METV proof of employment

[roadrunner32]

Hi to all

I wish to apply for a METV since I'm planning to spend 6 months in LOS and then travel in Europe with my thai girl friend. A METV would be a best solution to me, since the double entry is no longer available I can meet all the requirements except one: proof of employment. I don't have a job but I'm hold sufficient funds to spend years in LOS. I've saw in few embassies  web sites in their requirements list says 5000 English pound, 6000 Euro and so on, or letter from your employer. But the majority of them doesn't show this distinction.  No job no visa? I don't think that many employees can spend 6 months a year in holiday. Probably none. Could anyone  give me any clarifications about that ? Thanks

 

 

[BritTim]

Are you retired? While this could vary from embassy to embassy, I think in most cases showing proof you are retired is sufficient for them to waive the employer letter requirement. The objective is to exclude those intending to work illegally in Thailand. I suggest you talk with your home country embassy to see what they require from someone who is retired.

[ubonjoe]

If you were to apply at the embassy in London you could submit a self-assessment tax form instead of the employment letter. The website states a company registration but people have gotten a METV with only the self-assessment.

See: http://thaiembassyuk.org.uk/en/types-of-visa#section2

[roadrunner32]

20 hours ago, BritTim said:

Are you retired? While this could vary from embassy to embassy, I think in most cases showing proof you are retired is sufficient for them to waive the employer letter requirement. The objective is to exclude those intending to work illegally in Thailand. I suggest you talk with your home country embassy to see what they require from someone who is retired.

I'm not retired yet, I'm 60 years old but I need to wait 65 for that. Then according my age I wouldn't be a proper candidate for work in LOS   As I said  the funds are the sole thing that I can provide. Thank you anyway

Edited August 13, 2017 by roadrunner32

[roadrunner32]

14 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

If you were to apply at the embassy in London you could submit a self-assessment tax form instead of the employment letter. The website states a company registration but people have gotten a METV with only the self-assessment.

See: http://thaiembassyuk.org.uk/en/types-of-visa#section2

It would be interesting that someone post his experience about that. Thanks anyway

[darrendsd]

I guy I know who is 68 got one at the London Embassy, they didn't ask him for a employers  letter

[Dan5]

11 hours ago, roadrunner32 said:

I'm not retired yet, I'm 60 years old but I need to wait 65 for that. Then according my age I wouldn't be a proper candidate for work in LOS   As I said  the funds are the sole thing that I can provide. Thank you anyway

I understand that most employers wouldn't want to hire someone who is 60. But there are numerous jobs, not to mention businesses you could run illegally in Thailand. I really don't think your age will help. 

[gandalf12]

Seems like a case of the Embassy doing what it wants to do. That is a problem with the embassies, they can not seem to stick to the rules that are in force. More a case of "we dont like that rule so we will impose our own set of rules"

[stephen tracy]

Hi OP, although I'm a UK citizen and only have a UK passport, I've had 2 METVs fro the consulate in Toronto and they never asked me to prove I had a job. They didn't even ask anything about that.  Maybe they're very relaxed there though cuz technically I understood that you can only get an METV in your own country but the person I dealt with at the Toronto consulate told me that certain countries (obviously UK included) were welcome to apply for an METV in Toronto.  I didn't ask what other nationalities qualified at the time.

[csabo]

I plan to go for a METV in NY in March and I have been retired on a state pension since I was 45.  I will give them documentation confirming that.  Hoping reason and logic are the theme for the day.  I guess a SETV would be the backup plan but my primary reason for taking the long trip is the METV will get me to Thai retirement age the following January (within a month or so).  When in NY I usually hand deliver my application and documents with a return addressed envelope to iron out any questions they have face to face.  

[Alidiver]

It is not OR but AND. 
Money
Return Ticket 

AND

Either proof of Retirement

or
Proof of self employment with Self Assessment certification 
or
Proof of Employment.
or
Proof of Marriage to Thai Lady.
They don't want unemployed in Thailand.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Alidiver said:

...They don't want unemployed in Thailand.

Actually, those on "welfare benefits" are ok, if coming from Ireland:

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/870548-the-multiple-entry-tourist-visa-topic-metv/?do=findComment&comment=10122457

 

I think "destitute" is the proper word in this context - hence the "money in the bank for 6 months" part of the qualifications.

