Jump to content
BANGKOK
Roy Baht

Integrity Legal: Cases of Non-O extensions requiring health insurance

Recommended Posts

According to Benjamin W. Hart, Managing Director of Integrity Legal:

"I have personally dealt with multiple cases in the past 60 days in which individuals who have been extending as O retirees have been required to obtain medical insurance in order to maintain their status moving forward. It is happening, due to the vagueness of the new regulation it is implemented at the discretion of the adjudicating officer and some Immigration offices are not broadly implementing the requirement, but it is happening. --BWH"

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


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

According to Benjamin W. Hart, Managing Director of Integrity Legal:

"I have personally dealt with multiple cases in the past 60 days in which individuals who have been extending as O retirees have been required to obtain medical insurance in order to maintain their status moving forward. It is happening, due to the vagueness of the new regulation it is implemented at the discretion of the adjudicating officer and some Immigration offices are not broadly implementing the requirement, but it is happening. --BWH"

Source please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Source please?

Comments beneath this video:
 

 

 

2015175405_Non-Oextensions.jpg.1129e2646e2015d1703e797038246c1f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a longer account (same source):

"I have gone over this multiple times. The new regulations are vague, they seem to be intentionally designed to allow discretion either way. Also, as previously stated, all O visas are covered under the same "catch-all" section of the law and are subject to administrative rules and interpretation by the Immigration apparatus. There seems to be a campaign to create a hard and fast distinction between O retirement extensions and O-A visas/extensions with respect to the issue of medical insurance coverage where none has specifically been created based upon a reading of the plain language of the Immigration Act and the regulations (old and new). The "O-A" vs. "O" designations seem to have been created and applied for different cosmetic reasons. They seem to be internal designations. Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "O-A" in order to distinguish an O visa issued abroad granted annually as opposed to the standard practice of issuing such documents with a 90 day validity (hence the "A"). Meanwhile, the Immigration Bureau in Thailand applies the appellation "O retirement" to extensions in order to explain the reason for the extension (as opposed to an O marriage visa, for example). Some offices are allowing O retirees to extend without insurance while others are not. That stated, this exercise of discretion should not be confused with a mandate under the relevant law and regulations to treat "O" and "O-A" retirees differently with respect to the insurance requirement. There is nothing in the law creating such a differentiation. I have made multiple videos analyzing this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcsZ-IK5Vn8&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Js_5xPpKw0&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knuT1f3nBkk&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOP28MccsC4&t=14s --BWH"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a case like this reported at thaivisa (needing insurance for o i mean)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Has there been a case like this reported at thaivisa (needing insurance for o i mean)?

Not that I'm aware of.

However it wouldn't shock me if it has happened.

But if so, that still wouldn't mean it's something that most people on O based retirement extensions should really worry about.

I'm neutral on whether this requirement will be expanded to O based extensions. Logically I see no reason why it won't be eventually but as most realize, logic isn't a big factor here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jingthing said:

But if so, that still wouldn't mean it's something that most people on O based retirement extensions should really worry about.

I agree. I'm simply presenting the information.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sure it's promotion and he hasn't always been correct but my opinion is that he posts his videos sincerely in good faith and if/when conditions change, he promptly posts adjustments. Not everyone that runs a profit based business has no credibility just because they are business. 

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

Share this post


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

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

Exactly. I agree. It's up to you to decide who to believe.
 

Benjamin doesn't hide the fact that he's running a business. But how many lawyers tell you what they think BEFORE you hire them? With Benjamin, you can listen to what he says and if you don't like it or disagree, don't hire him. (Again, I am not a client of his. I have only watched his videos.)

 

Who you believe is up to you. I'm just presenting the info.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

Both. He never said all or most O cases,

Share this post


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

From Ben Hart's dialogue:

"...That stated, this exercise of discretion should not be confused with a mandate under the relevant law and regulations to treat "O" and "O-A" retirees differently with respect to the insurance requirement. There is nothing in the law creating such a differentiation."

Sadly, he's right. For years, on the MFA website regarding Non Imm O-A visas, the following regarding obtaining such a visa has been (and still is) posted:

Quote

Applicant may submit their application at the Royal Thai embassy or Royal Thai Consulate-General in their home/residence country or at the Office of the Immigration Bureau in Thailand located on Government Center B, Chaengwattana Soi 7, Laksi, Bangkok 10210, Tel 0-2141-9889.

http://www.mfa.go.th/main/en/services/4908/15385-Non-Immigrant-Visa-"O-A"-(Long-Stay).html

Most of us reading this know you can't obtain an O-A visa in Thailand. But the MFA clearly says you can get an O-A "long stay" retirement visa in Thailand at Immigration. Well, yes, you can get the exact same result as an O-A visa at Immigration, i.e., a one year permission of stay, based on being over age 50, having the same financial requirements, and being prohibited from working ('cause you're retired). That it really is a Non Imm O obtained at Immigration, then becoming a one year retirement extension, is a minor fact lost on MFA -- and apparently all the others involved. To them, the English term "Non Imm O-A Long Stay" visa is the all-encompassing term for folks here on one year extensions based on retirement criteria (how it reads in Thai is another question....).

 

Anyway, I can't see that Ben Hart is trying to sell us anything -- he's just trying to be an honest broker in interpreting this goat rope. Read his 15 minute presentation. Even tho' it's recorded before Oct 31, 2019 -- nothing really has happened to refute or confirm his concerns. But, yeah, would be nice to see where he gets his info on denied extensions with folks holding O visas. Remember, tho', not all info is contained on ThaiVisa -- duh.

 

 

  • Like 2

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...