Are you changing to marriage visa now?

[gk10002000]

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 10:05 PM, Just1Voice said:

What's the hassle? 10years ago my first visa was marriage. A total pain in the neck. But when I went to renew it, the IO female told me that with my income, the Retirement Visa would be easier & faster. Sent me and wife to a different desk, and 5-6 minutes later, we were out of there. So my last 9 extensions have been Retirement. When they "changed the rules" which, in reality they didn't "change", but merely "enforced" existing rules, I went to Imm in Chiang Mai, found out what was needed for income verification, went to the bank, had all the forms within half an hour. Back to Imm the next morning, and less than an hour later was out of there with my new extension.  

 

I have 2 "acquaintances", screaming to high Heaven 0ver the "new rules", saying they will force them to leave Thailand. As it turns out, neither of them actually have the MINIMUM monthly financial requirements, but have been using "Income Verification" letters from the Consulate for years, which said they did, which I suspect is the case with many others. 

 

I refer to the Thai phrase, "Som nom nah".

 

They actually did change the rules.  The basic requirement was to have 65,000 thai baht monthly  income.  But it was not specified or clearly stated if that had to be an absolute every month value, or could be an average over 3 months or over a year.  Many people legitimately average that amount but some get it every quarter, say when some stock dividends are paid or their pensions pay in lump sums yearly, or many other ways income can come in.  Now they require Thai bank accounts, monthly transfers and their associated fees, none of which now show or prove any future evidence that there is sustainable income.  So the current process to follow is fundamentally flawed.  I completely agree that many people were skirting being able to prove they actually had 65,000 Thai baht income.  But the current process the Thais want really only proves that for the last few months somebody moved money into Thailand.  It does not show any evidence of sustainable, no proof there is an actual pension for future income, or whatever.

[MeePeeMai]

I have learned NOT to ask them "what is needed" for anything now because in the past my wife has been told for example "just get A,B,C,D,E and F".

 

When we showed up with "A,B,C,D,E and F" we were told (and given back) D,E and F as "not needed" and then asked where was G,H,I and J?

 

When we show up the next day with G,H,I and J we get a different person who says don't need I and J but we need D and E and you also need K etc.  Where's K?  Go get K and come back.

 

This is the most frustrating thing to me and I am not looking forward to my extension next year.  I will have two bases covered though as I will have the 65k monthly transfers and just in case they find something wrong with that, then I plan on going the marriage route as I will by then have more than 400k seasoned for more than 3 months.  

 

Not to mention that I will have to fly to Bangkok and get the bank letters from the BKK Bank's main branch office on Silom road and then try to fly back home in the same afternoon and then drive 1 1/2 hours to the Imm Office before they close (on the same day that my bank letters are dated) which I think will be an impossible task.  

 

At a 3 hour drive round trip (plus sit and wait time), this kind of inconsistency and run around gets very frustrating.

[elviajero]

6 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

They actually did change the rules.  The basic requirement was to have 65,000 thai baht monthly  income.  But it was not specified or clearly stated if that had to be an absolute every month value, or could be an average over 3 months or over a year. 

Sorry, but they haven't changed. The rule is exactly the same.

 

2.22. In the case of retirement

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month:"

 

Seems clear to me that you need an income of no less than 65K (absolute value) per month (every month).

 

6 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Many people legitimately average that amount but some get it every quarter, say when some stock dividends are paid or their pensions pay in lump sums yearly, or many other ways income can come in. 

Debatable, the rule has never indicated that an average was acceptable, unlike the family based extension that said an average could be used. 65K per month means per month. Loopholes galore under the embassy letter system.

 

6 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Now they require Thai bank accounts, monthly transfers and their associated fees, none of which now show or prove any future evidence that there is sustainable income.  So the current process to follow is fundamentally flawed.  I completely agree that many people were skirting being able to prove they actually had 65,000 Thai baht income.  But the current process the Thais want really only proves that for the last few months somebody moved money into Thailand.  It does not show any evidence of sustainable, no proof there is an actual pension for future income, or whatever.

