NO AUTOMATIC EXTENSION for people with covid extension

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, essox essox said:

reading most of the comments about visa extentions.....it seems to me that people can not believe what they are reading/believe what they have read, 

as it is an important issue then things need to be clarified by someone in high authority to eas peoples minds !!!

The immigration bureau writes on their website "automatic visa extension for ALL visa types", how is this not clear? Or don't they have enough authority?

Some people here are just interpreting things into it which don't exist.

Edited April 14, 2020 by jackdd

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, jackdd said:

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

I can assure you I will not be the one telling people not to go to immigration to apply for their annual extensions of stay and have them finding out that they have lost their extension and have to start all over again when they go to an office.

The only people that might not need to go to immigration are those on a valid OA, PE (Thai Elite) ands other types of visas that get a one year permit to stay when they enter the country. They certainly do fall into the group affected by the emergency.

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The immigration bureau writes on their website "automatic visa extension for ALL visa types", how is this not clear?

Maybe they are using the correct wording when they wrote visas. A visa only allows a permit to stay when you enter the country.

[superal]

18 minutes ago, essox essox said:

reading most of the comments about visa extentions.....it seems to me that people can not believe what they are reading/believe what they have read, 

as it is an important issue then things need to be clarified by someone in high authority to eas peoples minds !!!

The Thai visa rules and interpretation are confusing to many of us even when dealing with the basics . Now we have the Amnesty to fathom out with financial penalties if you get it wrong . If there was an exam paper questioning the amnesty there would be many wrong answers . To make the amnesty statement clear without doubts each category of visa could have been explained individually . Maybe one of our visa experts could make a chart ?

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

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.

This is my interpretation of section 2 . It may be incorrect or not was intended or different from other people's reasoning.

The mention of 14 days to 90 days stay is for the visa exempt privelages.

My reasoning is for the following , where the term visa is used in section 2 it is qualified in brackets to include visa on arrival.

Thus where the term visa exempt is used it is further qualified in brackets with pp14 etc.

 

If it was the intention to State the length  of stay in brackets after visa exempt then it would State 14, 30, 90. However it does not . It states 30 , 14, 30 ,90 . 

To me these 4 categories are meant to signify the visa exempt options .

Edited April 14, 2020 by cleopatra2

[Tanoshi]

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

This is my interpretation of section 2 . It may be incorrect or not was intended or different from other people's reasoning.

The mention of 14 days to 90 days stay is for the visa exempt privelages.

My reasoning is for the following , where the term visa is used in section 2 it is qualified in brackets to include visa on arrival.

Thus where the term visa exempt is used it is further qualified in brackets with pp14 etc.

I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation.

The issue is if the amnesty applied to 'all' permissions of temporary stay', why does the notification address 'certain groups' according to their 'type of visa'.

 

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation.

The issue is if the amnesty applied to 'all' permissions of temporary stay', why does the notification address 'certain groups' according to their 'type of visa'.

 

Not every alien in Thailand is on visa or visa exempt. There are a number of persons who are regarded as undocumented.

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation.

The issue is if the amnesty applied to 'all' permissions of temporary stay', why does the notification address 'certain groups' according to their 'type of visa'.

 

Because there are some groups of people to who it doesn't apply. For example people who had a permission to stay which expired before 26th March and who have been on overstay. I guess it also doesn't apply to stateless people and refugees.

[BritTim]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

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.

To me, the "P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90" are specifically referring to visa exemption, not those with visas, including visa on arrival). If visas are included, where is the 15-day permission to stay from visas on arrival?

 

Further, one of the amnesties provided to those under 2. is postponement of 90-day reporting. Can you identify any special cases under which those with permissions to stay of 90 days or less who need to submit 90-day reports? Are those with permissions to stay of greater than 90 days still required to do them?

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Order was deliberately worded to meet two separate objectives:

1. satisfy the PM and the cabinet and overseas embassies that everyone who is legally in Thailand is covered; but
2. deliberately obfuscate the situation with respect to those on extensions (particularly extensions that frequently involve special payments to immigration officials) in order to protect the income of senior immigration officials.

