Entry denied Bangkok Airport

[perthperson]

2 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

"The OP did not have a tourist visa "

 

sorry but to save me going back 11 pages in this thread when exactly was this gem of information revealed?

Eight hours ago when this thread was started everyone was emphatic that he / she had a tourist visa

Nobody, unless they have examined the OPs passport,  knows what is in it. 

 

Many people call visa exempt stamps "visas" which they are not 

[YetAnother]

7 hours ago, JackThompson said:

it is about 'removing longer-staying foreigners' from Thailand before they can put down roots, marry, etc.

respect your views; hope you are mistaken; however there IS chatter amongst long-term stay expats that the true rulers here DO want less farang; next step would be the extension process, then it would get ugly for a lot of us

[perthperson]

Just now, YetAnother said:

however there IS chatter amongst long-term stay expats

however there IS chatter amongst long-term stay expats" ..... Who have nothing better to do than invent rumour and indulge in conspiracy theories 

 

Fixed ! 

[asean]

1 minute ago, 007 RED said:

Sorry, but once again neither you, or I, are in possession of the full facts and we should not jump to conclusions.  With no disrespect, you are making assumptions that the IO did not have any evidence to support his/her refusal under Section 12(3).  As I said in an earlier post, if the OP unfortunately had a CV or certificates in his luggage when the IO inspected his bag(s) then this would be sufficient grounds for the IO to suspect that the OP may be intending to seek work.

FYI… Section 12 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 only comprises 11 paragraphs, not 12 as you indicated.  Also you are incorrect when you state that "no appeal will be allowed".  Section 22 of the Immigration Act gives the individual the right to appeal against IO’s decision to refuse entry.  If the OP exercises his right to an appeal, then the IO will need provide evidence to support his/her grounds for refusing entry.

How does one prove that they don't intend to work? He won't get an appeal. Believe me i have done dozens and  I know what will fly and won't. The IO has already decided this guy is not coming in.

I am not here trying to say I am right or wrong. I am only passing on information based on experience. I have had people wait two weeks in the detention bunkroom at the airport with 50k cash in hand no appeal allowed. These people had NON B visas with an employer waiting outside to vouch for them. They wont even let the lawyers go visit them to prepare an appeal. Immigration says the person not in Thailand so need for lawyer. We  have complained about this many times to the law council.

 

Apologies for typos (12) i don't have the act in front of me and i was a bit confused by your previously quoted 13(3)

 

This is a discussion forum where hopefully people get to input valid information from experience and others may learn. It so often falls into a i'm right you're wrong discussion. I am only passing on lessons learned from multiple appeals, deports and blacklist appeals.

[Asiantravel]

13 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

respect your views; hope you are mistaken; however there IS chatter amongst long-term stay expats that the true rulers here DO want less farang; next step would be the extension process, then it would get ugly for a lot of us

and are Chinese, Koreans and Japanese included in this or are they not regarded as farang?

[lkv]

1 minute ago, asean said:

How does one prove that they don't intend to work? He won't get an appeal. Believe me i have done dozens and  I know what will fly and won't. The IO has already decided this guy is not coming in.

I am not here trying to say I am right or wrong. I am only passing on information based on experience. I have had people wait two weeks in the detention bunkroom at the airport with 50k cash in hand no appeal allowed. These people had NON B visas with an employer waiting outside to vouch for them. They wont even let the lawyers go visit them to prepare an appeal. Immigration says the person not in Thailand so need for lawyer. We  have complained about this many times to the law council.

 

Apologies for typos (12) i don't have the act in front of me and i was a bit confused by your previously quoted 13(3)

 

This is a discussion forum where hopefully people get to input valid information from experience and others may learn. It so often falls into a i'm right you're wrong discussion. I am only passing on lessons learned from multiple appeals, deports and blacklist appeals.

I know it may be perceived as slightly off topic, but since it relates to denial of entry i'll ask.

 

The people with non B visas that you are talking about, with the employer waiting outside, why were they denied entry?

 

Surely not based on section 12.3 suspicion of working.

 

[asean]

10 minutes ago, lkv said:

I know it may be perceived as slightly off topic, but since it relates to denial of entry i'll ask.

 

The people with non B visas that you are talking about, with the employer waiting outside, why were they denied entry?

 

Surely not based on section 12.3 suspicion of working.