Agreed. But eventually they'll need to do it every month, which is a lot of gigery fakery for someone that doesn't actually have the income/money. It's definitely less flawed than walking in to the US embassy and claiming an income without any evidence whatsoever. I don't think there is an unflawed system unless they insist that pension companies transfer the pensions direct to the applicants Thai bank.

[MeePeeMai]

17 minutes ago, elviajero said:

 I don't think there is an unflawed system unless they insist that pension companies transfer the pensions direct to the applicants Thai bank.

Mine won’t do that. Their rules are that it has to be an auto deposit into a “local” bank or credit union. Local meaning within the state of hawaii. I asked. 

[elviajero]

10 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Mine won’t do that. Their rules are that it has to be an auto deposit into a “local” bank or credit union. Local meaning within the state of hawaii. I asked. 

And lets hope immigration don't get any bright ideas and take up my suggestion!

[jacko45k]

19 hours ago, The Old Drunken Man said:

I forgot ask if my Knowledgeable  bar room lawyer is correct.

Mostly he is. You can only hope on the 'leniency' wrt the 65.000 income. I am not sure how many months of 65k will be accepted, but from May this year to September is not long. I kinda thought one might need to show from when the requirement changed, which was around January 2019, but I could be, and likely am wrong. I say try showing the income from May. (Do you have a new account or simply take the wife off the same one?)

 

If that doesn't work off to Savannakhet, (or God forbid PP).

Edited April 23, 2019 by jacko45k

[ubonjoe]

6 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

Not to mention that I will have to fly to Bangkok and get the bank letters from the BKK Bank's main branch office on Silom road and then try to fly back home in the same afternoon and then drive 1 1/2 hours to the Imm Office before they close (on the same day that my bank letters are dated) which I think will be an impossible task.  

Why do you think you would need to do that. No office is going to expect that bank statement to prove one year of transfers would need to be dated for the day you apply. 

They might want a bank book update to prove your account is still valid not to prove your balance in the bank X amount of baht is still there.

[Sheryl]

No. The rule is exactly the same. It is just the way you prove your income that has changed. It has always been a minimum income go 65K, you're now seeing evidence that it was always 65K net. 
 
The rule.
2.22 In the case of retirement.
"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month"
 

How to you infer from that wording that it means 65k net AFTER insurance deductions? Or that or means 65k fully remitted into Thailand?

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

Why do you think you would need to do that. No office is going to expect that bank statement to prove one year of transfers would need to be dated for the day you apply. 
They might want a bank book update to prove your account is still valid not to prove your balance in the bank X amount of baht is still there.

Seems to me you can get the statement at any time after the transfer for the month prior to the month in which you eill do the extendion hits the bank.

If your local branch can't provide the statement you should call the main iffice, likely they can prepare it and send to local branch for you to pick up there.

Not saying no hassles involved but should not be as you describe


Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[The Old Drunken Man]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Mostly he is. You can only hope on the 'leniency' wrt the 65.000 income. I am not sure how many months of 65k will be accepted, but from May this year to September is not long. I kinda thought one might need to show from when the requirement changed, which was around January 2019, but I could be, and likely am wrong. I say try showing the income from May. (Do you have a new account or simply take the wife off the same one?)

 

If that doesn't work off to Savannakhet, (or God forbid PP).

After waiting for the dust to settle after the embassy refusal to give the letters I opened a new account in my name only, I then transfer money to the joint account to make it easy on the wife.

Also my wife suggestion of getting a 3 month O visa from Laos and then restarting a new retirement extension after the O visa is nearly finished seems a OK, as starting again you don't need to show 12 months income at 65K to qualify, and they will not check your income again until renewal.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, Sheryl said:

15 hours ago, elviajero said:

No. The rule is exactly the same. It is just the way you prove your income that has changed. It has always been a minimum income go 65K, you're now seeing evidence that it was always 65K net. 
 
The rule.
2.22 In the case of retirement.
"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month"
 

How to you infer from that wording that it means 65k net AFTER insurance deductions? Or that or means 65k fully remitted into Thailand?

