Jump to content

The Latest Info on Retirement Visas from Immigrations


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

How many years did the 4 embassies issue those letters with no trouble? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

Agreed. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, marcusarelus said:

How many years did the 4 embassies issue those letters with no trouble? 

Not sure but it was several years at the least.  The issue is that at some time they would be caught out and no longer wanted to be responsible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

The British Embassy did require documentation. The same as the embassies tat continue to provide embassy letters.

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

You "are si

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, D3030 said:

I'm not even sure anything from the U.S. Embassy is valid anymore...

 

If an income affidavit will not be accepted because it apparently cannot be trusted to be proof of actual income. Then why would any other document the Embassies issue that pertains to any type of affidavit be accepted?

 

Makes no sense!

the affidavit is a document devised by the state department to meet the requirements of countries with a fondness for seals and stamps.  it could in the past be used for almost anything to meet the demands of host country bureaucracies that made demands of us citizens that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive.

 

you can write anything in the comments section, put your passport information in the id section.  sign the bottom and the notary affirms you are the person identified in the first section.  doesn't matter whether you provide documentation or not, or even whether they review it.  the affidavit itself states the embassy does not make any affirmations about the content of the affidavit.

 

it's been used for income statements, police checks and diploma certifications in various countries.  other countries are tightening up as well.  china for example is no longer accepting affidavits in employment applications.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First up to be honest I don't use income method. I feel a bit for those that do. All I read about in the many threads is "pension letters" and "social security" etc. I realize USA and UK and others use the word "pension" a lot. In oz pension means old age pension. Its available to folk with not much. Many have life long superannuation and rental investments etc etc. Don't type back I'm bragging...far from it, most of my au retired friends are more wealthy than me. If wanted to use "income method" what would I show. Rental statements from agents or the subsequent transfers from them into au bank. Stop there many many incomes such as shares, dividends would be difficult to demonstrate to io. Embassy also could not verify. Xpats on government pensions ain't the only ones here. Or stuff it at 65 I want sell everything and stick in my super fund and just draw what I need.

Edited by DrJack54
Error
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

Not as easy as you make out. Never heard of a Brit forging documents to send to the British Embassy. Brits in that situation always use a dodgy visa agent IME.

 

BE checked the validity of the documents in the same way as the embassies that continue to issue income letters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Look, I am sure that each of these embassies had many people that had gotten verification letters and then got into financial trouble.  The embassies would have eventually been asked why they verified these people when they had nowhere near the required income.  The embassies would have had to admit that they really never verified anything.  This was admitted to me by the US consulate.

So you "are sure" that "many people" who had false affidavits caused problems.

 

Well if you cannot state how many people and the monetary damage they caused (with proof) sorry but it does not matter how "sure" you are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

Please do. I’m dying for some good farang food ????????

Khunpa restaurant, San Kamphaeng. Alpaca cafe, 1317 between the first superhighway and the 121. Third is in the Muslim quarter on Charoen Prathet Road.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The  US Embassy could have easily had an applicant present their pension letter; disability payment letter; or other documentation  which matched what they were claiming. A few moments to review. The applicant then swears an Oath (under penalty of perjury)  The letter would to this day be accepted by Thai Immigration.

 

I have no idea why the US Embassy refuses to comply when there are other Embassies that see no problem  with this letter. I don't know of any Embassy that has the ability to go back to their home country and view the document at source.

 

 

The US is composed of 50 independent states and many private enterprises, and the US federal embassy can not attest to the accuracy of most documents that people receive in an official capacity. The US embassy can not even certify a birth certificate, a document that confers US citizenship. They would only be able to do what they are already doing...stating that the applicant has certified under penalty of perjury he is telling the truth. The Thai government wants the Embassy to take responsibility for the accuracy of those documents. There is simply no mechanism in the US federated system that would make this possible. Even US government departments often times can't share information due to regulations.

 

The embassy was already doing everything they legally could. Your suggestion above would offer no significant difference to the existing system, and the Thais already said that was unacceptable. Hence, they can no longer issue the letters.

 

Other Embassies aren't representative of countries made of independent states, each with their own laws.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not as easy as you make out. Never heard of a Brit forging documents to send to the British Embassy. Brits in that situation always use a dodgy visa agent IME.

 

BE checked the validity of the documents in the same way as the embassies that continue to issue income letters.

A friend of mine got a letter out of the BE with a simple letter from a rental management company confirming the income from his rental properties. Easily faked/forged.

 

Sorry, but the BE never validated documents. To do that they would have to contact the source of the income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

But they didn’t check the validity of the documents, which is the issue. A document on it’s own proves nothing.

 

They also would accept pretty much anything you offer as proof. Making forging documents to get the letter very easy for some.

very easy for a professional money forger perhaps,

but i cant and i definitely dont think i know anyone with that sort of skill required either.

come to think of it i would save myself a lot of money if i could, i sure got the time ????

