Jump to content
BANGKOK 26 April 2019 04:50
Fixit89

Just got a VOID stamp on my new tourist visa , help?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

BS. The UK isn't in the Schengen area.

If you were an EU citizen you didn't need a Visa.

If you were a Non EU citizen you'd need a TV.

 

If your a US citizen you can enter for 6 months without Visa (bilateral agreement).

Yes, I know UK is not in Schengen. I was doing Schengen out/in. Living three-months in Schengen and staying out of Schengen in England for three months.  The first round went fine. No problem. On the second round, UK IO asks lots of questions. He said you were in England three months ago and stayed for three months. Why did you come again? I said I had to be out of Schengen area for three months so I came to England. Asked for a return flight ticket. I said I don't have one. I will buy one before I go back to Paris again after three months. After few more questions, he said you're lying and you're looking for jobs in UK and France (I was in Paris before coming to UK for the second time). It was during Financial crisis in the US. I said I sold my company and I have 600K USD why I would be looking for jobs. He then gave me 48-hours. I still have the stamp in my passport. It clearly says 48-hours. I then bought a ticket and came to KL. 

Edited by onera1961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BritTim said:

We have had this discussion before. You believe that immigration officials deciding someone has been in Thailand too often and/or too long justifies using Section 12 (2) to deny entry to someone with plenty of legitimate financial wherewithal to support their 60-day stay. I consider it using a clearly bogus reason to deny entry based on the fact that the immigration official has no legitimate legal reason to deny entry.

No I don't!

 

I am simply saying that someone can qualify for being denied for more than one reason. If they decide, as directed, that someone has spent too long in Thailand "which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary", and the person can be denied under any reason in section 12, or the immigration act, or regulations, it's lawful.

 

If you others believe otherwise why don't you make an official complaint to BJ? 

 

What happened with VE entries in 2014 is now - as a natural progression of the visa run clampdown - to a lesser extent happening to visa holders.

 

In 2014 Thai immigration wrote - via the MFA - to foreign embassies etc informing that visa runners could be denied entry. Immigration also wrote to IO's informing them: "To keep permission of entering in compliance with immigration law and provision concerned, it is deemed expedient to impose additional procedures of inspecting and permitting ordinary passport holders from certain countries who are not required to obtain a visa when entering Thailand for tourism purposes,".

 

No law was changed and no regulation was published. Yet the IO's were clearly given authority to deny 'visa runners' entry AND without using visa runner or spent too long as a tourist as the reason. They have used 12 (2), (3) or (9), because a visa runner will qualify for one of those reasons.

 

Yes I know that is VE, but it's long term tourism and the VE policy pushed people to using TR's, which are now on the radar in the same way. Evidently if immigration can lawfully deny entry to 'visa runners' using 12 (2), (3) or (9) they can also deny TR holders, as the underlying infraction is exactly the same. 

 

Just because you and others don't like this policy and aren't copied in on TIB orders/memos, doesn't make it unlawful, the airports lawless or the IO's corrupt. 

 

I prefer fact and evidence to emotional biased opinion. It is very simple; since 2006 TIB (not individual officers) have been clamping down on long term tourism. First they targeted and ended land visa runners, and now they are targeting TR holding visa runners. They have clearly cottoned on to the fact that long term tourists are using the airports more than before and are focussing efforts at BKK and DMK, which is one reason why we are seeing an increase in reports from airports.

 

Finally and again, the alternative to this soft discretionary approach is to set limits and that helps absolutely no one wanting to stay long term as a tourist!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

It tells me I'm fine with my METV for now, and if Thailand gives me trouble in the future I'll take my money elsewhere. So far I was under the impression Thailand wanted my money - if that's no longer the case, well then....

I'm sure they do, in part, want your money. But immigration policy is not just about the money visitors bring in, it's also about the reason and time spent in the country. The Thai authorities have made it crystal clear since 2006 that they are clamping down on visitors staying long term as a tourist. I'm sure the METV route will be good for some time to come, but eventually - if too many do it - it will get blocked as a way of staying long term just as VE and SE/DE/TE TR's entries have. So it's wise to have a plan B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:
21 hours ago, elviajero said:

And I believe this is exactly the same with the UK’s 10 year tourist visa; 6 months maximum stay per entry and IO’s can deny entry to those trying back to back entries.

No problem. If you define CLEAR RULES stating 180 days a year - we can comply with that. But what you CANNOT do is have NO rules defining a time limit, then just arbitrarily denying people because some lone ranger IO decided they "stayed too long". Even in the US I was able to stay for a whole year within two calendar years as I was following the actual rules. Either have rules or don't - can't not have rules then enforce ones the IO made up...

Is it clearly defined in the UK's rules?

 

I agree that having a set of defined rules that you can only stay 180 days would stop all the arguments and uncertainty. BUT it is beyond me why people are calling for this when it wouldn't help those currently being denied and would mess it up for those that are getting away with it!

 

The main reason why, IMO, a limit is not set is because the immigration system does not keep a count of days spent in the country within 12 months for any given visa type, so IO's would have to make a manual count at the border. They tried and failed implementing a similar policy for VE entries years ago. 

Share this post


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

I am simply saying that someone can qualify for being denied for more than one reason. If they decide, as directed, that someone has spent too long in Thailand "which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary", and the person can be denied under any reason in section 12, or the immigration act, or regulations, it's lawful.

That "which is considered from the tourism point of view to be longer than necessary", was cited in a rule on visa exempt entries. I believe there is agreement between the MFA and Immigration Bureau that decisions on whether to grant visa exempt entries (and visas on arrival) are properly the purview of the Immigration Bureau. The decision on whether people qualify for entry using tourist visas rests with the issuing consulate. The reason you do not see the reasons for denial now being used by immigration officials at some entry points being officially announced is that the MFA is not willing to cede control to the Immigration Bureau. While those reasons for denying entry are not official, immigration officials are avoiding an open war with the MFA by maintaining plausible deniability on the real reason for denied entry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you others believe otherwise why don't you make an official complaint to BJ? 

I am not sure if BJ would be the right address. But I wonder what can you do if you think an Immigration officer does not treat you correctly - e.g. asking for more documents than in the official list, wanting  to see more money than officially requested ... What can you do? Write a complaint to whom? need a lawyer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you everyone for your responses .

 

moderators would you mind closing /locking this thread please? I have solved my problems thanks to TV. 

 

Much appreciated , god bless to everyone who contributed

Edited by Fixit89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

I am not sure if BJ would be the right address. But I wonder what can you do if you think an Immigration officer does not treat you correctly - e.g. asking for more documents than in the official list, wanting  to see more money than officially requested ... What can you do? Write a complaint to whom? need a lawyer?

You can, in theory, complain/appeal to the senior officer at the office you’re applying at, or go higher to the divisional office or head office.

 

Problem is that extensions are discretional; under the rules they can ask for extra documents so you’d be unlikely to have an appeal upheld. 

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...