• "No less than baht 65,000 per month." (fully remitted to Thailand if no embassy letter)
• "funds deposited in a bank in Thailand of no less than Baht 800,000."

If someone sent 800K from their home country and after costs 760,000 was deposited in the Thai bank, the applicant wouldn't get an extension.

 

If someone (without an embassy letter) sent 65K from their home country and after costs 60,000 was deposited in the Thai bank every month, the applicant wouldn't get an extension.

 

The only reason - people using embassy letters - with a gross income of 65K that actually receive less than 65K pm get away with it, is because no one (usually) checks if the amount being claimed as income is net or gross. A loophole now closed for some.

[MeePeeMai]

14 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Why do you think you would need to do that. No office is going to expect that bank statement to prove one year of transfers would need to be dated for the day you apply. 

They might want a bank book update to prove your account is still valid not to prove your balance in the bank X amount of baht is still there.

Thanks for reading my post ubonjoe

 

Not the bank statements.

 

I have read here that many Immigration Offices want the "bank letter" to be dated the same day as your date of extension application.  I thought they were talking about the bank letter that one must have stating that it is your account (not a joint account) and that the balance is such and such on this date.  This is the letter that I thought must be dated the same day as your application for extension at most Immigration Offices.  Am I mistaken?

 

A small deposit and then updating my bankbook on the same day is not a problem but I understand that this MUST be done before getting your "bank letter" so that the balances on the bank letter and in your bank book will match.

Edited April 23, 2019 by MeePeeMai

[MeePeeMai]

12 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Seems to me you can get the statement at any time after the transfer for the month prior to the month in which you eill do the extendion hits the bank.

If your local branch can't provide the statement you should call the main iffice, likely they can prepare it and send to local branch for you to pick up there.

Not saying no hassles involved but should not be as you describe


Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Thanks Sheryl but I was not talking about the statements.  It was the letter of account and balance that I was referring to (see my reply to ubonjoe above).  I'm just trying to be prepared and keep up with the latest requirements.  

 

I guess I'd better get a medical clearance too just prior to my extension application since I'm certain that they will ask me for one (if I did not bring one).

 

Thanks!!

[ubonjoe]

9 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

I have read here that many Immigration Offices want the "bank letter" to be dated the same day as your date of extension application.  I thought they were talking about the bank letter that one must have stating that it is your account (not a joint account) and that the balance is such and such on this date.  This is the letter that I thought must be dated the same day as your application for extension at most Immigration Offices.  Am I mistaken?

You mentioned having to go to Bangkok to get a letter. I assume you meant a special letter/statement to prove you funds came from abroad.

The same day bank letters are for the 800k or 400k baht in the bank option to prove your balance on the date you apply.

If proving the monthly income by transfers in the account there would be no reason to prove your balance on the date you apply for the extension.

[JackThompson]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:19 AM, elviajero said:

No. The rule is exactly the same. It is just the way you prove your income that has changed. It has always been a minimum income go 65K, you're now seeing evidence that it was always 65K net. 

 

The rule.

2.22 In the case of retirement.

"Must have evidence of having income of no less than Baht 65,000 per month"

 

I am seeing evidence that they changed the rules for those from countries who pulled their income-letters - which will drive up their corruption-money from agents - without the slightest regard for the well-being of people who retired here under the original rule.

 

The rule you quoted says nothing about "importing the sum of" or "after any other expenses you have in other countries."

[JackThompson]

 

On 4/22/2019 at 9:23 AM, sandyf said:

You can take any ambiguous statement and interpret it in any manner you choose.

Income can come with a variety of adjectives, the most significant being "disposable". Whatever income level you want to refer to, it means an awful lot more to those that live rent free than those that don't.

I agree.  but when there is ambiguity, the next step in determining what was "really meant" is precedent.  We have a very long precedent of "income" being counted as "gross income" - not some sort of "net" which could include or not-include all sorts of deductions. 

 

Changing policy and then claiming years or decades of precedent were just "a loophole" is simply a dishonest claim by immigration officials.  The authorities write the rules, and could  have written those rules any way they wanted from the beginning, or amended them at any time.  Any amendments would need to be specific, and official (police / ministerial orders - not just "statements").

