Jump to content
Technical Difficulties Read more... ×
BANGKOK 13 December 2018 05:59

elviajero

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    9,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,092 Excellent

About elviajero

  • Rank
    Titanium Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK/Central Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

8,848 profile views
  1. The money just needs to be in your account on the day you apply. Yes.
  2. I was replying to a specific question about what could have happened. Only four (not most) embassies have stopped issuing letters. There are threads discussing each on TVF. And immigration have not done away with the income method. It is the embassies choice to stop issuing the letters.
  3. Yes, it’s possible. But only if your pension/s is/are over 65K baht pm and you got a letter from the British embassy confirming your income. OR you had a combination of annual pension income and cash in the bank totalling 800K.
  4. Mixed reports at Jomtien. Their policy seems to be 30 days, but they’ll do it early if not busy, or you’ve a good reason.
  5. You don’t get any work rights for being married. If married you could get a non ‘O’ and base your permission to stay on your marriage rather than work. But you’d still be able to apply for a work permit, without a non ‘B’, if you get a job.
  6. Depends on how much time you’ll be staying in Thailand as to which visa/permit option would work best.
  7. You cannot ‘help out’ — even giving out keys — without a work permit. To get a work permit you need to have a non immigrant ‘B’ visa and be formally employed by her/a business. If caught you would probably — at worst — just be fined. You might be told to leave the country. You might (unlikely) be formally deported.
  8. You don’t need to transfer the stamp. If you applied for another extension it would be denied and you’d be given 7 days to leave the country. It would cost you 1,900 baht. It would be best to just leave on Wednesday and pay the 500 baht overstay fine. Just show both passports when you exit. The IO will do the necessary and stamp you out in the new passport.
  9. They probably wouldn’t accept the report because it’s not due. They will see the new entry and tell you to go back in January.
  10. Yes. When you first exit the IO will transfer your current entry to the new passport, and stamp you out in the new passport. After that you just need to show the old visa on entry, and you’ll be stamped in/out in the new passport.
  11. A 90 day report is an address report. That’s it’s whole purpose. You’re updating/re-confirming your address for the next 90 day period.
  12. Your 90 day report reset to day 1 when you entered on October 18th. Your next 90 days ends on January 15th. No need to make a 90 day report now. Some offices want someone/you to report your return after leaving the country. Many don’t. There would be little point doing that now. I suggest you ask your local office when you report your address again in January.
  13. Ok, I see that now. Again, your understanding of 12.2 is wrong. To 'live' in the country -- which is what a long term tourist is doing and wants to continue to do -- requires an 'appropriate means of living'. The ability to prove that a tourist can meet that requirement doesn't exist -- because they aren't supposed to be living in the country. Permission to live in the country goes beyond affordability, it is also about conditions and criteria. The alternative to what we have now is that they impose strict limits. That would almost certainly be 6 months per year and affect many that are currently 'getting away with it'. Why do you want many to suffer, when those few would be denied anyway? My glass is half-full. I think we are lucky to have such a lax system that tolerates some long term tourism.
  14. Well I certainly hope you're not referring to me in this particular case. I certainly don't intend to claim anything. I'm merely gathering information here. I wasn't. I am not saying I would disagree because I get your point. But by wrong do you mean wrong according to Thai law or according to unwritten morale in the eyes of an IO? Wrong based on a visa system that offers visas for short term tourism, and other visas permits for other reasons and long stays. But is the underlying reason you mention a formal reason that they can put on a form? No. Because the immigration act was written nearly 40 years ago when long term tourism was not an issue, and is not a specific reason listed in section 12. They could make a formal announcement under section 16, but to date they have resisted setting limits. My point is this: can we make sure there are no lawful reasons left for denying tourists who stay here long term IF long term stay on itself isn't mentioned in any regulation? No. Sections; 12.1 IO's have the power to deny anyone entering under visa exempt. 12.2 is a catch all. It is impossible for a tourist to meet the "appropriate means of living in the country". 12.3 doesn't require the IO to provide proof that you're working. Although in these circumstances IMO it might be worth an appeal. I should also mention that IO's have the power to decide how long they give us under section 35. A visitor entering for 'tourism' is allowed a maximum stay of 90 days. In your case the IO could have lawfully given you 30 days or less.
×