Getting Rejected

[farangbuffalo]

After reading on here, most people seem to say if you get turned away at airport immigration, the airline you're travelling with are obligated to return you to where you came from.

 

Just wonder if anyone can answer...does that mean back to your start destination or to the point of your previous connection?

 

I've had 4 METV's over the past 4 years. Total time in Thailand just under 2 years and most recently out of the Kingdom and back in my home country for around 5 month. Never had any problems at immigration other than a few simple questions.

 

I'm considering paying a little more to fly with an airline who's connecting hub is closer to Thailand, in case I get turned away I wont be sent back all the way back to the middle east/Europe.

 

Thanks 

[ChakaKhan]

Waiting on responses as I will find out in 2 weeks if its taiwan , LAX, or Im allowed in!!! (chews nails)

[glegolo]

My take on this is purely that they will keep you in custody/jail here in Thailand until YOU have purchased a ticket yourself and paid for it, first then you will be admitted out of jail and on to the flight out of here....

 

Destination of your purchased ticket is whereever you like to go, Thailand do not care if you go to the nortpole or Frankfurt or Taiwan...

 

But I might be wrong,

glegolo

Edited November 8, 2019 by glegolo

[farangbuffalo]

2 minutes ago, glegolo said:

My take on this is purely that they will keep you in custody/jail here in Thailand until YOU have purchased a ticket yourself and paid for it, first then you will be admitted out of jail and on to the flight out of here....

 

But I might be wrong,

glegolo

I've got no problem buying a ticket out of Thailand. But my question is...does that have to be back to the start destination? Or just back to my last connection?

 

Or even better, a 3rd country where I choose. But from reading here it seems they wont let you pick where you go to

[glegolo]

1 minute ago, farangbuffalo said:

I've got no problem buying a ticket out of Thailand. But my question is...does that have to be back to the start destination? Or just back to my last connection?

 

Or even better, a 3rd country where I choose. But from reading here it seems they wont let you pick where you go to

Read my post again, you can go whereever..

 

glegolo

[farangbuffalo]

2 minutes ago, glegolo said:

Read my post again, you can go whereever..

 

glegolo

Ok understood. But seems like others have not had that luxury 

[Prince77]

If you are in doubt if they let you in or not, I would suggest you fly to a Close by Country. It is my understanding that if you are denied entry they will sent you back to where you came from - means the neighbouring country.

[Tayaout]

51 minutes ago, glegolo said:

My take on this is purely that they will keep you in custody/jail here in Thailand until YOU have purchased a ticket yourself and paid for it, first then you will be admitted out of jail and on to the flight out of here....

 

Destination of your purchased ticket is whereever you like to go, Thailand do not care if you go to the nortpole or Frankfurt or Taiwan...

 

But I might be wrong,

glegolo

You can't choose the destination. It's usually where you came from using the same airline. In the best case scenario you can buy a flight ticket anywhere with the same airline but it needs cooperation from immigration. If you refuse to pay a flight ticket they will still fly you back where you came from but they will threaten you if you don't pay. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Tayaout

[Sheryl]

From what I recall reading most people have been required to fly back to their point of embarkation  but a few seem to manage to negotiate a flight elsewhere.

 

Buying a one way return flight is quite costly  it is better  to just change the date on existing return ticket. Also, holding a return ticket (with return flight date consistent with your requested permission to stay period)  increases odds they'll let you in. And, if you have a return ticket already there will usually be no argument about where you fly to.

 

If you simply change planes somewhere without entering that country (passing immigration) I don't think they would send you back to the transit point. So as your desire is to be sent back (if at all) to a nearby point it would be better to actually enter that country first and come to Thailand on a r/t ticket from it.  And maybe spend a bit more to make it a ticket that allows for date changes without costing the earth. Then you are in a fairly easy position if refused entry.