[JohnBZ]

On 4/11/2020 at 3:35 PM, Peter Denis said:

 

 

Important UPDATE of my earlier post.

It seems that the 'amnesty announcement' is also NOT applicable for long-stay Non Imm O or O-A Visa holders on an extension of stay.

 

I got under consideration till April 23rd for my 30 day extension application at Sa Kaeo.  I do plan to get in on 23rd to get another 10 days to May 3rd or in other word the rest of 30 days extension.  Thai granting visa relief decision is kind of slow judging for the relief decision on people with March 26 expiration: ideally, that auto extension decision should have made before 26th of March not in early April. I play safe to get my extra fews days in case decision to extend relief beyond April 30 is not made before April 30. 

[BritTim]

2 minutes ago, JohnBZ said:

I got under consideration till April 23rd for my 30 day extension application at Sa Kaeo.  I do plan to get in on 23rd to get another 10 days to May 3rd or in other word the rest of 30 days extension.  Thai granting visa relief decision is kind of slow judging for the relief decision on people with March 26 expiration: ideally, that auto extension decision should have made before 26th of March not in early April. I play safe to get my extra fews days in case decision to extend relief beyond April 30 is not made before April 30. 

I believe it is technically necessary to attend on April 23 because you have not yet been given leave to stay. Once your permission to stay is confirmed, you will be covered by any automatic extensions that are provided thereafter.

[ANDREW999]

Reminiscence of my days as a student of a Master degree in Criminal Law. Warm legality confrontations. I really enjoy reading you all. Nonetheless, I dont think it is very useful inside this thread. The real affected ones don't seem to get any conclusion out of this, and can I assume that the Imm Officers will still do as they please? (I got some pm's from users really confused). Seems like you all are trying to analyse imm officers decisions as something coherent. I really wish I could read thai to find some self explaining meaning to what we are suffering. Although, nothing has convinced me yet of the coherence between text and actions.

 

P.s.: I fully support the idea of "under consideration stamp" as a prequel for automatic extension(s). However, nothing has convinced me of its importance. As I said somewhere else, I haven't witnessed, heard or read about a single person being denied of extra days after getting an under consideration stamp. Only accepted candidates are stamped like that, therefore, they are already accepted to remain in the country for 30 days extra. In my opinion, this two steps extension is just an empty formality, and trying to analyse it as something meaningful is surrealistic

Edited April 14, 2020 by ANDREW999

[vermin on arrival]

Yes I think you should start another thread to try to debate and parse the meaning of the decree. It is not helping to clarify anything for me and gives me more posts to scroll through while trying to understand what is happening.

[cleopatra2]

34 minutes ago, BritTim said:

To me, the "P. 30/PP. 14/ PP. 30/PP. 90" are specifically referring to visa exemption, not those with visas, including visa on arrival). If visas are included, where is the 15-day permission to stay from visas on arrival?

 

Further, one of the amnesties provided to those under 2. is postponement of 90-day reporting. Can you identify any special cases under which those with permissions to stay of 90 days or less who need to submit 90-day reports? Are those with permissions to stay of greater than 90 days still required to do them?

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the Order was deliberately worded to meet two separate objectives:

1. satisfy the PM and the cabinet and overseas embassies that everyone who is legally in Thailand is covered; but
2. deliberately obfuscate the situation with respect to those on extensions (particularly extensions that frequently involve special payments to immigration officials) in order to protect the income of senior immigration officials.

In addition no mention of 60 days for SETV

[Tanoshi]

Yesterday I had a rather prolonged debate with my Immigration office about the amnesty notification.

It appeared clear the amnesty was intended for those who could not leave the Country to do border runs or obtain new Visas, thereby freeing up the masses at Immigration offices applying for further extensions with Embassy letters.

 

However due to certain replies and questions posed by other members of the forum, I had a further debate with my local office, but asked slightly differing questions and received some remarkable answers which make sense and actually concur with many members differing opinions.

This is however the opinion of just one office, if in doubt contact your local office.