 

Very good question. The reason given was they overstayed last visa by a month and had had spent too long in Thailand on Tourist visas. Even with NON B's with the school director outside (who paid the airfares) trying to appeal to immigration they would not let them out. There was 13 arrivals and i think the fact they all arrived at once had some negative affect. The point is once the IO has made their decision it is rarely changed and an appeal allowed. Unless there is a "connection".  The school director wanted to appeal since it was only 1900 baht each and they spent 2 weeks in the detention bunkroom no appeal allowed, before they all gave up one by one and went home when they got the money for the ticket.

 

But it was the first time i saw NON B visa holders denied.

 

For blacklist appeals we actually have to arrange it all in advance with Immigration to make sure they will accept an appeal before the foreigner arrives. Simply because there is a lot of paperwork and it can take a whole day and they dont like doing it. So there is usually a "document processing fee".

Edited July 12, 2017 by asean

[JackThompson]

6 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

respect your views; hope you are mistaken; however there IS chatter amongst long-term stay expats that the true rulers here DO want less farang; next step would be the extension process, then it would get ugly for a lot of us

Since the laws haven't been changed, just actions by some in a few areas, it seems not to be those at the top-most echelons of power with this attitude - or at least not a consensus among them.  But after some of my recent experiences (will post soon on this separately), I am beginning to think the 'farangs out' movement is spreading in some circles. 
Certainly most Thais don't have this attitude at all - they are wonderful people.

[Sheryl]

Whatever the rules in other countries and reasons therefore, nothing that has been said by any policy maker in Thailand suggests that they want to stop legitimate tourists from spending as much time as they can/want here. It has been made pretty clear the issue is to keep out criminals and people who work illegally.

 

There are several types of legitimate tourists who might enter Thailand enough times and/or extend stays enough times to make an IO "suspicious" under the current rules and policies, however. For example:

 

- workers in the Mideast (oil rigs and the like) who get extended leaves and would prefer to spend these in Thailand rather than their home countries. They are really vacationing here, they are not working here, but they come for months at a stretch.

 

- students on a gap year (or two) - typically these travel all around SE Asia, staying a few months here, a few months there, living off savings or money from their parents. These too are usually not working illegally, just seeing the world and having a good time.

 

-expats living in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Malaysia on long term visas in those countries (working in those countries or retired there) - this group will not usually stay very long per entry but would have occasion io enter very, very often - indeed prior to recent crack down on visa exempt land entries many would come every weekend to shop. Nothing illegal or undesirable about it, and in fact the crackdown has hurt businesses along the border that used to vater to this crowd.

 

etc

 

The problem is that the current visa structure does not provide for such possibilities. Some of these would be easily enough set up as specific visa categories, too.  Easy enough to document employment in the Gulf or  having a long stay visa and address in a neighboring country.As for students - a definable age range and proof of funds.

 

The underlying problem is that the one thing the powers that be never do, when designing visa regulations and the like, is actually consult the population groups directly affected and best able to provide practical, realistic input.  TVF, for example, or any of the various Expat clubs, could easily advise on what the "holes" are that lead people not illegally working here or otherwise in any way undesirable, to still have difficulties with visa.  And while at, could advise on some of the (preventable) reasons why people who would like to have work permits etc nonethless end up working here illegally.

 

The same exact problem plagues all the regulations around migrant laborers from neighboring countries. The one thing they never do is talk to any workers, or groups who employ them,  or NGOs who help them - all of whom could readily explain what the barriers to legal registration are and suggest practical solutions.

 

Lacking such input we are left with the never ending cycle of new rules and regulations that don't have the intended effect - constantly new ones, because the prior ones did not work, but neither will the new ones....

 

 

No idea whether/how the OP's situation fits the sort of thing described above. But I do know that many, many people's situations do.

[perthperson]

Just now, asean said:

with the school director outside (who paid the airfares)

 

Really !   That must have been a unique director most refuse to pay for B visas and work permits ! 

[asean]

Just now, perthperson said:

 

Really !   That must have been a unique director most refuse to pay for B visas and work permits ! 

You are right about that. But this was a country school up north and i think the future of the school depended on having those English teachers.

[JackThompson]

 

1 hour ago, asean said:

I do not understand why you call it harassment of people with tourist visas at the airport. The OP did not have a tourist visa. Many people mistake the 30 day visa waiver extended to nationals of some countries as a tourist visa. It is not a tourist visa. This is why it is called a Tourist Visa Exemption.

He says he did have one.  I agree on the difference, and he would have reduced grounds for appeal in that case, because they have different rules for exempt-entries.

