Jump to content
Thai Visa Forum

NO AUTOMATIC EXTENSION for people with covid extension


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Like many of you who applied for the special covid extension with letter from your embassy, i had an "under consideration" stamp. I was due to come back to the immigration today, I was skeptical about

So we've been "bait and switched" just so they can get rid of all the media coverage...but at the end a bunch of people are likely to get into overstay because the interpretation of the announcement w

I acknowledge I'm a noob on TV and therefore my trustworthiness must be rather low but these are facts (as of April 10 at CW) and not my uneducated opinion on the subject. So I'll let senior members i

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

If my yearly extension (retirement) was due in April, I would be 100% off to immigration this month. 

This is also what i would recommend, but just because now the immigration offices are empty, not because they have to do it.

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

Yes, this would be the case.

Good argument to show that he is wrong.

An alien entering either VE, VOA, Tv, or Non O would never be required to submit 90 day reports/

 

Section 2.2 relates to only those who would be required under normal circumstances to submit 90 day reports, but are now exempt under the order, until further notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

An alien entering either VE, VOA, Tv, or Non O would never be required to submit 90 day reports/

 

Section 2.2 relates to only those who would be required under normal circumstances to submit 90 day reports, but are now exempt under the order, until further notice.

article2.png.e7ce0f7c11026486725a504ca4ec38ab.png

You are arguing that the red part is only relevant for the green part, but not for the blue part.

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

This is also what i would recommend, but just because now the immigration offices are empty, not because they have to do it.

Why? According to your interpretation your entitled to automatic extensions.

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

This is also what i would recommend, but just because now the immigration offices are empty, not because they have to do it.

That means the intent of the order is working. They only want people who would normally be at a immigration office to be there.

Those on long term extensions would only be going to immigration office for their extension and 90 day reports and are not in the group mentioned here as the reason for the order.

image.png.aff444de1bc467c536f7dc5c2dfc2eb1.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

If my yearly extension (retirement) was due in April, I would be 100% off to immigration this month. 

... and that is clearly what those who drafted the order hoped.

 

However, there are good reasons for concluding that was not the intent of the cabinet and the prime minister. Leaving aside the fact that the embassies have been assured that embassy letters are not required any more, let's look at part of the English translation (my logical point is not relying on fine points of translation)

Quote

2. For an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their type of visa (including Visa on Arrival) and an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their visa exemption privileges (P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90) whose specified period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom expires as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020):

 

(1) the period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom under Section 35 of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (including under the Petroleum Act B.E. 2514 (1971) and its Amendments, the Investment Promotion Act B.E. 2520 (1977) and its Amendments, and the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its Amendments) or in accordance with the relevant notifications of the Ministry of Interior, shall be temporarily extended as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020) to 30 April B.E. 2563 (2020);

 

(2) the period of time for the notification of residence under Section 37 (5) of the Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) or in accordance with the relevant notifications of the Ministry of Interior, upon the completion of the period of time for the notification of residence for such alien, shall be extended as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020) to 30 April B.E. 2563 (2020);

Can we agree that (i) those permitted temporary stay are accorded the amnesties under both (1) and (2); and (ii) the need to file 90-day reports would only apply to those on long term extensions or one-year permissions to stay? To me, it is clear this shows that those on long term extensions are included.

 

As others have pointed out, if those on long term extensions were really to be deliberately excluded, the order would say so unless the whole intent was to deceive.

 

What the PM intended was that this apply both to those who entered with visas, and those who entered visa exempt with no exceptions. Frankly, the officials who deliberately obfuscated this in the order are playing a dangerous game.

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

No, that's what you believe.

So the red part applies to the green and the blue part?

If it were as you say, that the red part doesn't cover for example OA visa holders, then they are not exempt of 90 day reports, yes?

 

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That means the intent of the order is working. They only want people who would normally be at a immigration office to be there.

Those on long term extensions would only be going to immigration office for their extension and 90 day reports and are not the group mentioned here as the reason for the order.

image.png.aff444de1bc467c536f7dc5c2dfc2eb1.png

"including the stay within the Kingdom", people on extensions are not staying within the Kingdom?

