Refused entry at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi from London Heathrow with visa - help returning

[Bangkok Barry]

11 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

It does not matter if you have a visa or not, in every country in the world the I/O at the immigration desk at the arrival point has the power to decide if you can enter the country or not. That also includes your home country.

 

So what is the point of getting a visa, when it can be declared null and void when you arrive at a border? What is the point of getting one? Except it's a money maker for most countries, I suppose. 'We'll sell you a visa but you might find it is entirely useless when you try to use it'.

[Russell17au]

2 hours ago, MJKT2014 said:

So the IO should say 'wrong visa' not 'no appropriate means' to enter. Then the Thai embassies should not be issuing visas in first place.

Every country in the world operates the same as Thailand. No Embassy or Consulate has a link to the Immigration computers of their home country. The Embassies and the Consulates can only approve the visa applications on the information that is provided by the applicant. But the countries immigration has the final say when you arrive at the entry point of the country and that is not restricted to Thailand.

[saengd]

16 minutes ago, marqus12 said:

 

Nations aren't countries.

[elviajero]

12 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

This is something that really p*sses me off. Immigration come up with a figure that aliens must show in a bank, 400,000 or 800,000 while many, including me with our own house, can live on far, far less. In my case around 20,000 with all home comforts - aircon, car, tv and internet. It's ridiculous and entirely discriminatory.

The 800K for retirement visas is set high to limit numbers. Call it discrimination if you like.

 

The 400K for a family based visa only equates to 33K pm which isn't unreasonable if you are supporting a family.

[saengd]

The money in the bank route has morphed from being insurance that the visa holder could afford to pay his/her bills. into a surety to ensure the visa holder can afford the visa.

[hugolars]

4 hours ago, Chivas said:

Ludicrous utterly ludicrous by this ever increasing Banana Republic

If the geezer is granted a tourist visa in the first place from a 1st Word Country than quite simply he should be let in (no dont come back with it doesn't guarantee entry)

 

Lunacy utter lunacy. When the Indians and Chinese disappear off to pastures new (and they will) this banana republic will be desperate to accept all the Europeans as possible

Please stop insulting the Banana Republics by thinking they behave the same as Thais. Banana Republics value visitors and respects their own Visas.

[RJRS1301]

17 hours ago, Timwin said:

This is so laughable. The flight ticket from UK to Thailand costs more than the average junior immigration official starting salary or is close to it. Average Thai salary is only about 16000 Baht. So if the officials are able to live here how come tourists flying from Europe could not?! You could live easily with less than $300 per month in Thailand. 

For that money, you are not living with good plumbing, space and no rodents

 

[saengd]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

For that money, you are not living with good plumbing, space and no rodents

 

For that money you're probably better off sleeping rough in the West somewhere.

[Max69xl]

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

You weren't denied for not having money (min 20K baht). You were denied under section 12.2 because you don't have the appropriate means to live long term in the country.

 

Yes, it will be on your record. Entering with a Non-Immigrant visa helps and it's unlikely you'll be denied entry using that visa, but they aren't stupid and may still question you about your time in the country.

"You were denied under section 12.2 because you don't have the appropriate means to live long term in the country."

What are you talking about? A 60 days tourist visa from London is not considered a "long term" stay. And he had the money and they didn't ask for them. 

[elviajero]

2 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

"You were denied under section 12.2 because you don't have the appropriate means to live long term in the country."

What are you talking about? A 60 days tourist visa from London is not considered a "long term" stay. And he had the money and they didn't ask for them. 

He's already stayed 5 months in the country this year alone. A Tourist Visa is not meant for long term stay. Section 12.2 can be used for anyone that has not demonstrated to the Thai authorities that they have the appropriate means to live in the country. 

 

The 20K requirement is for section 12.9, not 12.2. Even with more than 20K in his pocket he can still be denied under 12.2. To satisfy 12.2 you need the appropriate visa/stay permit where you have demonstrated how you fund your living, such as a job in Thailand, cash in the bank or a foreign income.

[jackdd]

30 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

"You were denied under section 12.2 because you don't have the appropriate means to live long term in the country."

What are you talking about? A 60 days tourist visa from London is not considered a "long term" stay. And he had the money and they didn't ask for them. 

elviajero has his own twisted logic to defend the IOs breaking the law, he won't change his opinion, so there is no need to discuss it any further with him.

[sweatalot]

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

5 months in the country this year alone

Sure he is not a tourist. He is a long term stayer and he shoulc use the appropriate visa.

I am fed up with all the comments blaming immigration for not letting in people with inapropriate visas and a history of scamming the system which is clearly visible in the passport. 

Many people have been spoiled by the lax enforcement of the rules. Now they insist on their right to continue scamming.