[ananda23]

As this happened to me twice recently, here are my 2 cents: The first time I was rejected was at Chiang Mai airport. I´d flown in from Hong Kong but they let me buy a ticket to Kuala Lumpur (same airline though, I think that´s a requirement). Second time I flew into Bangkok from Kuala Lumpur. They didn´t give me a choice and sent me back to KL on the same airline. I had to pay for the tickets myself obviously. 

[ChipButty]

A friend of mine went to Saigon then to BKK got refused entry he just went back to Saigon and not back to UK, Never to return to Thailand again

[farangbuffalo]

Thanks for the input everyone. Will be coming from the UK so it seems like it's probably best to fly with Cathay so if I get rejected and they won't let me pick where I go, I'll only get sent back to HKG. 

 

Don't really fancy flying all the way back to the middle east with Emirates/Etihad after a 16 hour journey!

[BritTim]

Some relevant facts:

1. If you are denied entry, the airline that flew you to Thailand is responsible for your removal.
2. The airline is obliged to remove you whether or not you can (or are willing) to pay for the flight. However, the airline will try to get reimbursement for the flight. If you have flight bookings out of Thailand, the airline will try (usually successfully) to grab those, and, legal or not, there is little you can do about it. Leaving aside unused flight bookings, the airline have ways of putting pressure on you to pay up. It is difficult to know which threats they make against you are genuine, and which are just an attempt to frighten you.
3. Under most circumstances, there is no way you can fly to a destination the airline does not serve out of Thailand. There is a strong tendency to return you to your last point of embarkation, but another destination will be necessary if you do not have a visa (or right to visa exempt entry) at that location. If all else fails, arrangements will be made to return you to home country (with your airline negotiating with national carriers if they do not fly to your country themselves).
4. [My own belief] Immigration really does not care where you go as long as it is out of Thailand on the original airline. The airline does not really care where you go as long as they get paid and have no further exposure for costs arising from your denied entry. I believe you should tell the airline
   • where you want to go that the airline flies to from Bangkok, and where you are entitled to enter (e.g.often  Laos or Malaysia);
   • that you will pay immediately and without complaint to be flown to the destination of your choice;
   • that you will sign an indemnity form promising to defray any further costs the airline may incur in discharging their responsibilities; and
   • you will resist payment for flights to destinations where you are unwilling to go, and consider legal action against the airline in your home country if improperly pressed for payment.

I do not guarantee my approach will work, but it is what I would do myself. Do not sign anything Immigration asks you to.

[farangbuffalo]

4 hours ago, BritTim said:

Some relevant facts:

1. If you are denied entry, the airline that flew you to Thailand is responsible for your removal.
2. The airline is obliged to remove you whether or not you can (or are willing) to pay for the flight. However, the airline will try to get reimbursement for the flight. If you have flight bookings out of Thailand, the airline will try (usually successfully) to grab those, and, legal or not, there is little you can do about it. Leaving aside unused flight bookings, the airline have ways of putting pressure on you to pay up. It is difficult to know which threats they make against you are genuine, and which are just an attempt to frighten you.
3. Under most circumstances, there is no way you can fly to a destination the airline does not serve out of Thailand. There is a strong tendency to return you to your last point of embarkation, but another destination will be necessary if you do not have a visa (or right to visa exempt entry) at that location. If all else fails, arrangements will be made to return you to home country (with your airline negotiating with national carriers if they do not fly to your country themselves).
4. [My own belief] Immigration really does not care where you go as long as it is out of Thailand on the original airline. The airline does not really care where you go as long as they get paid and have no further exposure for costs arising from your denied entry. I believe you should tell the airline
   • where you want to go that the airline flies to from Bangkok, and where you are entitled to enter (e.g.often  Laos or Malaysia);
   • that you will pay immediately and without complaint to be flown to the destination of your choice;
   • that you will sign an indemnity form promising to defray any further costs the airline may incur in discharging their responsibilities; and
   • you will resist payment for flights to destinations where you are unwilling to go, and consider legal action against the airline in your home country if improperly pressed for payment.