[owenm]

I'm currently on my third METV visa issued from Melbourne, Australia, now at 59. Besides showing minimum funds of AU$8000, I've listed my employment as Retired. I have been retired since 55, no pension, self funded, and not quite ready for commitment for OA retirement extension, and the METV has suited my circumstances. There has never been a query with me having to prove I'm retired for the METV requirements. 

[MadMuhammad]

Now I'm aware of this I think I have reason for concern. I'm 39 and retired from the workforce. I visit for a month or so at a time many times a year. 

I'm waiting for my girlfriend to finish her masters here before making a permanent move in the near future. I want to initially enter on a METV then once settled and I've travelled a little with her, Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos/Myanmar, I want to apply for an ED visa and study thai for a year or 2 before switching to the Thai Elite Visa.

As I'm unemployed and because of my young age will they accept that I'm a self funded retiree? Has anyone had any experience regarding this situation?

[roadrunner32]

On 8/14/2017 at 11:07 AM, Alidiver said:

They don't want unemployed in Thailand.

We are talking about tourists not of expats

[lkv]

59 minutes ago, roadrunner32 said:

We are talking about tourists not of expats

Yes, the logic behind it is like this:

 

Person employed in his home country / country of residence asks his employer for multiples vacations to Thailand for periods of 60 days or a bit more if extended, over a 6-9 month period, with the understanding the employee will go back to work after his multiple holidays to Thailand.

 

It is also possible and ideal for the employee to work between these 60 day holidays, by going back to his home country or country of residence, but only for short periods because otherwise the math does not work cost wise compared to an SETV. Too much work and too little tourism.

 

The employee could also opt for a full 6-9 month vacation, as long as he wants to explore several other countries, since the METV should under no circumstance be used to live in Thailand. However, while the employee is touring Asia / the world, he seems to love Thailand so much out of all the other countries that he keeps coming in, and is willing to enter about 5 times to offset the cost vs SETV, or less times for convenience purposes.

 

It must be noted that the employee can enjoy his multiple vacations into Thailand on visa exempt entries also for up to 30 days -60 days if extended (for the ones that qualify for visa exempt), therefore making the METV redundant.

 

Meanwhile, the employer is perfectly fine with the employee's extended absence from work, so much so that he may suggest the employee to continue his multiple vacations after the 6-9 months for a further 6-9 months.

 

I hope that made sense.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by lkv

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, lkv said:

Yes, the logic behind it is like this:

 

Person employed in his home country / country of residence asks his employer for multiples vacations to Thailand for periods of 60 days or a bit more if extended, over a 6-9 month period, with the understanding the employee will go back to work after his multiple holidays to Thailand.

 

It is also possible and ideal for the employee to work between these 60 day holidays, by going back to his home country or country of residence, but only for short periods because otherwise the math does not work cost wise compared to an SETV. Too much work and too little tourism.

 

The employee could also opt for a full 6-9 month vacation, as long as he wants to explore several other countries, since the METV should under no circumstance be used to live in Thailand. However, while the employee is touring Asia / the world, he seems to love Thailand so much out of all the other countries that he keeps coming in, and is willing to enter about 5 times to offset the cost vs SETV, or less times for convenience purposes.

 

It must be noted that the employee can enjoy his multiple vacations into Thailand on visa exempt entries also for up to 30 days -60 days if extended (for the ones that qualify for visa exempt), therefore making the METV redundant.

 

Meanwhile, the employer is perfectly fine with the employee's extended absence from work, so much so that he may suggest the employee to continue his multiple vacations after the 6-9 months for a further 6-9 months.

 

I hope that made sense.

 

It doesn't make sense - but you are correct as far as I can tell. 

 

What I think happened, is TAT tried to create a better visa to replace the 2x/3x entry visas - something similar to that which lures tourists to Vietnam, The Philippines, etc.  In the bureaucracy/compromise which ensued, the 'employment' clause was added, the price was set above market value (should be ~3K baht / $100 USD), finance-restrictions ala 'bank-statements' were added, and nearby-consulates were forbidden to issue them to non-residents.  The goal was to keep out the "riff-raff" and "illegal workers" - but 90+% of illegal-workers can already come in via bilateral-arrangements.  From my perspective, the "money in the bank for 6 months" rule is the only logical component.

 

For people in countries nearby, such a visa would make more sense - except that exempt or bilateral-entry would already cover their circumstance, and if they are not "visa-runners," should not be prevented from using the existing entry-schemes.  If the "2x" rule used for exempts at land-borders were extended to cover all persons from anywhere arriving by land AND Air, that would increase potential-demand for this visa from people who "weekend" in Thailand from nearby countries, while also cutting down on the vast majority of "illegal workers" who can currently enter on neighboring-countries' bilateral schemes.  But, as those are bi-lateral schemes, this would result in similar limitations on Thais' travel to the "other" countries in those agreements.

