Entry denied Bangkok Airport

[bangkokairportlink]

4 hours ago, Lovethailandelite said:

How much longer did you expect before Immigration finally started the clampdown on those living here more or less continuously on Tourist Visas? Do you think they don't know every scam people stupidly like to put on forums and Facebook because they like to look good regarding the swapping of passports, fake hotel and airline bookings etc?
You wouldn't get way with it in most country's. I've no idea why people are surprised it's going to be stopped here.

 

Because it's the land of corrupted and of people who apply the rules that they want when they want. Easy to understand, right ?

We will respect rules here when they will be respectable !

 

 

[NoshowJones]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

Be helpful to know how many previous entries, and how much time you've actually spent in country recently.

 

I don't know if the OPs intentions are to work or having worked before on tourist visas, this is where Thai immigration really sucks, let them go out and catch the guilty people who are working and employing people to work illegally instead of hounding tourists, let these tourists stay long term as long as they are paying their way and contributing to the economy.

[tryasimight]

2 minutes ago, bangkokairportlink said:

 

Because it's the land of corrupted and of people who apply the rules that they want when they want. Easy to understand, right ?

We will respect rules here when they will be respectable !

 

 

And be prepared for the consequences when you don't respect the rules

[tryasimight]

1 minute ago, possum1931 said:

I don't know if the OPs intentions are to work or having worked before on tourist visas, this is where Thai immigration really sucks, let them go out and catch the guilty people who are working and employing people to work illegally instead of hounding tourists, let these tourists stay long term as long as they are paying their way and contributing to the economy.

Much easier to not let them in in the first place. Don't need to spend the time and effort catching them after the fact.

[lkv]

6 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

And be prepared for the consequences when you don't respect the rules

I totally agree. In this particular case the OP seems to not have respected "the rule of not being under suspicion of working", based on my understanding of it so far. 

 

Assuming of course it's a genuine report.

Edited July 12, 2017 by lkv

[tf6122]

I am surprised and disappointed to see how few of the many responses seem focused on providing assistance or useful information to the OP

Sent from my HTC 10 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[perthperson]

Just now, tf6122 said:

I am surprised and disappointed to see how few of the many responses seem focused on providing assistance or useful information to the OP

Sent from my HTC 10 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Have you provided "assistance or useful information to the OP" ? 

[asean]

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You file an appeal after paying 1900  baht for it and they have 7 days to respond to it. You apply using a TM11 form. Download here: https://www.immigration.go.th/download/1486548054958.pdf

From section 12 of the immigration act.

You will have to prove you have no intention of working here nor the need to. Proof of a income or financial proof from outside the country would be needed.

Ubon JOe is legally correct. But it is at the discretion of the officer at the gate if they will allow the appeal. I have done many of these and the 7 day wait at the airport can be very expensive. Also if you are already in the airport detention cell you are leaving. No appeal. The best thing to do is go home and try again. Otherwise you will be wasting a lot of time and money on the appeal which will not be succesfull.

[NoshowJones]

4 hours ago, tonray said:

His age may be a factor too. A person less than 50 who has stayed here for a long term on tourist visas will be assumed to be working here to fund it.  The government position is if you can afford not to work and want to stay here there is an elite option. 

There are plenty of people under fifty who rent out property in there own country who can easily afford to keep themselves in Thailand long term, and who are not stupid enough to hand over 500.000 for five years, get nothing back in return, and still do this 90 day reporting nonsense.

[asean]

35 minutes ago, perthperson said:

You are being unnecessarily intrusive.

 

Fact !  A friend of mine(who is married to a Thai lady) and who works overseas has dozens (hundreds?) of visa exempt entries  He was "pulled" by immigration once but was able to demonstrate he was indeed married, never stayed longer than 28 days and had more than adequate finance. -- He has never had another question asked. 

Correct. May FIFO guys have family here in Thailand and they can come in on tourist visas as often as they like if they show birth or marriage certificates etc. Very rarely (not heard of one) will they insist that the FIFO gets a NON O.

[NoshowJones]

8 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Much easier to not let them in in the first place. Don't need to spend the time and effort catching them after the fact.

So genuine tourist who visit Thailand often and contribute to their economy should just automatically not be allowed in??

[asean]

2 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

There are plenty of people under fifty who rent out property in there own country who can easily afford to keep themselves in Thailand long term, and who are not stupid enough to hand over 500.000 for five years, get nothing back in return, and still do this 90 day reporting nonsense.

Interesting comment. Which leaves me wondering what reason does a person under 50 have to stay in Thailand? Under what category visa if not Education, marriage, parent, work, investment or retirement? And when you do give a reason can you give the same category that would be applied under any European, American, UK or Australian country? Last i heard there was no "because i like it here" visas. And if there was one it takes about 2 years to process it.