I do not guarantee my approach will work, but it is what I would do myself. Do not sign anything Immigration asks you to.

Good info. Thanks

[Dazinoz]

17 hours ago, ananda23 said:

As this happened to me twice recently, here are my 2 cents: The first time I was rejected was at Chiang Mai airport. I´d flown in from Hong Kong but they let me buy a ticket to Kuala Lumpur (same airline though, I think that´s a requirement). Second time I flew into Bangkok from Kuala Lumpur. They didn´t give me a choice and sent me back to KL on the same airline. I had to pay for the tickets myself obviously. 

Honestly after first rejection I would not bother trying to come back again.

[Old Croc]

Virtually all countries and airlines are signatories to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) convention.

 

Under the convention, airlines are obligated to return all persons, denied entry to a country, back to their port of embarkation, and that country must readmit them.

 

Of course the airlines will want the pax to pay for this return and will pressure the person for the costs. However, if they are penniless (a common reason for refusal) the airline cops it. 

It's not a deportation, which usually means a return to home country, so there may be room to negotiate with the airline about destination as long as the removal happens quickly.

[alex8912]

OP I think you are not a candidate for being sent back. The hyoe on here is just OTT. I

Its your 4 th METV in 2 years and you’ve been home for 5 months. I’m not sure how long you spent here on them ( which should have been included in your post) also the time BETWEEN them. But really under the worse case is a 6 hour flight to Dubai really so much worse than a 3 hour flight to  Hong Kong or 5 1/2 to Seoul or 6 to Tokyo or 3 1/2 to Taipei?  

[bbi1]

19 hours ago, ananda23 said:

As this happened to me twice recently, here are my 2 cents: The first time I was rejected was at Chiang Mai airport. I´d flown in from Hong Kong but they let me buy a ticket to Kuala Lumpur (same airline though, I think that´s a requirement). Second time I flew into Bangkok from Kuala Lumpur. They didn´t give me a choice and sent me back to KL on the same airline. I had to pay for the tickets myself obviously. 

What visa were you on when you were rejected in Chiang Mai? This is the 1st report we've seen of someone being rejected there. Also what's your visa history like?  What passport do you hold & were are you white, black, arab or asian?

Edited November 9, 2019 by bbi1

[BritTim]

22 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Under the convention, airlines are obligated to return all persons, denied entry to a country, back to their port of embarkation, and that country must readmit them.

There is no obligation for any country to admit anyone (except your passport country). You are correct that the airline that brought you to Thailand is responsible for your removal. However, there are many cases where you cannot be returned to the country of embarkation because that country will not accept you without a visa issued in advance. There is then a tendency to return you to your home country (because they know you cannot be denied entry) though in principle you can be flown by the airline to any country they serve that will agree to admit you.

 

Think about how stupid a rule stating the embarkation country must admit you would be. Leaving Thailand on the last day of your permission to stay, you fly to Singapore and, on arrival, call the immigration official a slut, Singapore a s--th-le country, and spit at the official. I think you can rely on being denied entry, at which point you are flown back to Thailand and must be admitted whether or not you are entitled to visa exempt entry? I do not think so.

[bbi1]

19 hours ago, ChipButty said:

A friend of mine went to Saigon then to BKK got refused entry he just went back to Saigon and not back to UK, Never to return to Thailand again

What visa was your friend on? What was your friend's visa history like? What passport did they hold & were they white, black, arab or asian?

[BritTim]

1 minute ago, bbi1 said:

What visa were you on when you were rejected in Chiang Mai? This is the 1st report we've seen of someone being rejected there. Also what's your visa history like?

It was denied entry attempting to enter visa exempt. That can occur at any airport, and was totally reasonable in his case. Immigration in Chiang Mai recommended he get a visa (which he did) but then made a mistake of flying to Bangkok rather than back to Chiang Mai where, with a visa, he would almost certainly have been admitted.

