Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 February 2019 17:27
kokesaat

Extension for Those Here Since Oct 1998

Recommended Posts

There's a grandfather clause in the immigration requirements that allow people who have been here under the same Non-O visa since at least Oct 1998 to have just 200,000 Baht in an account for 3 months or just 20,000 monthly income.

I inquired at Udon Immigration today....showing my passport (Non-O 1996 transferred over from old passport).  

The woman said I would fall under that category.

My current extension is good until Oct 2019.......so I have several months before I have to do anything (200k in a bank or 800k in a bank).  But I'd be interested in knowing if any other long-stay expats have done this/or plan on doing so.

 

Capture.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screen capture lists 2 million baht deposit in an account for 3 months.

 

Even when they try their hardest, the Thai immigration still freakin' put out wrong & contradictory information.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't see that.

Try the English version (click Eng at the top of the page) here. https://www.immigration.go.th/content/service_22

Yes you can see it there in his screenshot, but it is also obvious that it is a misspell when they write 2000.000.... which is 2 miljon if you count the number of zeros....

 

So just a fault once again by the Immigrantion Buraeu..

 

glegolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, glegolo said:

So just a fault once again by the Immigrantion Buraeu..

That is only in the Thai version which not many people would be using and what is on the website is not official since only what is in the police orders count. Somebody is just making a big deal over nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual clause your referring to states;

(6) An alien who entered the Kingdom before October 21, 1998 and has been
consecutively permitted to stay in the Kingdom for retirement shall be subject to the following
criteria:
(a) Must be 60 years of age or over and have an annual fixed income with fluids
maintained in a bank account for the past three months of no less than Baht 200,000 or have
a monthly income of no less than Baht 20,000

(b) If less than 60 years of age but not less than 55 years of age, must have an annual
fixed income with funds maintained in a bank account for the past three months of no less
than Baht 500,000 or have a monthly income of no less than Baht 50,000

 

The key words here being 'consecutively permitted to stay'

 

I have a friend retired here 1992 and was grandfathered when the financial changes were introduced.

However he visited the UK in 2007 and didn't get a re-entry permit.

He had to start from scratch again (30 day VE > Non O > Extension).

That break in continuity means he's had to prove the updated financials since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, is very true at least in Siracha!  My cousin fell under rule and had no problem getting his extension but of course he is already loaded but it was nice to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

That is only in the Thai version which not many people would be using and what is on the website is not official since only what is in the police orders count. Somebody is just making a big deal over nothing.

UbonJoe please!!!!!! Not many people??? YES the whole population of Thailand, including ALL the employees of the Immigration, will use the thai-version and NOT the english one....

 

glegolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course anyone who qualified (or still qualifies) under that clause would be 80+ years old now.

 

And anyone wanting to try for it would not only have to show that they had a Non-O prior to the change in the rules, but would also have to prove 20 years of consecutive Visa/Extension stamps as well - without missing a single day between any of them.


I'd suspect there are very few people left that are still "grandfathered" under the old clause. But keep it in mind when they (eventually) change the requirements again. I can already imagine all the threads from all the people who will screw it up and then claim that "their case is different" and that they should still be grandfathered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not allowed to be grandfathered in around 2004, when that bloody square head increased the visa fees. I had a marriage visa, showing 200k in the bank and then had to show 400k. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, glegolo said:

UbonJoe please!!!!!! Not many people??? YES the whole population of Thailand, including ALL the employees of the Immigration, will use the thai-version and NOT the english one....

 

But as I wrote immigration would not be looking at the info on the immigrations website. They would be looking at what is written in the Thai version of the of the police order.

I am not sure many Thais would be looking at the immigration website to find out what the requirements are for an extension of stay application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rugon said:

I was not allowed to be grandfathered in around 2004, when that bloody square head increased the visa fees. I had a marriage visa, showing 200k in the bank and then had to show 400k. 

They did not grandfather the extensions based upon marriage when the raised it in 2003. They did though have a clause that if you were on an extension already the new requirement did not apply for a year from when the police order was issued. Also if I recall correctly it was raised from 250k baht to 400k baht.

The grandfathering of retirement extensions went into effect before 2003 when they raised the requirement from 600k baht to 800k baht. Note it went back to October of 1998.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention ubonjoe

 

Your contributions to these topics is greatly appreciated

 

Even more by me if you can find time to comment on this issue and my situation below

 

Topic Heading : Extension for Those Here Since Oct 1998

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1078713-extension-for-those-here-since-oct-1998/?utm_source=newsletter-20190118-0620&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news

 

I first came to Thailand on 10 July 1998

That holiday lead me to decide to retire here during that month (both before 21 October 1998)

I have had the following visas with no breaks between them since then

1  Tourist from 10/7/98

2  Non Immig B from 21/10/98 (Only because a crooked lawyer insisted I needed a Work Permit to get a car drivers licence – I won’t ride motor bikes as way to dangerous here) But I never worked in Thailand.

3  Non Immig O from 27/4/2001

4  Retirement from 17/6/2002 (17 years ago and still current)

 

As Tanoshi said in post #6

The key words here being 'consecutively permitted to stay'

My local (Senior) Immigration Staff interpret this as needing a retirement visa from 21 October 1998 or earlier. But that is not what clause (6) of the police order says. If it said 'consecutively permitted to stay on retirement visas before 21 October 1998' I would have to accept that.

 

I have been 'consecutively permitted to stay' since 10/7/98

 

Their interpretation means I would have had to renew at least 1 retirement visa before 21 October 1998 - ie I must have started retirement visas before 21 October 1997 (before I first came here)

 

I’m guessing the 21 October 1998 date has much to do with the Thai financial melt-down around that time.

 

When you have time, would you care to comment?

A short reply saying “just accept the sloppy wording of clause(6)” would save you time and mean to me … it is pointless chasing my situation further.

 

Many thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chai19 said:

When you have time, would you care to comment?

A short reply saying “just accept the sloppy wording of clause(6)” would save you time and mean to me … it is pointless chasing my situation further.

You do not qualify for the grandfathered clause since you were not on a extension of stay based upon retirement on October 21st 1998. I can't say it any simpler than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what defines an extension as "retirement"? If i come in on an O-A visa and stay a year and then leave and return just prior to the O-A expiry and then stay for another year on that permission to stay and then do an in-country extension near the end of that second year, is that extension considered a "retirement" extension?

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...