Edited October 24, 2019 by sweatalot

[sweatalot]

4 minutes ago, jackdd said:

elviajero has his own twisted logic to defend the IOs breaking the law, he won't change his opinion, so there is no need to discuss it any further with him.

How are they breaking the law? Only in your twisted fantasy

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

How are they breaking the law? Only in your twisted fantasy

Incorrect visa perhaps?

 

[jackdd]

26 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

How are they breaking the law? Only in your twisted fantasy

They tell people stuff like "you have been in Thailand too long" or "you can't be in Thailand longer than 180 days per year", but they can't officially deny them entry for this, because this is not forbidden.

So the IOs stamp an arbitrary reason in the passport, which does not match the reason which they verbally tell the people. When these persons are out of Thailand already and get their passport back from the airline staff the denied person can't object to the reason for denial (which was used without having any basis) anymore.

If what the IOs are doing would be in accordance to the law they wouldn't have to play such a game, they could verbally tell the person the reason for their denial, and stamp the same reason in the passport.

 

Persons who are denied entry also have the right to appeal this denial. But from a few reports which we have had here on Thaivisa, IOs will usually not let these persons submit their appeal, which is obviously against the law as well.

If the IO thinks the denial was legit, then he could just let the person appeal, what would be the problem? So most likely the denial is dodgy and the IO is afraid that other people will get to know about it.

Edited October 24, 2019 by jackdd

[NanLaew]

5 hours ago, Chivas said:

(no dont come back with it doesn't guarantee entry)

Why not? There isn't a nation on the planet where a visa GUARANTEES entry.

Edited October 24, 2019 by NanLaew

[elviajero]

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

They tell people stuff like "you have been in Thailand too long" or "you can't be in Thailand longer than 180 days per year", but they can't officially deny them entry for this, because this is not forbidden.

So the IOs stamp an arbitrary reason in the passport, which does not match the reason which they verbally tell the people. When these persons are out of Thailand already and get their passport back from the airline staff the denied person can't object to the reason for denial (which was used without having any basis) anymore.

If what the IOs are doing would be in accordance to the law they wouldn't have to play such a game, they could verbally tell the person the reason for their denial, and stamp the same reason in the passport.

It doesn’t matter if it’s arbitrary, your claim that they are “breaking the law” is wrong. 
 

IO’s have discretion to deny anyone that has stayed too long for tourism using any qualifying reason listed in section 12. They follow the law by issuing a legal expulsion notice giving the actual reason for denial.
 

Staying too long is the underlying reason that triggers the justification for using 12.2. Whether you like/accept it or not.

[problemfarang]

Well it seems immigration 1 - you 0.

 

tbh you sounds like one of the guys who is trying to live in thailand as much as you can and anyway you can.

 

I suggest you to find a work or get marry. Thats the best legal way for you. And please stop doing other ways because ppl like you (if im right) are the reason why immigration is getting hard on us who are living legally.

 

thanks.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

So what is the point of getting a visa, when it can be declared null and void when you arrive at a border? What is the point of getting one? Except it's a money maker for most countries, I suppose. 'We'll sell you a visa but you might find it is entirely useless when you try to use it'.

Two stage approval? Otherwise all sorts will be wandering in and pitching a tent.

 

Like applying for a bank loan for home improvement back home. The branch manager says yes but head office has the last word.

 

Like applying for credit for a car purchase here. The salesman says all the boxes are checked but the finance company makes the final decision.

[problemfarang]

2 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

So what is the point of getting a visa, when it can be declared null and void when you arrive at a border? What is the point of getting one? Except it's a money maker for most countries, I suppose. 'We'll sell you a visa but you might find it is entirely useless when you try to use it'.

 

The point is you get a visa for some reason.. such as; working, tourism, education, etc. All visas have purposes. If you are working in thailand you get non-b and likewise. So if you get tourist visa always and try to live in thailand.. well thats not the purpose of tourist visa, simple as that. in this OP case... its obvious hes trying to live in thailand as long as he can in anyway and any trick. Thats the reason why immigration is getting strict. People need to understand that they cannot live in any country depending on tourist visa... thats all

 

You might ask why embassy give visa. that would be more proper question. Answer is probably, getting a visa from embassy means you have the right to get a visa and using it. Now, on the other hand the immigration at the border has the full right to check your visa history and let you in or not. I might be wrong about this getting a visa embassy thing.

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, problemfarang said:

I suggest you to find a work or get marry. Thats the best legal way for you. And please stop doing other ways because ppl like you (if im right) are the reason why immigration is getting hard on us who are living legally.

The real reason are actually all the people on non-immigrant visas who use agents, pay 1000 THB tip to the immigration officers doing the home visit when applying for a marriage extension and so on.