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

does this mean the other embassies actually require documentation to prove monthly income?

No, some do not at all (France, according to some posters) - or they certify whatever is presented that "looks authentic" (see "photoshop"), but do not independently-verify amounts with the funds-sources. 

 

5 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

  if so, then letting retirees from four countries get by with just transfers would be a reward for their embassies not providing the required certification.  you could simply recycle the same funds (minus expenses) every month. 

The costs of doing that are comparable to lower-end agent-fees, which pay immigration to skip the financials, so hardly worth the trouble.  But, if they plan to raise agent-rates/payoffs (as rumored), the "recycled money" issue would then become more tempting to some.

 

4 hours ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

If immigration reported obvious lying folks, they'd go to prison, though.  Same with Aussies.  It would only take a few "examples" to put a stop to such activity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

A friend of mine got a letter out of the BE with a simple letter from a rental management company confirming the income from his rental properties. Easily faked/forged.

 

Sorry, but the BE never validated documents. To do that they would have to contact the source of the income.

And how do all the other embassies do it who haven't ceased the income letters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, billsmart said:

The US Embassy did not require any documentation. You could tell them you get a million a month, and you'd still get the letter. It was just what we call a "notarized" letter. All that the notary attests to is that you are who you say you are, and that you did swear what you wrote was true. They don't check on it, and the notary is no guarantee that it's true.

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. Subsequent to the meeting some IOs (notably CM) started asking some US citizens for documentary backup to their income affidavits when presenting them for obtaining their visa extensions. AFAIAA, this practice was exclusively reserved for US citizens.

 

To have satisfied immigration, and prevent all this brew ha ha, all that was required, was for the Australian and US embassies to change their requirement for the issuance of income letters and ask their citizens for documentary evidence of income. They could actually still do this.

 

But no, 4 embassies decided to poke the sleeping tiger, for their own reasons, and we are where we are today.

 

Cheers!

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Psimbo said:

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!! Will it NEVER end!!!!

 

............................................................ and its NOT a Retirement VISA it a PERMIT!!!!!

Haha, you have to learn to live with it. I recently sat through a presentation by a Visa 'expert' and agent where he only and constantly referred to it as 'a Visa'. It's a little like constantly calling your dog a cat, it makes no difference to him, confuses people around you and makes you look daft!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. Subsequent to the meeting some IOs (notably CM) started asking some US citizens for documentary backup to their income affidavits when presenting them for obtaining their visa extensions. AFAIAA, this practice was exclusively reserved for US citizens.

 

To have satisfied immigration, and prevent all this brew ha ha, all that was required, was for the Australian and US embassies to change their requirement for the issuance of income letters and ask their citizens for documentary evidence of income. They could actually still do this.

 

But no, 4 embassies decided to poke the sleeping tiger, for their own reasons, and we are where we are today.

 

Cheers!

Important words, "for their own reasons" to the detriment of their citizens who they don't give a flip about. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Haha, you have to learn to live with it. I recently sat through a presentation by a Visa 'expert' and agent where he only and constantly referred to it as 'a Visa'. It's a little like constantly calling your dog a cat, it makes no difference to him, confuses people around you and makes you look daft!

Fully agree.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is k...WRONG. The blind man with the biggest mouth is king, because people can relate to him.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is best off keeping his mouth shut and getting on with it.

 

Edited by rott
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Important words, "for their own reasons" to the detriment of their citizens who they don't give a flip about. 

It's particularly significant with the British embassy in that, if you accept my assertion, had no reason to stop the letters as the advice from TI wasn't aimed at them, although they were the first to jump on the bandwagon. Their decision was not made by the embassy but as a result of a Foreign Office audit.

 

I know not the reason for the audit but surely it's more than a coincidence that they are about to move into a new much smaller embassy. The cessation of the letters will mean that they require less office space and less Thai ancillary staff. The processing of the letters was performed solely by a team of Thai ancillary workers. My last letter was even signed by a Thai on behalf of the vice consul.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Spidey said:

And it's always been my assertion that, in the meeting with embassy staff, in May, TI asking for "greater verification" (we don't know exactly what was said) was probably aimed solely at the US and Australian Embassies. 

Why then did the UK embassy (who've never provided sworn affidavits, but asked for proof of income) announce this first, making reference to the meeting in May? There's no obvious rhyme or reason to it other than BJs boss (who had several axes to grind) tightening the screws. And don't forget May 2018 was the same month Yingluck got her ten year visa from the UK, must've seemed like they were seriously taking the pi$$... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lamyai3 said:

Why then did the UK embassy (who've never provided sworn affidavits, but asked for proof of income) announce this first, making reference to the meeting in May? There's no obvious rhyme or reason to it other than BJs boss (who had several axes to grind) tightening the screws. And don't forget May 2018 was the same month Yingluck got her ten year visa from the UK, must've seemed like they were seriously taking the pi$$... 

See the post above yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...