And as i said before, this is only the introduction part, this part doesn't tell anybody what to do. The orders come after this part.

Edited by jackdd
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jackdd said:

And as i said before, this is only the introduction part, this part doesn't tell anybody what to do. The orders come after this part.

That is not a introduction for it. It is the justification for the order.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following confirmation from two immigration officers at cw today that non o multi holders whose 90 day permission to stay expires after march 26 ARE covered under the Amnesty, I personally will not be doing a 60 day extension with the Mrs until the Amnesty ends. What I don't know, and perhaps of minor importance, is do I need to go there and submit an updated tm30 now or can this wait until I do the extension at the end of the Amnesty?

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

So the red part applies to the green part?

If it were as you say, that the red part doesn't cover for example OA visa holders, then they are not exempt of 90 day reports, yes?

They are 3 separate parts, numbered accordingly.

 

5 minutes ago, jackdd said:

"including the stay within the Kingdom", people on extensions are not staying within the Kingdom?

And as i said before, this is only the introduction part, this part doesn't tell anybody what to do. The orders come after this part.

If you've ben granted permission of stay for 365 days then your 'staying' in the Kingdom.

You are by definition a 'resident, not a 'visitor'

A person who lives somewhere permanently, or on a long term basis.

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

If you've ben granted permission of stay for 365 days then your 'staying' in the Kingdom.

You are by definition a 'resident, not a 'visitor'

A person who lives somewhere permanently, or on a long term basis.

But not by definition of Thai immigration law, which is the only relevant definition here.

Thai immigration law makes this quite easy, a foreigner is easier a "permanent resident" or a "temporary visitor".

Edited by jackdd
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is not a introduction for it. It is the justification for the order.

Hi Joe , could you answer the following please .

 

I have a non o m/e visa based on my UK state pension ( POI not needed but have to leave the country every 90 days ), visa ends June extendable to September . 

Cannot go border runs , extension letter from UK embassy on 31st March , pp stamped 14th April when I have to do an interim report . 

I assume that my pp will be stamped till the 29th April . Will the process repeat itself and another 1900 baht which seems unjust as normally that covers 90 days . Will I need another embassy letter ?  

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

So the red part applies to the green and the blue part?

If it were as you say, that the red part doesn't cover for example OA visa holders, then they are not exempt of 90 day reports, yes?

 

"including the stay within the Kingdom", people on extensions are not staying within the Kingdom?

And as i said before, this is only the introduction part, this part doesn't tell anybody what to do. The orders come after this part.

It depends upon how your read "including the stay within the Kingdom". An easy way to to make it clear is to change "the stay" to their stay within the Kingdom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, superal said:

Will the process repeat itself and another 1900 baht which seems unjust as normally that covers 90 days . Will I need another embassy letter ?  

No, you should then be entitled to automatic extensions until such time as announced otherwise.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jackdd said:

But not by definition of Thai immigration law, which is the only relevant definition here.

Can't argue with that, it's as I previously stated.

The definition of the law is decided by an Immigration officer on entry.

 

37 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Thai immigration law makes this quite easy, a foreigner is easier a "permanent resident" or a "temporary visitor".

Well, I'd say permanent resident, or granted temporary permission of stay, which can vary from a short stay as in Tourist, to someone who stays permanently throughout the year.

Edited by Tanoshi
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It depends upon how your read "including the stay within the Kingdom". An easy way to to make it clear is to change "the stay" to their stay within the Kingdom. 

Changing what the ministerial order allegedly says just so that it matches your opinion might be an "easy way" for you, but it's just wrong.

The translation is quite good, it clearly says "including the stay within the Kingdom" and not "their stay within the Kingdom".

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jackdd said:

Changing what the ministerial order allegedly says just so that it matches your opinion might be an "easy way" for you, but it's just wrong.

The translation is quite good, it clearly says "including the stay within the Kingdom" and not "their stay within the Kingdom".

 

If you want to nitpick, do so in the Thai language forum using the original Thai text of the Ministerial Notification.