[perthperson]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Whatever the rules in other countries and reasons therefore, nothing that has been said by any policy maker in Thailand suggests that they want to stop legitimate tourists from spending as much time as they can/want here. It has been made pretty clear the issue is to keep out criminals and people who work illegally.

 

There are several types of legitimate tourists who might enter Thailand enough times and/or extend stays enough times to make an IO "suspicious" under the current rules and policies, however. For example:

 

- workers in the Mideast (oil rigs and the like) who get extended leaves and would prefer to spend these in Thailand rather than their home countries. They are really vacationing here, they are not working here, but they come for months at a stretch.

 

- students on a gap year (or two) - typically these travel all around SE Asia, staying a few months here, a few months there, living off savings or money from their parents. These too are usually not working illegally, just seeing the world and having a good time.

 

-expats living in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Malaysia on long term visas in those countries (working in those countries or retired there) - this group will not usually stay very long per entry but would have occasion io enter very, very often - indeed prior to recent crack down on visa exempt land entries many would come every weekend to shop. Nothing illegal or undesirable about it, and in fact the crackdown has hurt businesses along the border that used to vater to this crowd.

 

etc

 

The problem is that the current visa structure does not provide for such possibilities. Some of these would be easily enough set up as specific visa categories, too.  Easy enough to document employment in the Gulf or  having a long stay visa and address in a neighboring country.As for students - a definable age range and proof of funds.

 

The underlying problem is that the one thing the powers that be never do, when designing visa regulations and the like, is actually consult the population groups directly affected and best able to provide practical, realistic input.  TVF, for example, or any of the various Expat clubs, could easily advise on what the "holes" are that lead people not illegally working here or otherwise in any way undesirable, to still have difficulties with visa.  And while at, could advise on some of the (preventable) reasons why people who would like to have work permits etc nonethless end up working here illegally.

 

The same exact problem plagues all the regulations around migrant laborers from neighboring countries. The one thing they never do is talk to any workers, or groups who employ them,  or NGOs who help them - all of whom could readily explain what the barriers to legal registration are and suggest practical solutions.

 

Lacking such input we are left with the never ending cycle of new rules and regulations that don't have the intended effect - constantly new ones, because the prior ones did not work, but neither will the new ones....

 

 

No idea whether/how the OP's situation fits the sort of thing described above. But I do know that many, many people's situations do.

 

That would explain why the Australian immigration rules refuse ex-pat "retirees" unless they can place  A$ zillion in the bank and have first class (expensive) health insurance! 

 

I am not aware of any country which indulges in wide ranging consultation before determining its immigration policy..........

 

 

 

 

[JackThompson]

1 minute ago, perthperson said:

That would explain why the Australian immigration rules refuse ex-pat "retirees" unless they can place  A$ zillion in the bank and have first class (expensive) health insurance! 

I am not aware of any country which indulges in wide ranging consultation before determining its immigration policy..........

Yes - it costs a zillion to live there, so that makes sense.  Also, many might come from poorer-paying countries to work-illegally.

[asean]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Whatever the rules in other countries and reasons therefore, nothing that has been said by any policy maker in Thailand suggests that they want to stop legitimate tourists from spending as much time as they can/want here. It has been made pretty clear the issue is to keep out criminals and people who work illegally.

 

There are several types of legitimate tourists who might enter Thailand enough times and/or extend stays enough times to make an IO "suspicious" under the current rules and policies, however. For example:

 

- workers in the Mideast (oil rigs and the like) who get extended leaves and would prefer to spend these in Thailand rather than their home countries. They are really vacationing here, they are not working here, but they come for months at a stretch.

 

- students on a gap year (or two) - typically these travel all around SE Asia, staying a few months here, a few months there, living off savings or money from their parents. These too are usually not working illegally, just seeing the world and having a good time.

 

-expats living in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Malaysia on long term visas in those countries (working in those countries or retired there) - this group will not usually stay very long per entry but would have occasion io enter very, very often - indeed prior to recent crack down on visa exempt land entries many would come every weekend to shop. Nothing illegal or undesirable about it, and in fact the crackdown has hurt businesses along the border that used to vater to this crowd.

 

etc

 

The problem is that the current visa structure does not provide for such possibilities. Some of these would be easily enough set up as specific visa categories, too.  Easy enough to document employment in the Gulf or  having a long stay visa and address in a neighboring country.As for students - a definable age range and proof of funds.

