Jump to content
BANGKOK
weegee

Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

Recommended Posts

Just now, rumak said:

uhhh.......  what about the  "single exception"   ?     isn't that the point ?

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Where there is a question and conflicting policies is (1) making a new entry on a current OA visa issued prior to Oct 31 (thus getting a new 1 year permission to stay) and (2) getting an in-country extension of stay after having entered on a (now expired) OA visa, likewise leading to a new 1 year permission to stay.

It seem clear in the last memo in the English part of the order it is only for new OA visa holders issued after the 31st who would have a remark on their visa with the insurance expiration date but if less than a year they would only get a entry to the date the insurance expires.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, saengd said:

Perhaps you meant to write that they always were tolerated by Immigration, until now! Objectively, do you really think that back to back O-A's for two years each at a time is the spirit of what was intended, especially when there is an extension option that is readily and easily available? This whole issue is about the reluctance or inability of people to bring 800k into the country and the ways they have found to avoid having to do so.

 

Some of us spend large or frequent parts of the year outside the country, for work or pleasure. 

As you can only extend in the last month of the permission to stay it prevents us from extending here. I have no problem whatsoever showing funds, I do however have a problem spending >120 days in one place. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

uhhh,   one more  "exception".     the slight matter that one requires  800k  in the bank .   This has already been pointed out to you.   are you paying attention,  or just don't care ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

image.png.6661240edd139b0abea860fa60da3513.png

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Agree.. 

 

It either should apply to none (only the initial obraining of a visa outside the country) or all (all retirement class extensions). 

 

We believed it was the former, it is yet to determine if it will be or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

Saying it was applicable to O-A visa only.

 

 

Right.. 

 

But we still have mods, including just yesterday posts from yourself, saying it doesnt apply to ANY extensions. 

 

Clearly as this was at an immigration office incountry, not a visa or consulate outside the kingdom, this was about about extensions of OA visa generated permissions of stay. 

 

 

Edited by LivinLOS
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

image.png.6661240edd139b0abea860fa60da3513.png

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded. If that's the case it would better if it said for "the" granted length of stay, meaning that your current extension based is unaffected, but if you apply for a new one, then the new rules will apply.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

image.png.6661240edd139b0abea860fa60da3513.png

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Joe this refers to permission of stay after one year visa not extension of stay. IMO. The granted length of stay is the second year after visa expires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

Instead of trying to point out what is logical why you and others here are not just happy for anybody not affected, regardless of the reason ?

 

"Look, look, I have found someone which seems not be affected  but should be - please look that he will be punished in the same way that everybody (me) is - it would be logical...."

 

This mind set makes me feel sad.

Edited by moogradod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

I take it you haven't been reading the reports.

 

Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Koh Samui, Prachinburi and I think a few others are reported to say it applies for any extension of stay of someone who entered under an O-A.

 

Other IOs in other places say differently.

 

remains to be seen if central Imm will do anything to clarify matters.

 

Has anyone been compiling any list of which offices are confirming that an extension of stay of an OA does NOT need insurance ?? 

 

We have been highlighting the reports of ones who say it is required, including apparently a operator on the central phone advice line, but not seen any list of ones who currently say it isnt needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Has anyone been compiling any list of which offices are confirming that an extension of stay of an OA does NOT need insurance ?? 

 

We have been highlighting the reports of ones who say it is required, including apparently a operator on the central phone advice line, but not seen any list of ones who currently say it isnt needed. 

 

I don't recall seeing ANY of the "not required" for O-A-origin extensions of stay variety. Just the half dozen or so Sheryl recapped above saying that insurance will be required for O-A-origin extensions, along with a report from the 1178 Immigration Hotline, and now Pib's confirming visit report from BKK CW Immigration.

 

I believe one difference between Tanoshi's prior report and Pib's report today is:

 

--I believe Tanoshi's report was that people already on extensions of stay with O-A origins would not be impacted, but people going for their first and future extensions base on O-As would be...

 

--Whereas the version Pib received at CW Immigration was that insurance will be required for all future extensions of stay with the origin on O-A visas, regardless of when the O-A visa was issued.

 

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Like 1

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...