 

Today I asked specifically about annual extensions, O-A, retirement, marriage and these are the answers I received to varying circumstances of these types of permission of stay.

 

I posed the question if someone on an existing annual extension who's permission of stay ended tomorrow (15/4) but intended to leave Thailand rather than extend again, but couldn't due to the virus, would his extension be automatically extended under the amnesty.

 

The reply was yes, currently until 30th April and thereafter subject to further announcements extending the amnesty period, but they would need to visit the office to apply and receive the extension stamp.

 

However if you intended to extended on 15th, but thought you were automatically extended until 30th April, you would be on overstay.

 

In short if your annual extension is due for renewal but you didn't renew your application, instead opting for automatic extension based on the amnesty, you couldn't then apply for an annual extension when the amnesty ceases, you would have to leave the Country after any remaining permission of stay expired.

In any event you would be required to submit applications for either reason.

 

So this would confirm the opinions of certain members, namely @Jackd and @BritTim that indeed 'all foreigners' are entitled to automatic extensions one way or another.

But it also confirms the opinions of other members such as myself and @ubonjoe that for those on annual extensions these extensions are not automatically extended, rather you need to continue to apply for your annual extension in the normal manner, or if unable, or unwilling, or perhaps if it was your intention to leave, then you need to apply for an initial temporary extension under the amnesty, then receive automatic extensions under any further announcements extending the amnesty period.

 

There reply makes sense.

Would other members agree.

Please shoot the sheriff, not the deputy.

 

[ubonjoe]

41 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

In addition no mention of 60 days for SETV

The immigration act only mentions 90 days for tourism so it fits under the 90 days since it would be 60 + 30 days with an extension.

[Peter Denis]

 

To make sense of this mess, you can also take another angle than discussing the ambiguous wording of the IO announcements posted on the IO website and the ministerial orders.

What was the INTENT of IO when announcing this amnesty?

IO's main intent was to avoid the immigration offices being flooded with this extra influx of those that would normally have left the country but are now stranded because of border-closure.  So the amnesty was announced to curb that extra influx and it is thus aimed towards those categories of foreigners that normally would have exited the country (like those on Visa Exempt, Visa on Arrival, Tourist Visa (SETV or METV) and those on short-stay Non Imm O Visa with a 90-day permission to stay).

IO did not want to include those on long-stay 1-year extensions, because these can be handled 'business as usual'.  If they would also have included those in the amnesty, by making it applicable for ALL foreigners, they might as well have closed the immigration offices altogether.  But they did choose to keep the IOs open and handling the application for those long-stay extensions.  Not doing so would of course once again create an influx-problem once the amnesty is lifted, when all those with over-due extensions would apply for their extensions at same time.

THEREFORE > It would be a very risky gamble for those on long-stay extensions to believe that the amnesty announcement also applies for them, and not visiting their IO when their 1-year permission to stay based on their Non Imm O or O-A Visa is due for extension. 

That would result in them being on over-stay and having to leave the country and start again from scratch as there would be no option anymore for extending their present extension of stay.

 

[cleopatra2]

48 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Yesterday I had a rather prolonged debate with my Immigration office about the amnesty notification.

It appeared clear the amnesty was intended for those who could not leave the Country to do border runs or obtain new Visas, thereby freeing up the masses at Immigration offices applying for further extensions with Embassy letters.

 

However due to certain replies and questions posed by other members of the forum, I had a further debate with my local office, but asked slightly differing questions and received some remarkable answers which make sense and actually concur with many members differing opinions.

This is however the opinion of just one office, if in doubt contact your local office.

 

Today I asked specifically about annual extensions, O-A, retirement, marriage and these are the answers I received to varying circumstances of these types of permission of stay.

 

I posed the question if someone on an existing annual extension who's permission of stay ended tomorrow (15/4) but intended to leave Thailand rather than extend again, but couldn't due to the virus, would his extension be automatically extended under the amnesty.

 

The reply was yes, currently until 30th April and thereafter subject to further announcements extending the amnesty period, but they would need to visit the office to apply and receive the extension stamp.

 

However if you intended to extended on 15th, but thought you were automatically extended until 30th April, you would be on overstay.