[alex8912]

23 hours ago, Sheryl said:

From what I recall reading most people have been required to fly back to their point of embarkation  but a few seem to manage to negotiate a flight elsewhere.

 

Buying a one way return flight is quite costly  it is better  to just change the date on existing return ticket. Also, holding a return ticket (with return flight date consistent with your requested permission to stay period)  increases odds they'll let you in. And, if you have a return ticket already there will usually be no argument about where you fly to.

 

If you simply change planes somewhere without entering that country (passing immigration) I don't think they would send you back to the transit point. So as your desire is to be sent back (if at all) to a nearby point it would be better to actually enter that country first and come to Thailand on a r/t ticket from it.  And maybe spend a bit more to make it a ticket that allows for date changes without costing the earth. Then you are in a fairly easy position if refused entry.

It seems strange to me that if you spent 3 hours in transit or spent 16 hours in a hotel in Hong Kong and back on another flight that they would care about it. Meaning if your ticket for example is Boston to  BKK on Cathay with 3 hour layovers in each direction verses a ticket reading Boston to Hong Kong ( for 16 hours but leaving immigration ) then Hong Kong to BKK then Bkk via Hong Kong ( in transit only) to Boston. If people are concerned ( or should be concerned ) about this, multi city tickets on the same airline with a stop over are surprisingly not much more expensive than round trip flights and I’ve found a couple airlines to be cheaper this way! I actually don’t mind staying a night or two somewhere else on the way here but I guess some others are concerned about hotel prices for a night or two. Even in HKG you can find a clean hotel with free transit to and from HKG station for $100USD or less. I think some don’t realize how easy it is. Also if you wrote on Thailand entry card Hong Kong for Embarkation which I think is technically true, do they disagree with this at BKK airport ? 

Edited November 9, 2019 by alex8912

[Old Croc]

12 minutes ago, BritTim said:

There is no obligation for any country to admit anyone (except your passport country). You are correct that the airline that brought you to Thailand is responsible for your removal. However, there are many cases where you cannot be returned to the country of embarkation because that country will not accept you without a visa issued in advance. There is then a tendency to return you to your home country (because they know you cannot be denied entry) though in principle you can be flown by the airline to any country they serve that will agree to admit you.

 

Think about how stupid a rule stating the embarkation country must admit you would be. Leaving Thailand on the last day of your permission to stay, you fly to Singapore and, on arrival, call the immigration official a slut, Singapore a s--th-le country, and spit at the official. I think you can rely on being denied entry, at which point you are flown back to Thailand and must be admitted whether or not you are entitled to visa exempt entry? I do not think so.

You are wrong. 

The country of embarkation must accept the returning passenger, visa or no.  If they then detain that person until removal so be it.

It is an obligation under a UN convention. Virtually all countries are signatories to that convention. Refusal to abide could result in loss of landing rights and cancellation of flights to the rogue state.

I think you should do some research rather than relying on your personal opinion.

[alex8912]

6 hours ago, BritTim said:

Some relevant facts:

1. If you are denied entry, the airline that flew you to Thailand is responsible for your removal.
2. The airline is obliged to remove you whether or not you can (or are willing) to pay for the flight. However, the airline will try to get reimbursement for the flight. If you have flight bookings out of Thailand, the airline will try (usually successfully) to grab those, and, legal or not, there is little you can do about it. Leaving aside unused flight bookings, the airline have ways of putting pressure on you to pay up. It is difficult to know which threats they make against you are genuine, and which are just an attempt to frighten you.
3. Under most circumstances, there is no way you can fly to a destination the airline does not serve out of Thailand. There is a strong tendency to return you to your last point of embarkation, but another destination will be necessary if you do not have a visa (or right to visa exempt entry) at that location. If all else fails, arrangements will be made to return you to home country (with your airline negotiating with national carriers if they do not fly to your country themselves).
4. [My own belief] Immigration really does not care where you go as long as it is out of Thailand on the original airline. The airline does not really care where you go as long as they get paid and have no further exposure for costs arising from your denied entry. I believe you should tell the airline
   • where you want to go that the airline flies to from Bangkok, and where you are entitled to enter (e.g.often  Laos or Malaysia);
   • that you will pay immediately and without complaint to be flown to the destination of your choice;
   • that you will sign an indemnity form promising to defray any further costs the airline may incur in discharging their responsibilities; and
   • you will resist payment for flights to destinations where you are unwilling to go, and consider legal action against the airline in your home country if improperly pressed for payment.