[YetAnother]

On 8/13/2017 at 7:37 AM, ubonjoe said:

If you were to apply at the embassy in London you could submit a self-assessment tax form instead of the employment letter. The website states a company registration but people have gotten a METV with only the self-assessment.

See: http://thaiembassyuk.org.uk/en/types-of-visa#section2

UBJ; how would the equivalency work for usa americans ? would letter from social security do the job ?

[ubonjoe]

27 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

UBJ; how would the equivalency work for usa americans ? would letter from social security do the job ?

That would prove a person is retired which they do not need to be employed.

For a self employed person this what the embassy in DC's website states.

Quote

10.For self-employed, business license or business registration indicating the applicant’s name.

 

[jimster]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

It doesn't make sense - but you are correct as far as I can tell. 

 

What I think happened, is TAT tried to create a better visa to replace the 2x/3x entry visas - something similar to that which lures tourists to Vietnam, The Philippines, etc.  In the bureaucracy/compromise which ensued, the 'employment' clause was added, the price was set above market value (should be ~3K baht / $100 USD), finance-restrictions ala 'bank-statements' were added, and nearby-consulates were forbidden to issue them to non-residents.  The goal was to keep out the "riff-raff" and "illegal workers" - but 90+% of illegal-workers can already come in via bilateral-arrangements.  From my perspective, the "money in the bank for 6 months" rule is the only logical component.

 

For people in countries nearby, such a visa would make more sense - except that exempt or bilateral-entry would already cover their circumstance, and if they are not "visa-runners," should not be prevented from using the existing entry-schemes.  If the "2x" rule used for exempts at land-borders were extended to cover all persons from anywhere arriving by land AND Air, that would increase potential-demand for this visa from people who "weekend" in Thailand from nearby countries, while also cutting down on the vast majority of "illegal workers" who can currently enter on neighboring-countries' bilateral schemes.  But, as those are bi-lateral schemes, this would result in similar limitations on Thais' travel to the "other" countries in those agreements.

The only individuals likely to be able to take a long holiday for 6-9 months are 1) self-employed who can run their business whilst in Thailand or get someone they trust to run it on their behalf while away or 2) someone taking long service leave everyone else it's doubtful any company would permit such a long trip. However, the METV also serves another purpose - to allow backpackers who want to spend a bit of time in Thailand but also hop back and forth between neighboring countries without having to get another visa or being limited by the two trips per year across land borders limitation. Although this limitation came into effect a year or so after the METV, I suspect they kinda go hand in hand.

 

The Vietnamese multi entry 3 month visa is so much easier to obtain than the Thai METV. You just fill in a form and pay the money. That's it. No financial proof, no employment proof or anything. Getting back to back Vietnamese visas is also no problem and it's possible to extend the visa in country through a travel agency for reportedly up to 9 months (would have to check whether this has changed) but in general, if you're willing to pay the money, they have the rubber stamp. It's not so easy in Thailand.

Edited August 16, 2017 by jimster

[lamyai3]

18 hours ago, JackThompson said:

What I think happened, is TAT tried to create a better visa to replace the 2x/3x entry visas - something similar to that which lures tourists to Vietnam, The Philippines, etc.  In the bureaucracy/compromise which ensued, the 'employment' clause was added, the price was set above market value (should be ~3K baht / $100 USD), finance-restrictions ala 'bank-statements' were added, and nearby-consulates were forbidden to issue them to non-residents.  The goal was to keep out the "riff-raff" and "illegal workers" - but 90+% of illegal-workers can already come in via bilateral-arrangements.  From my perspective, the "money in the bank for 6 months" rule is the only logical component.

Agree - the previous double and triple entry visas were generally issued from home country only (though I did get a double from HK in 2013) which largely weeded out the problem of these visas being abused. The METV started as a good idea but when the full details emerged it wound up being something highly unworkable for most people. 