 

It you wish to discuss English grammar in depth, there is no forum for it on ThaiVisa and you need to look elsewhere on the world-wide web and be sure to quote the entire text to which "their" refers, ie "the stay in the Kingdom of certain groups of aliens" (hint: it is like saying "the book of Jack" and subsequently referring to "his book"

 

This is the end of the discussion of "including the stay within the Kingdom" on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, ubonjoe and BritTim, for the links to the two English translations of the Ministerial order of 7 April 2020. Because I find it easier to copy and paste text from a text-searchable file than from an image, I shall be using the translation I downloaded from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps immigration officials will also use this translation if they need to refer to the English text in a discussion with a foreigner.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been an animated discussion here about the types of visas that qualify for the automatic extension. This is one of the times when it is essential to get the terminology right.

 

This Ministerial Notification is not about visa extensions, is about permissions to stay, about all permissions to stay in Thailand temporarily with expiration dates of 26 March 2020 and later, without any limitation or exception, regardless whether the permission to stay is or was issued at the time of entering Thailand or subsequently extended at an immigration office.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally, when the Ministry of Interior issues a notification that that requires action by immigration offices, the Immigration Bureau sends a memorandum to the offices with instructions or guidelines and it is this memorandum with which the immigration officials work.

 

Such memorandum is for internal circulation within the immigration department but occasionally is made accessible to the public on the website of the Immigration Bureau. I wonder if a memorandum was issued also for the implementation of the Ministerial Notification of 7 April and what it says in detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1st visa extension expires on April 17th,  but I was stupid and went early to immigration for the covid extension...I recieved the considerstion stamp to go back on april 20th. I'm just going to go on the 20th and it sounds like they will either give me a new stamp thay would then include me in the amnesty program or tell me to go home. 

 

Will post my experience.

Edited by Kingjamo808
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maestro said:

There has been an animated discussion here about the types of visas that qualify for the automatic extension. This is one of the times when it is essential to get the terminology right.

It all started from a claim that all permit to stays came under the order and that included those already on a long stay extension of stay.

It is evident that does it is does not apply to those and there has been a topic posed by a member applying for their one year extension yesterday with no questions asked or immigration telling them it was not required.

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1159381-chaeng-wattana-report/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maestro said:

There has been an animated discussion here about the types of visas that qualify for the automatic extension. This is one of the times when it is essential to get the terminology right.

Yes, exactly. This is the reason why i was pointing out that ubonjoe was changing the meaning of the translation into one which doesn't match the original Thai version.

 

5 hours ago, Maestro said:

This Ministerial Notification is not about visa extensions, is about permissions to stay, about all permissions to stay in Thailand temporarily with expiration dates of 26 March 2020 and later, without any limitation or exception, regardless whether the permission to stay is or was issued at the time of entering Thailand or subsequently extended at an immigration office.

This is what i'm saying, but some members including ubonjoe disagree with this view.

 

Edited by jackdd
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maestro said:

This Ministerial Notification is not about visa extensions, is about permissions to stay, about all permissions to stay in Thailand temporarily with expiration dates of 26 March 2020 and later, without any limitation or exception, regardless whether the permission to stay is or was issued at the time of entering Thailand or subsequently extended at an immigration office.

Agree the notification is about 'permission of stay'.

All foreigners are granted temporary  'permissions of stay' be it 30 days or 365 days.

 

The notification clearly refers to 'Permission for Certain Groups of Aliens to Remain in the Kingdom as a Special Case' (not all Groups). The debate has centred around which groups are defined as special cases.

 

In particular this statement;

2. For an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their type of visa (including Visa on Arrival) and an alien who has been permitted a temporary stay in the Kingdom according to their visa exemption privileges (P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90) whose specified period of time permitted for stay in the Kingdom expires as from 26 March B.E. 2563 (2020)

 

This appears to define the special cases as defined by their Visa type as being limited to granted 'permission of stay' up to a maximum of 90 days. 

That appears to therefore exclude those who have been granted temporary permission of stay for 1 year.

 

Indeed if the notification applied to all foreigners granted 'temporary permission of stay' why would it refer to 'certain groups' and not 'all groups', thereby eliminating the required statement as in 2.

 

The debate is clearly about 'which' groups are classed as special cases.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify which groups your referring to.

Edited by Tanoshi
  • Thanks 1
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...