I do not guarantee my approach will work, but it is what I would do myself. Do not sign anything Immigration asks you to.

I would like to challenge you as well about getting sent back on same airline. Many people take a trip on Vietnamese Air ( or other Vietnam airlines ) without checking ( so I could be wrong in this part but doubt it ) from BKK to Say HCMC for a few days and back to BKK. I Do not think those airlines fly anywhere from BKK EXCEPT to cities in Vietnam. Many countries like the USA do not get 15 day visa exempt for VIETNAM but need a single entry good for 30 day travel visa for each visa. What do you think Thailand officials would do in this case if they did not allow you in? Can you apply for and get a visa while in jail? Some E visas like Turkey you get in minutes but others can be 24 hours or more. Also please explain in EXACT details how Vietnam Air for example could “ grab “ my other flight information from me regarding  any other flights I may or may not have OUT of Thailand ??? I really want you to address this! Also please address the post above mine because I think you and another resident expert ( NOT Ubon Joe ) are both sometimes helpful but sometimes not telling the truth or actually making something up because you have seen it happen SOMETIMES but cases are different as you know. Please respond  to this. Thank you in advance. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by alex8912

[ChipButty]

39 minutes ago, bbi1 said:

What visa was your friend on? What was your friend's visa history like? What passport did they hold & were they white, black, arab or asian?

Not sure what Visa SETV maybe he was only coming for 2 months and had not been here for 6 months he is white but the 2 Indian guys behind him also got kicked out

Edited November 9, 2019 by ChipButty

[donnacha]

On 11/8/2019 at 3:15 AM, glegolo said:

Destination of your purchased ticket is whereever you like to go, Thailand do not care if you go to the nortpole or Frankfurt or Taiwan...

 

But I might be wrong,

glegolo

That is absolutely wrong.

If you are rejected, they will almost certainly make you buy a ticket back to your last destination. If that was Frankfurt, you're going back to Frankfurt. Qatar, Qatar. You can sometimes, if they are even willing to listen to you, persuade them to let you buy a ticket to some equivalent airport. For instance, you could ask for Berlin instead of Frankfurt, possibly even Dubai instead of Qatar, but there is not a lot of flexibility. The safe play for them is to stick to your last port of call because of the International convention that only that or your home country has to accept you back from Thailand.

The one bit of flexibility seems to be that, if coming from a country in the region such as Malaysia, they seem reasonably relaxed to let you bounce to SG or HK instead of KL, but don't make the mistake of thinking you will have that option if you've just arrived from Europe or the States, or even that you will automatically have it is arriving from a hub in the region.

I do not mean to criticize you glegolo but your advice is dangerous because, if people believe what you said, they will not bother doing the ONE thing you actually can do to minimize the disruption that a rejection will cause:

If you believe that your history of visiting Thailand or your personal appearance puts you at risk of a refusal, and you are traveling from far away (Europe, the Americas, etc), fly into a hub in the region but outside Thailand, such as KL, HK, SG. Then get a cheap direct flight on a budget airline to your destination within Thailand, avoiding both Bangkok airports if at all possible. If Bangkok is your final destination, it may even be worth your while to fly into Chiang Mai or Udon and then get a domestic flight down to Bangkok.

Rejection is only a danger for people with a certain pattern of visiting Thailand, certain demographics, or certain races. Even in those cases, only a minority are rejected, most people are fine. All the same, the cost, disruption and emotional distress of rejection is sufficiently bad to make it worth taking the precautions I suggest above if you are in the high-risk categories.