[lkv]

4 minutes ago, asean said:

Ubon JOe is legally correct. But it is at the discretion of the officer at the gate if they will allow the appeal. I have done many of these and the 7 day wait at the airport can be very expensive. Also if you are already in the airport detention cell you are leaving. No appeal. The best thing to do is go home and try again. Otherwise you will be wasting a lot of time and money on the appeal which will not be succesfull.

So technically speaking, if you are already in detention and you cannot appeal, what is the point of the appeal or is this some sort of catch 22?

 

Also on the last page of the pdf it says the appeal must be submitted by the appelant in person. How does that work if the person is in detention?

 

Basically anybody not approved entry would either be in detention or if say travelling by a land border would be in "no man's land", making it impossible to submit the appeal?

 

I'm just trying to work out the logic of this.

[perthperson]

Just now, possum1931 said:

So genuine tourist who visit Thailand often

 

Most "genuine tourists", millions of them,  enjoy their annual holiday and return home. Then there are the others............

[tryasimight]

Just now, possum1931 said:

So genuine tourist who visit Thailand often and contribute to their economy should just automatically not be allowed in??

Not automatically let in...no....they should still go through the immigration process but I wasn't talking about the genuine tourist, I was talking about the people who want to (or are suspected to) want to enter to work illegally.

[sead]

49 minutes ago, lkv said:

Is 22 the number of total entries or visa exempt entries?

22 inside a red rectangular on the computer. I guess its entries. Perhaps someone else knows. I work around scandinavia and all my work is projectbased. So i can work or be free when i want. And i tell them that. They never asked about to see cash or anything. 

[NoshowJones]

3 hours ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Read his post. He was denied entry for too many Tourist visas AND on suspicion of working. How you would actually prove your not working, i'm not sure.

If immigration can stop people coming in even if they just "suspect" a person is working should they not have to prove it? Oh, I understand, if a country does not have a jury then the judge can just find a person guilty of a crime if he suspects he is guilty. TiT.

[asean]

10 minutes ago, lkv said:

So technically speaking, if you are already in detention and you cannot appeal, what is the point of the appeal or is this some sort of catch 22?

 

Also on the last page of the pdf it says the appeal must be submitted by the appelant in person. How does that work if the person is in detention?

 

Basically anybody not approved entry would either be in detention or if say travelling by a land border would be in "no man's land", making it impossible to submit the appeal?

 

I'm just trying to work out the logic of this.

That's what i am saying. Don't waste the time and money on appealing. Their mind is already made up. You are correct about a no mans land as they won't even allow your lawyer in to meet with you. Numerous complaints to the law council about this. Now.... if you come in on a blacklist you can stand there and state that you want to file an appeal. Even then it takes knowing an officer to allow the appeal. Then you wait in the airport for 7 days as you cannot leave if you want the appeal answered. I have seen successful appeals at the airport based on humanitarian grounds. But make sure you have a visa from the embassy before you appeal otherwise when your 30 days up you are out again after all that time and money.

Edited July 12, 2017 by asean

[tryasimight]

9 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

  There are plenty of people under fifty who rent out property in there own country who can easily afford to keep themselves in Thailand long term, and who are not stupid enough to hand over 500.000 for five years, get nothing back in return, and still do this 90 day reporting nonsense.

I guess there are.

But I don't think Thailand exists for the sole purpose as being a country that someone can pick to live in simply because they choose to do so regardless of what the outdated colonial thinking might be. 

It's a sovereign nation and has every right to determine who enters and who does not, like every other country.

There is a lot more to the world than money.....don't you think that the oft quoted general dislike of many Thais to the farang contingent is because they see farang men coming here......having sex with their women, flashing their money around and leaving again? Money doesn't come into it from their perspective.

I'd feel the same if a group of foreigners came to my country for the same reasons.

[007 RED]

In his original post the OP stated that his passport has been stamped entry refused because of Section  13(3). 

Ubonjoe has signposted that Section 12(3) of the Immigration Act indicates – “Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations”.

It is possible that the OP was initially drawn to one side to enquire about the number of 'tourist visas' which he had in his passport, and then during a subsequent inspection of his luggage the IO found some paperwork such as a CV or certificates etc. which gave them cause for concern that the OP may be seeking work here.

Without the full details/facts we are just guessing, so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

I would concur with Ubonjoe that the OP’s best option is to file an appeal if he can prove that he meets the visa requirements and that has not worked whilst staying here previously and has no intention of working during this visit. 

1,900BHT for 7 days board and lodgings isn’t that bad.

Edited July 12, 2017 by ubonjoe

[Dan5]

4 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

If immigration can stop people coming in even if they just "suspect" a person is working should they not have to prove it? Oh, I understand, if a country does not have a jury then the judge can just find a person guilty of a crime if he suspects he is guilty. TiT.