 

In the case of the "New rules" for income (retirement or marriage) - which were officially published - there is now one standard of income for those with citizenship in countries who can no longer obtain income letters (as a result from a meeting with immigration-officials in May 2018), and another standard (the original standard) for everyone else.

[sandyf]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:53 AM, elviajero said:

I agree, but in the context of an extension application it's a stretch to believe they mean gross income.

 

When they say no less than 800K for the cash option, they mean the actual amount of 800K. Why would no less than 65K mean 60K is ok after tax?

Apples and oranges. The cash option is a deposit in a Thai bank account, the income option WAS funds from some external source.

My state pension is both net and gross, the amount I was awarded is the amount credited to my bank account, but as I said initially it is all about perceived interpretation.

You have to bear in mind many annuity statements are static, I have one that was issued 12 years ago, never had another and is the only supporting document to that source of income. The amount shown on that document is the only amount that could be used in an extension application, but you believe I should have used some arbitrary amount without any supporting document.

At the end of the day what is the difference between tax and any other household expense, all vary with personal circumstances.

[JackThompson]

23 hours ago, The Old Drunken Man said:

After waiting for the dust to settle after the embassy refusal to give the letters I opened a new account in my name only, I then transfer money to the joint account to make it easy on the wife.

Also my wife suggestion of getting a 3 month O visa from Laos and then restarting a new retirement extension after the O visa is nearly finished seems a OK, as starting again you don't need to show 12 months income at 65K to qualify, and they will not check your income again until renewal.

I have a hard time believing they will allow "re-starts" this easily - to avoid the 1-year's transfer-history - for people who were already on extensions before.   I hope I am wrong. 

 

But in your case, "threatening" to do a marriage-extension, instead, may make them back down, since those are "more work" than extensions based on retirement - but make sure you have all the docs for the marriage-based extension with you, so they know they cannot just block you on that a different way.  Work-avoidance ranks right up there with corruption, in some offices.

[sumrit]

14 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Changing policy and then claiming years or decades of precedent were just "a loophole" is simply a dishonest claim by immigration officials.

You mean like people making up fictitious incomes for years when declaring their income on affidavits was also a 'loophole' and an acceptable practice? Or using corrupt agents to generate a fictitious 800k bank balance they haven't got was also an 'acceptable' loophole?????  

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, sumrit said:

You mean like people making up fictitious incomes for years when declaring their income on affidavits was also a 'loophole' and an acceptable practice?

Anyone making up fake-incomes could have been subject to felony charges (USA and Australia, at least) and also charges in Thailand for a false-statement to immigration.  But, I don't recall a single case of Thai Immigration reporting such.  You know they would have used it for their ongoing anti-farang propaganda campaign if they had one.

 

What people could report - 100% legally since the embassy-letter system began - was their gross income - w/o consideration of expenses they might pay out of that income in their passport-country.   The amount demanded is far above the cost of living of an average expat-retiree in Thailand, so more than makes up for this.  People retired here in part because it is relatively affordable, after all.

 

The "problem" was that this system allowed many to obtain legit-extensions w/o paying agents - so these letters were seen as cutting into immigration's "tribute" revenue-stream.

 

3 hours ago, sumrit said:

Or using corrupt agents to generate a fictitious 800k bank balance they haven't got was also an 'acceptable' loophole?????  

The agent business is Booming - As Planned By Immigration - due to the rule changes.   The agents are immigration's partners, after all. 

[sumrit]

With the new rules meaning the 800k must stay in the bank for 5-6 months and 400k remaining for the rest of the year, the monthly income option suddenly becomes more attractive to many posting on here.

 

It will be interesting to see just how many people decide to keep the 800k in their pockets to spend as and when they wish and choose the monthly income option for their extension in the next year or so as the new rules and reality bed in. 

 

10 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The agent business is Booming - As Planned By Immigration - due to the rule changes.   The agents are immigration's partners, after all.

You regularly make these comments without showing any actual proof that this is true/accurate.

 

Can you provide some genuine proof to back up your claims occasionally please??