 

The consequences are serious and no one such be giving advice about it unless they are sure they know what they are talking about.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by donnacha

[BritTim]

15 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

You are wrong. 

The country of embarkation must accept the returning passenger, visa or no.  If they then detain that person until removal so be it.

It is an obligation under a UN convention. Virtually all countries are signatories to that convention. Refusal to abide could result in loss of landing rights and cancellation of flights to the rogue state.

I think you should do some research rather than relying on your personal opinion.

The best reasonably readable source on this is https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2014-FAL-SEM/3.5 1100-1200 IATA InadmissiblePersons.pdf. I can recommend reading the whole thing. As far as your embarkation point is concerned, GUIDELINES FOR THE REMOVAL OF INADMISSIBLE PERSONS Section 5 (ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION IN THE REMOVAL PROCESS) is most relevant. A key point is:

Quote

5.2 States should accept for examination a person removed from a State where he was found inadmissible, if that person commenced his journey from its territory. 

Note that readmission to the country is not required. The State is only required to examine the passenger as it would any other individual (not a person inadmissible elsewhere).

[NanLaew]

On 11/8/2019 at 10:26 AM, farangbuffalo said:

On 11/8/2019 at 10:23 AM, glegolo said:

Read my post again, you can go whereever..

 

glegolo

Ok understood. But seems like others have not had that luxury 

Outwith what Thai Immigration may mandate when denying entry, some carriers may refuse to board a person on a one-way ticket to a country where they either don't have a visa for or it is not the country of their nationality. There are also some countries that will deny entry to someone who has been just denied entry to a third country and thus the carrier will decline to board that passenger.

[Number 6]

Buy a ticket for Cambodia or Malaysia outbound 12 hours after arrival. I would suspect that they would let you fly out on that simply because their problem is solved. No tickets to buy, drama, agents, interpretation. You're gone. Of course don't tell them until you're clearly being sent back.

[glegolo]

25 minutes ago, donnacha said:

That is absolutely wrong.

If you are rejected, they will almost certainly make you buy a ticket back to your last destination. If that was Frankfurt, you're going back to Frankfurt. Qatar, Qatar. You can sometimes, if they are even willing to listen to you, persuade them to let you buy a ticket to some equivalent airport. For instance, you could ask for Berlin instead of Frankfurt, possibly even Dubai instead of Qatar, but there is not a lot of flexibility. The safe play for them is to stick to your last port of call because of the International convention that only that or your home country has to accept you back from Thailand.

The one bit of flexibility seems to be that, if coming from a country in the region such as Malaysia, they seem reasonably relaxed to let you bounce to SG or HK instead of KL, but don't make the mistake of thinking you will have that option if you've just arrived from Europe or the States, or even that you will automatically have it is arriving from a hub in the region.

I do not mean to criticize you glegolo but your advice is dangerous because, if people believe what you said, they will not bother doing the ONE thing you actually can do to minimize the disruption that a rejection will cause:

If you believe that your history of visiting Thailand or your personal appearance puts you at risk of a refusal, and you are traveling from far away (Europe, the Americas, etc), fly into a hub in the region but outside Thailand, such as KL, HK, SG. Then get a cheap direct flight on a budget airline to your destination within Thailand, avoiding both Bangkok airports if at all possible. If Bangkok is your final destination, it may even be worth your while to fly into Chiang Mai or Udon and then get a domestic flight down to Bangkok.

Rejection is only a danger for people with a certain pattern of visiting Thailand, certain demographics, or certain races. Even in those cases, only a minority are rejected, most people are fine. All the same, the cost, disruption and emotional distress of rejection is sufficiently bad to make it worth taking the precautions I suggest above if you are in the high-risk categories.

 

The consequences are serious and no one such be giving advice about it unless they are sure they know what they are talking about.

 

 

Thank you for lesson.... Sounds perfectly reasonable of course. again thanks

 

glegolo