[YetAnother]

On 8/14/2017 at 9:59 AM, gandalf12 said:

Seems like a case of the Embassy doing what it wants to do. That is a problem with the embassies, they can not seem to stick to the rules that are in force. More a case of "we dont like that rule so we will impose our own set of rules"

agreed, and , i have been informed they are each individually self-supporting which might explain their differing policies

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Agree - the previous double and triple entry visas were generally issued from home country only (though I did get a double from HK in 2013) which largely weeded out the problem of these visas being abused. The METV started as a good idea but when the full details emerged it wound up being something highly unworkable for most people. 

never understood how a TOURIST visa requires work but those of us that really live here cannot

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, YetAnother said:

never understood how a TOURIST visa requires work but those of us that really live here cannot

It seems they were trying to copy similar restrictions as those applied by high-wage countries' immigration to foreigners traveling from low-wage countries. 

But, they applied this restriction to those from high-wage countries (many of whom can afford to take time off between jobs for travel), and did not apply this restriction where it was most needed - neighboring countries with lower-than-Thai wage scales - where almost all illegal-workers come from.  

[jimster]

22 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

It seems they were trying to copy similar restrictions as those applied by high-wage countries' immigration to foreigners traveling from low-wage countries. 

But, they applied this restriction to those from high-wage countries (many of whom can afford to take time off between jobs for travel), and did not apply this restriction where it was most needed - neighboring countries with lower-than-Thai wage scales - where almost all illegal-workers come from.  

They don't really enforce the job thingy though - if you have enough money in your account you'll get the visa. You could probably just make up a company and write a letter and get the visa too. Also, Cambodians and Laotians who want the METV ALSO need to show like US$7000-8000 in their accounts, based on what I've seen. Just that I don't think a single Lao or Cambodian has ever applied for such a visa because few have those kind of funds and most know they can just travel in and out of Thailand on endless visa exempt stamps without much scrutiny being applied. The two trips per year limitation across land borders doesn't apply to them and in many cases even if they do back to back visa runs they can still get back in, provided they haven't overstayed.

 

But speaking of which I don't like the way Thailand uses what I see as racism in deciding how much money an applicant needs to show to get a marriage visa.

 

A post some time ago featured a Lao guy who only needed 150,000 baht, while westerners need 400,000 Baht. Imagine if citizens of Asian countries needed more money to apply for a visa to the USA than Europeans, there'd be outrage.

Lao people should be required to have 400,000 just like other expats. The different wage scales based on a citizen's nationality is also an example of this - Greeks only need 35,000, Japanese 60,000. Africans 25,000 but most westerners 50,000? What a joke. Just apply the same minimum wage for ALL.

Edited August 17, 2017 by jimster

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, jimster said:

They don't really enforce the job thingy though - if you have enough money in your account you'll get the visa. You could probably just make up a company and write a letter and get the visa too. Also, Cambodians and Laotians who want the METV ALSO need to show like US$7000-8000 in their accounts, based on what I've seen. Just that I don't think a single Lao or Cambodian has ever applied for such a visa because few have those kind of funds and most know they can just travel in and out of Thailand on endless visa exempt stamps without much scrutiny being applied. The two trips per year limitation across land borders doesn't apply to them and in many cases even if they do back to back visa runs they can still get back in, provided they haven't overstayed.

 

But speaking of which I don't like the way Thailand uses what I see as racism in deciding how much money an applicant needs to show to get a marriage visa.

 

A post some time ago featured a Lao guy who only needed 150,000 baht, while westerners need 400,000 Baht. Imagine if citizens of Asian countries needed more money to apply for a visa to the USA than Europeans, there'd be outrage.

Lao people should be required to have 400,000 just like other expats. The different wage scales based on a citizen's nationality is also an example of this - Greeks only need 35,000, Japanese 60,000. Africans 25,000 but most westerners 50,000? What a joke. Just apply the same minimum wage for ALL.

Yes, those from neighboring counties don't need an METV, because they are not restricted by the 2x-land-border rule.  So while the "rules for the METV" apply to them, the need for an METV doesn't exist.

 

I didn't know the marriage-finances rule was variable.  But keep in mind, that Thais consider Lao folks "cousins" in a sense.  I have read reports of low-fine / no-ban enforcement of Lao overstays in Thailand, also.

 

Many wealthier Euro nations' citizens can enter the USA visa-exempt, so don't need to apply for a visa.  This makes sense, as working-class folks would get paid less in the USA than Europe, so low likelihood of breaking the terms of the visa to obtain illegal employment.  Americans also have fairly easy access to Europe, but since Euro-companies actually have to verify employees are legally allowed to work before hiring (unlike American companies), not many Americans would break the terms of their tourist-entries.  "Under the table" work is available in Europe, but very little at wage-scales tempting to Americans.