 

The underlying problem is that the one thing the powers that be never do, when designing visa regulations and the like, is actually consult the population groups directly affected and best able to provide practical, realistic input.  TVF, for example, or any of the various Expat clubs, could easily advise on what the "holes" are that lead people not illegally working here or otherwise in any way undesirable, to still have difficulties with visa.  And while at, could advise on some of the (preventable) reasons why people who would like to have work permits etc nonethless end up working here illegally.

 

The same exact problem plagues all the regulations around migrant laborers from neighboring countries. The one thing they never do is talk to any workers, or groups who employ them,  or NGOs who help them - all of whom could readily explain what the barriers to legal registration are and suggest practical solutions.

 

Lacking such input we are left with the never ending cycle of new rules and regulations that don't have the intended effect - constantly new ones, because the prior ones did not work, but neither will the new ones....

 

 

No idea whether/how the OP's situation fits the sort of thing described above. But I do know that many, many people's situations do.

Yes I agree it can be difficult. Technically the immigration law have not changed since 2552. They have made stiffer penalties for breaking those laws. They have changed 15/30 border crossing laws to stop the abusers and even excluded G7 nations. What people tend to forget is that it is much harder to get a visa for UK Australia USA and EU as they also don't have the visa category that you and many expats are seeking. Have you seen how difficult is it for a UK to get a long stay visa for Australia? Neither of those countries previously mentioned will consult with foreigners as to what visa they would like them to introduce. 

 

 

[lkv]

12 minutes ago, asean said:

But it was the first time i saw NON B visa holders denied.

Thanks for the previous response, very informative, but just for my general knowledge, the non B visa holders were denied entry based on which of the following?

 

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances. Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. 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.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against small pox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court; or by a lawful injunction; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country, except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution, the trading of woman of children, drug smuggling, or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him.
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

 

[tonray]

On the topic of the recent restrictions and deportation of migrant workers, I have a friend who works in management for a large supermarket concern and they are now having stock problems because their delivery trucks lack the manpower to load and unload at the stores.  This will affect the economy soon enough. 

[asean]

Just now, lkv said:

Thanks for the previous response, very informative, but just for my general knowledge, the non B visa holders were denied entry based on which of the following?

 

1. Having no genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of passport; or having a genuine and valid passport or document used in lieu of a passport without Visaing by the Royal Thai Embassies or Consulates in Foreign countries; or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, excepting if a visa is not required for certain types of aliens in special instances. Visaing and visa exemption will be under the learn and conditions as provided in the Ministerial Regulations.
2. Having no appropriate means of living following entrance into the Kingdom.
3. 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.
4. Being mentally unstable or having any of the disease as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.
5. Having not yet been vaccinated against small pox or inoculated or undergone any other medical treatment for protection against disease and having refused to have such vaccinations administered by the Immigration Doctor.
6. Having been imprisoned by the judgement of the Thai Court; or by a lawful injunction; or by the judgement of the Court of foreign country, except when the penalty is foe petty offense or negligence or is provided for as an exception in the Ministerial Regulations.
7. Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.
8. Reason to believe that entrance into the Kingdom was for the purpose of being involved in prostitution, the trading of woman of children, drug smuggling, or other types of smuggling which are contrary to the public morality.
9. Having no money or bond as prescribed by the Minister under him.
10. Being a person prohibited by the Minister under Section 16.
11. Being deported by either the Government of Thailand that of or other foreign countries; or the right of stay in the Kingdom or in foreign countries having been revoked; or having been sent out of the Kingdom by competent officials at the expense of the Government of Thailand unless the Minister shall consider exemption on an individual special case basis.

 

That is exactly what i was trying to say in the last reply. They didn't need a reason. The passports were stamped with nothing. The officers just decided no and that was it. He felt that they had been  here too long on tourist visas. overstayed last visa by a month and felt there was a scam going down with the Non B because they were issued from Penang and would not respect the visa. Yes at law they had every right of appeal but they were never allowed an appeal. Discretion of the officer at the gate.

[perthperson]

1 minute ago, asean said:

they had every right of appeal but they were never allowed an appeal. Discretion of the officer at the gate.

 

I find this difficult to believe. They should have asked to speak to a Supervisor who would have facilitated an appeal. 

[lkv]

1 minute ago, asean said:

That is exactly what i was trying to say in the last reply. They didn't need a reason. The passports were stamped with nothing. The officers just decided no and that was it. He felt that they had been  here too long on tourist visas. overstayed last visa by a month and felt there was a scam going down with the Non B because they were issued from Penang and would not respect the visa. Yes at law they had every right of appeal but they were never allowed an appeal. Discretion of the officer at the gate.