Well, I know that USA immigration doesn't have to prove anything and I'd guess that is pretty common. If you are not a citizen of a country, your rights are pretty limited. And I think that in general Thailand is much easier about visa's than most countries.

[asean]

5 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

If immigration can stop people coming in even if they just "suspect" a person is working should they not have to prove it? Oh, I understand, if a country does not have a jury then the judge can just find a person guilty of a crime if he suspects he is guilty. TiT.

Possum. Most countries including USA have the "at the discretion of the officer at the gate" and that can rarely be overruled without formal appeal process. So no it is not just TIT. Many countries do not Juries in the legal system.

[tryasimight]

6 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

f immigration can stop people coming in even if they just "suspect" a person is working should they not have to prove it? Oh, I understand, if a country does not have a jury then the judge can just find a person guilty of a crime if he suspects he is guilty. TiT.

Not TIT....happens in many countries. Immigration can be judge, jury and executioner. Watch any of the border control shows on television.

[NoshowJones]

3 hours ago, perthperson said:

How many ?  

Where do you get your facts from? 

He probably reads Thaivisa like the rest of us.

[asean]

19 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

In his original post the OP stated that his passport has been stamped entry refused because of Section  13(3). 

Ubonjoe has signposted that Section 12(3) of the Immigration Act indicates – “Having entered into the Kingdom to take occupation as a laborer or to take employment by using physical without skills training or to work in violation of the Ministerial Regulations”.

It is possible that the OP was initially drawn to one side to enquire about the number of 'tourist visas' which he had in his passport, and then during a subsequent inspection of his luggage the IO found some paperwork such as a CV or certificates etc. which gave them cause for concern that the OP may be seeking work here.

Without the full details/facts we are just guessing, so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

I would concur with Ubonjoe that the OP’s best option is to file an appeal if he can prove that he meets the visa requirements and that has not worked whilst staying here previously and has no intention of working during this visit. 

1,900BHT for 7 days board and lodgings isn’t that bad.

007 they saw his passport and saw too many tourist entries. That is all. It has nothing to do with work. They telling him if you want to stay here that long then go get a real visa. This has happened many many times and more often lately and this is simply how the officers explain it to me. Unless he can prove he has family here then his chances of appeal are very very slim. Many times showing directorship or shareholding on a Thai company can help too. Also note that many business people travel frequently to Thailand on tourist visas and the reason they rarely get pulled up is their lengths of stay are pretty short.

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

At the discretion of the immigration official. Probably the same here.  

 

There didn't used to be any problems for say FIFO off-shore rig pigs. They came and went even had houses here., 

I don't like the use of the word "discretion", it is deadly when a Thai has it..

Let all the countries have their laws, and these laws to be enforced without any organisation making up their own.

[NoshowJones]

12 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Not TIT....happens in many countries. Immigration can be judge, jury and executioner. Watch any of the border control shows on television.

 

12 minutes ago, tryasimight said:

Not TIT....happens in many countries. Immigration can be judge, jury and executioner. Watch any of the border control shows on television.

OK, maybe I should stand corrected, how many countries try people and then convict them on one persons opinion, so that part is TiT.

[asean]

5 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I don't like the use of the word "discretion", it is deadly when a Thai has it..

Let all the countries have their laws, and these laws to be enforced without any organisation making up their own.

Possum with all due respect. A lunatic walked into a Thai police station with a knife last month and the officer used his discretion to not shoot him instead calming him down and sympathizing. I have witnessed a lot of favourable discretion with Thai officers. Discretion that would have been impossible in the west.

[NoshowJones]

17 minutes ago, asean said:

Possum. Most countries including USA have the "at the discretion of the officer at the gate" and that can rarely be overruled without formal appeal process. So no it is not just TIT. Many countries do not Juries in the legal system.

OK I will not say you are wrong, but out of curiosity, I would like to know how many countries try accused people and convict them on one persons opinion? How many of these countries would be first world?

[007 RED]

18 minutes ago, asean said:

007 they saw his passport and saw too many tourist entries. That is all. It has nothing to do with work. They telling him if you want to stay here that long then go get a real visa. This has happened many many times and more often lately and this is simply how the officers explain it to me. Unless he can prove he has family here then his chances of appeal are very very slim. Many times showing directorship or shareholding on a Thai company can help too. Also note that many business people travel frequently to Thailand on tourist visas and the reason they rarely get pulled up is their lengths of stay are pretty short.

I should be interested to know what law there is that states you cannot have more than ‘x’ Tourist Visas in your passport.  If such a law exists, then the IO would have endorsed the OP’s passport accordingly and not refused entry under Section 13(3) of the Immigration Act which relates to obtaining work.

As I said, we don’t have all the facts so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

Edited July 12, 2017 by ubonjoe
Changed to default font, Forum Netiquette 1. Please do not post in all capital letters, bold, unusual fonts, sizes or colors. It can be difficult to read.