vary over time.  I would think if you are providing pension-info, this would not be necessary in this case.

 

To summarize these two different requirements: Provide bank-statements with paperwork for the Consulate, upon request, but have another 20K worth of cash or travelers checks to show upon arrival.

The embassy website does state in its list of documents to be submitted with all non O applications ''evidence of adequate finance (B20,000 per person, B40,000 per family), so think it might be advisable just to cover this with a bank statement as well as DWP letter, even though other posters have been granted the visa without it.

 

Its interesting that the embassy website states very strongly that people entering on a Tourist Visa ''must show B10,000 per person at port of entry'', but no mention of any requirement to carry cash on the lists of requirements for non O applicants. Could it be because people entering on non O's have already been required to prove adequate finance with their initial applications, and that no one entering with a non O would ever be asked to show cash, and that this requirement only applies to Tourist visa holders?

[JackThompson]

7 hours ago, virgomjh said:

The embassy website does state in its list of documents to be submitted with all non O applications ''evidence of adequate finance (B20,000 per person, B40,000 per family), so think it might be advisable just to cover this with a bank statement as well as DWP letter, even though other posters have been granted the visa without it.

 

Its interesting that the embassy website states very strongly that people entering on a Tourist Visa ''must show B10,000 per person at port of entry'', but no mention of any requirement to carry cash on the lists of requirements for non O applicants. Could it be because people entering on non O's have already been required to prove adequate finance with their initial applications, and that no one entering with a non O would ever be asked to show cash, and that this requirement only applies to Tourist visa holders?

Not all Non-O Visa applications require proof of money at all consulates, but IOs requesting the showing of money is much less common upon entry with Non-Os.

One Non-O Multi holder (based on marriage) was returning with his Thai wife and parents from Malaysia - they were forced to show 20K each, which his wife was able to fetch from an ATM.

Another southern-border incident demanding cash involved someone on a 1-year extension with multi-entry permit, though he protested (threatened to call Bangkok) and got in. 

Another was questioned at an airport, coming in with a Multi-Entry Non-O Visa based on marriage - but it was more about his explaining the justification for his visa than 'show the money'. 

 

An "O-A" should be proof of funds by itself, and I've seen no reports of people being forced to show cash when entering with that one.

[virgomjh]

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 2:52 AM, JackThompson said:

Not all Non-O Visa applications require proof of money at all consulates, but IOs requesting the showing of money is much less common upon entry with Non-Os.

Thanks for your points and examples on this. So my theory that IO's might be instructed to assume that non O holders have already proven adequate funds doesn't stand up. I guess its better to play safe and carry B20k per person just in case you draw the very short straw and meet the IO from hell after a 12 hour flight.