Jump to content
BANGKOK
ubonjoe

Immigration Announces "latest visa relief measures on 7 April 2020"

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The first criterium for being eligible for the amnesty is that you would normally be expected to leave the country at the end of the permission to stay that was granted to you when entering the country.

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

Edited by jackdd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maestro said:

In the Ministerial Notification, there is no limitation to the period of the current permission to stay expiring on or after 26 March to qualify for the automatic extension. There is also no mention of "a short-stay Non Imm O Visa that provides 90-day entry".

Thanks for providing the info. 

But we are not on the same page re this issue.

> See my response to the post of Metropolitian just above this one (post 165).

The background of the statements I made is addressed in more detail in the LINK below

> https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1158844-no-automatic-extension-for-people-with-covid-extension/?do=findComment&comment=15293655

Please note that there are already many reports of long-stay Non Imm O and O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay that visited their IO to extend their permission to stay that was due to expire.  IO did not tell them that it was not necessary due to the amnesty, but processed their applications 'business as usual'.  There is also a report of an immigration officer queried whether it was necessary for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders to visit their IO for re-extension of their current permission to stay, and the answer was YES.  Not attending would result in being on over-stay and even though the fine might be waved (due to the covid-19 situation), they would then be forced to leave the country and start from scratch again to apply for a new Non Imm O Visa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

I do not know what is your driver to cast doubt on the advice that those on 1-year extensions of stay need to visit their IO to renew their extension when their permission to stay is due to expire as it is not 100% clear whether the amnesty would also be applicable for them.

In another thread you wrote:

 

15 hours ago, jackdd said:

...

Of course you can recommend them to get the extension now (which is what i would recommend as well in most cases), but you should inform people that it's not required.

...

Since you don't want to back off (in spite of an IO officer in charge that when queried on the issue, told that you would be on over-stay if not visiting your IO when your long-stay extension is due for renewal), I will concede and say now that you are right.

But my advice still stands > Even if it is not required - as you claim - it is strongly recommended to do it anyway as those that believe that the amnesty also pertains to their long-stay extensions, might be in for a rude awakening.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Metropolitian said:

Would like to know what the measures are for Non O (Volunteers) .

In conjunction with extension of stay which was granted two times before (maximum 3).

It is same for all long stay extensions (90 days or more). You have to apply for a new extension.

If you currently getting a 90 day extensions you will have to apply for a new one when it is near ending. When you reach a total stay of 12 months and need to go a embassy or consulate for a new non-o visa then then you could stay until the emergency is over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jackdd said:

There is no such criterium. The ministerial order even specifically says "including the stay within the kingdom", and immigration says "all visa types"

For me it hinges on the terms ' temporary stay according to type of visa ' , and it's interpretation.

 

A visa gives a fixed length of stay on entry into the Kingdom ( 90 , 60 days etc). 

The visa does not grant an extension but provides a pathway to an extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

For me it hinges on the terms ' temporary stay according to type of visa ' , and it's interpretation.

 

A visa gives a fixed length of stay on entry into the Kingdom ( 90 , 60 days etc). 

The visa does not grant an extension but provides a pathway to an extension.

You are allowed to continue your stay in Thailand, but the rules "according to type of visa" still apply.

Somebody who entered Thailand with a non-b visa and gets this extension is still allowed to work.

A tourist who gets this automatic extension is still not allowed to work.

 

15 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Visas are used to enter the country. Extensions are to extend the stay allowed from a visa.

Most people here know that immigration commonly refers to "permission of stay" as "visa" in english texts, and this here is no exception.

Or do you want to claim that (according to immigration), anybody who had any previous extension is not eligable for the automatic extension? Because immigration website says this is about "visas".

 

48 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The ministerial order is clearly written to to allow those that have entered the country on a visa or visa exempt and are unable to stay longer due to reaching the maximum stay they can get from their visa or exempt entry or extensions and could not leave the country for a new visa or entry from a existing visa or for a new visa exempt entry.

Yes, this is the first part of the sentence.

image.png.aff444de1bc467c536f7dc5c2dfc2e

But the second part of the sentence clearly says that it includes the stay within the kingdom.

It looks like you are selectively ignoring certain parts of the order which don't fit your opinion.

 

Share this post


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

You are allowed to continue your stay in Thailand, but the rules "according to type of visa" still apply.

Somebody who entered Thailand with a non-b visa and gets this extension is still allowed to work.

A tourist who gets this automatic extension is still not allowed to work.

 

Most people here know that immigration commonly refers to "permission of stay" as "visa" in english texts, and this here is no exception.

Or do you want to claim that (according to immigration), anybody who had any previous extension is not eligable for the automatic extension? Because immigration website says this is about "visas".

 

Yes, this is the first part of the sentence.

image.png.aff444de1bc467c536f7dc5c2dfc2e

But the second part of the sentence clearly says that it includes the stay within the kingdom.

It looks like you are selectively ignoring certain parts of the order which don't fit your opinion.

 

The rules for visa may stay the same on extension but the length of temporary stay does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that that we do not know what instructions and guidelines the Immigration Bureau has sent out to the immigration offices and evev if we knew we would from experience have to expect variations on their implementation from one office to the next.

 

At a yet unknown point in the future the availability of the automatic extension of stay will end and if at that time an immigration official decides that somebody with a one-year permission to stay received upon arrival or a one-year extension of a permission to stay did not qualify for the automatic extension and insists on payment of the overstay fine and implemation of conjunctive sanctions, we cannot argue our point with the official on the basis of the Ministerial Notification. That argumentation would have to be done in a court of law and in most cases would probably not be practical.

 

Based on the above point of view it is indeed wise to play it safe if one does not want to risk the loss of the continuation of one's annual extensions. Analysing the Ministerial Notification from a purely legal point of view, as I have done, is one thing, the practical side of its implemation at the grassroots level can be quite another thing in Thailand, as experience has often shown.

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...