 

Ok thanks for the clarification I think I am going to take a little break from this thread.

 

You guys have fun. :)

[asean]

2 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

I find this difficult to believe. They should have asked to speak to a Supervisor who would have facilitated an appeal. 

There are also a few complaints lodged at the law society. On the other side of the gate DOI are a law unto themselves. "I want to speak to your supervisor" line unfortunately has no meaning back there.

[Sheryl]

15 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

I... am not aware of any country which indulges in wide ranging consultation before determining its immigration policy..........

 

 

 

 

It hardly needs to be "wide ranging".

 

And given the difficulty they are having in getting the desired result it would be to their advantage. They have a problem that despite umpteen new policies over the several decades I have been here they have been unable to solve, and they are no nearer a solution now than ever before.

 

Just look at the recent fiasco with migrant workers, which had devastating economic effects for many businesses. (And which will end up having solved nothing, there will be just as much illegal migrant labor as before) 

 

Talking to even one person with first hand experience in  the process of legally registering a migrant worker would have been an eye opener.

 

Or - to take a more standard bureaucratic approach: commission a study and have the consultants talk to people. Then listen to their recommendations.

 

 

[dddave]

4 minutes ago, asean said:

There are also a few complaints lodged at the law society. On the other side of the gate DOI are a law unto themselves. "I want to speak to your supervisor" line unfortunately has no meaning back there.

Surely the Thai Immigration Police are no different than most law enforcement agencies worldwide...once an officer makes a call; questionable or otherwise, the department will build a nearly impenetrable administrative wall behind and back the call up, right or wrong as it may be. 

There is no quicker way for a senior officer to loose respect than by overruling subordinates on a regular basis.

 

[asean]

1 minute ago, dddave said:

Surely the Thai Immigration Police are no different than most law enforcement agencies worldwide...once an officer makes a call; questionable or otherwise, the department will build a nearly impenetrable administrative wall behind and back the call up, right or wrong as it may be. 

There is no quicker way for a senior officer to loose respect than by overruling subordinates on a regular basis.

 

riiiiiiiiiiiight. in this case the CO was female and they are very hard to sway. 

[dddave]

2 minutes ago, asean said:

riiiiiiiiiiiight. in this case the CO was female and they are very hard to sway. 

I'm curious...Were the teachers in question all from the same country and might it be one that the Thais look down upon, for instance the Philippines?

[asean]

10 minutes ago, midas said:

 

So how many thousands of those people under 50 who can't get the 1900 baht a year via  are there out there who happen to want to come and live in Thailand and can even afford to (because presumably there not working) ?  Like I said I acknowledge there will always be a steady few but the big question becomes are there potentially enough to represent a " critical mass " to keep this organisation going ?

 

Midas I am apologise for I am missing your point. It is a govt body. It has nearly 5,000 members spending a minimum of 100,000 a year each. Its making nearly 5 billion a year in subscriptions. You yourself said it has minimal overheads. Yes there are people over 50 who have membership because they just cannot be bothered and they can also afford it. It does not need new members to survive.

[JackThompson]

31 minutes ago, tonray said:

On the topic of the recent restrictions and deportation of migrant workers, I have a friend who works in management for a large supermarket concern and they are now having stock problems because their delivery trucks lack the manpower to load and unload at the stores.  This will affect the economy soon enough. 

I've heard about this problem before in my country - "We can't find anyone who wants to do this job anymore" (since we cut wages by 60%+ and started using Illegal-Aliens to do the job after firing all our citizen-employees who did it before).  And, "If we pay more, our prices will go up" (because our labor-cost is a whole 0.08% of retail cost - not because we prefer to use that money for corporate-bonus packages).

[asean]

24 minutes ago, dddave said:

I'm curious...Were the teachers in question all from the same country and might it be one that the Thais look down upon, for instance the Philippines?

for that to be true you have to imply that DOI do racial profiling and are racists. :)

Edited July 12, 2017 by asean

[dddave]

Just now, asean said:

for that to be true you have to imply that DOI do racial profiling and are racists.

Please be assured, that possibility never entered my mind.

[midas]

19 minutes ago, asean said:

Midas I am apologise for I am missing your point. It is a govt body. It has nearly 5,000 members spending a minimum of 100,000 a year each. Its making nearly 5 billion a year in subscriptions. You yourself said it has minimal overheads. Yes there are people over 50 who have membership because they just cannot be bothered and they can also afford it. It does not need new members to survive.

 It does not need new members to survive.

 

That is certainly contrary to what I had heard