This is how immigration officers can afford their mia nois and their Benz. They don't make money from people on tourist visas, so they try to push as many people as possible into getting some non-immigrant visa, this is where the money is.

Please don't blame the wrong people.

[sweatalot]

28 minutes ago, jackdd said:

They tell people stuff like "you have been in Thailand too long" or "you can't be in Thailand longer than 180 days per year", but they can't officially deny them entry for this, because this is not forbidden.

So the IOs stamp an arbitrary reason in the passport, which does not match the reason which they verbally tell the people. When these persons are out of Thailand already and get their passport back from the airline staff the denied person can't object to the reason for denial (which was used without having any basis) anymore.

If what the IOs are doing would be in accordance to the law they wouldn't have to play such a game, they could verbally tell the person the reason for their denial, and stamp the same reason in the passport.

 

Persons who are denied entry also have the right to appeal this denial. But from a few reports which we have had here on Thaivisa, IOs will usually not let these persons submit their appeal, which is obviously against the law as well.

If the IO thinks the denial was legit, then he could just let the person appeal, what would be the problem? So most likely the denial is dodgy and the IO is afraid that other people will get to know about it.

Immigration officers have the right to reject anyone suspected of not abiding by the rules. These are, for example, people with tourist visas, who have been staying in the country for tourists for an unusually long time, or too often. And that's what they usually say when they refuse entry (at least I've read that in the reports in ThaiVisa), when  the stamp in the passport gives another reason is irrelevant. Is there any law that requires the stamp to indicate the correct cause? Or any cause at all?

In short, immigration officers have the right to decide at their discretion. And in the cases I read about in Thai Visa, the decisions were understandable.

 

However, I do not agree to keep people in disreputable circumstances at their expense and to tell them which airline to leave the country with and where they have to go

Edited October 24, 2019 by sweatalot

[jackdd]

3 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Immigration officers have the right to reject anyone suspected of not abiding by the rules. These are, for example, people with tourist visas, who have been staying in the country for tourists for an unusually long time, or too often.

Such a rule doesn't exist.

[saengd]

1 minute ago, jackdd said:

Such a rule doesn't exist.

Every IO in every country has that right, including the UK.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

"You were denied under section 12.2 because you don't have the appropriate means to live long term in the country."

What are you talking about? A 60 days tourist visa from London is not considered a "long term" stay. And he had the money and they didn't ask for them. 

Did you read the OP?

21 hours ago, hughglo9 said:

My passport had in it 3 older tourist visas,  one from 2018 and two for 2019 May until September. I left 5 weeks ago.

Using 3 tourist visas, the  OP has been living 'long term' in Thailand since 2018. A tourist visa is not a 'long term' visa.

 

I think I have explained this money trap a dozen times before so just for you, I'll do it again but please make sure you have your Thai logic cap on, OK? Ready?

 

The IO's don't ask to see the money.

 

If the suspect visa abuser says, "But I have the money," they are ignored by the IO's.

 

When the money is waived about and/or placed on the table, the IO's don't touch it, avert their eyes and refuse to acknowledge it.

 

In this way they didn't see it therefore it doesn't exist. It simply never existed. Busted by the 12.2 statute.
 

Then there have been those who in desperation tell the IO's that they have apartments, cars, bank accounts and girlfriends.... just like tourists everywhere.

 

Buh-bye.

[brewsterbudgen]

 
So what is the point of getting a visa, when it can be declared null and void when you arrive at a border? What is the point of getting one? Except it's a money maker for most countries, I suppose. 'We'll sell you a visa but you might find it is entirely useless when you try to use it'.

Try telling any government that, particularly in the current anti-immigrant climate. Border controls ALWAYS top Embassies and Consulates in foreign countries.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, saengd said:

Every IO in every country has that right, including the UK.

Where is this written, in the "world law"? Or maybe an eleventh commandment?

This here is Thailand, not the UK. According to Thai law an IO can deny a person only for specific reasons defined in this law.

[saengd]

4 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Where is this written, in the "world law"? Or maybe an eleventh commandment?

This here is Thailand, not the UK. According to Thai law an IO can deny a person only for specific reasons defined in this law.

Which they follow precisely, right, which is why nobody ever has a problem trying to enter the country.....in your dreams!

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Where is this written, in the "world law"? Or maybe an eleventh commandment?

This here is Thailand, not the UK. According to Thai law an IO can deny a person only for specific reasons defined in this law.

And the reason in this instance is 12.2 which is 'insufficient funds for long stay' while entering on a tourist visa which isn't a long stay visa.

 

What's so hard to understand here?

[jackdd]

1 minute ago, saengd said:

Which they follow precisely, right, which is why nobody ever has a problem trying to enter the country.....in your dreams!

Which is why i said "those IOs are breaking the law"