 

In short if your annual extension is due for renewal but you didn't renew your application, instead opting for automatic extension based on the amnesty, you couldn't then apply for an annual extension when the amnesty ceases, you would have to leave the Country after any remaining permission of stay expired.

In any event you would be required to submit applications for either reason.

 

So this would confirm the opinions of certain members, namely @Jackd and @BritTim that indeed 'all foreigners' are entitled to automatic extensions one way or another.

But it also confirms the opinions of other members such as myself and @ubonjoe that for those on annual extensions these extensions are not automatically extended, rather you need to continue to apply for your annual extension in the normal manner, or if unable, or unwilling, or perhaps if it was your intention to leave, then you need to apply for an initial temporary extension under the amnesty, then receive automatic extensions under any further announcements extending the amnesty period.

 

There reply makes sense.

Would other members agree.

Please shoot the sheriff, not the deputy.

 

An interesting response

A yearly extension wishing to leave is automatically extended  with the caveat that they have to apply in person .

 

I have just read the English translation and while it gives an automatic extension there is no mention of not visiting immigration to receive an immigration stamp.

 

The term automatic can be interpreted as not needing any paperwork for the extension or 

Not required to apply

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Yesterday I had a rather prolonged debate with my Immigration office about the amnesty notification.

It appeared clear the amnesty was intended for those who could not leave the Country to do border runs or obtain new Visas, thereby freeing up the masses at Immigration offices applying for further extensions with Embassy letters.

 

However due to certain replies and questions posed by other members of the forum, I had a further debate with my local office, but asked slightly differing questions and received some remarkable answers which make sense and actually concur with many members differing opinions.

This is however the opinion of just one office, if in doubt contact your local office.

 

Today I asked specifically about annual extensions, O-A, retirement, marriage and these are the answers I received to varying circumstances of these types of permission of stay.

 

I posed the question if someone on an existing annual extension who's permission of stay ended tomorrow (15/4) but intended to leave Thailand rather than extend again, but couldn't due to the virus, would his extension be automatically extended under the amnesty.

 

The reply was yes, currently until 30th April and thereafter subject to further announcements extending the amnesty period, but they would need to visit the office to apply and receive the extension stamp.

 

However if you intended to extended on 15th, but thought you were automatically extended until 30th April, you would be on overstay.

 

In short if your annual extension is due for renewal but you didn't renew your application, instead opting for automatic extension based on the amnesty, you couldn't then apply for an annual extension when the amnesty ceases, you would have to leave the Country after any remaining permission of stay expired.

In any event you would be required to submit applications for either reason.

 

So this would confirm the opinions of certain members, namely @Jackd and @BritTim that indeed 'all foreigners' are entitled to automatic extensions one way or another.

But it also confirms the opinions of other members such as myself and @ubonjoe that for those on annual extensions these extensions are not automatically extended, rather you need to continue to apply for your annual extension in the normal manner, or if unable, or unwilling, or perhaps if it was your intention to leave, then you need to apply for an initial temporary extension under the amnesty, then receive automatic extensions under any further announcements extending the amnesty period.

 

There reply makes sense.

Would other members agree.

Please shoot the sheriff, not the deputy.

 

I understand the points you are making, but do not think everything makes total sense.

 

The most interesting theory is that you must choose whether to apply for a standard extension or take advantage of the automatic extension but, having taken advantage of the automatic extension, cannot switch to a standard extension later. In my view, logic would state that you could only apply for a standard extension if it would run from the original expiry of your permission to stay past the date of the automatic extension. I would absolutely accept that a reasonable limitation is that you should not be able to apply for a standard extension that runs from the end of the automatic extension.

 

I believe the intent of the PM and the cabinet is that those legally in Thailand should not be obliged to leave the country, or apply for extensions, until non essential trips outside the home were again allowed. I believe it is not sensible to say that you can postpone your 90-day report for safety reasons, but must risk death to apply for your extension of stay on time. If that is the government's intention, the Order should at least say so.

[Roger Of Chai Prakan]

On 4/10/2020 at 3:39 PM, audaciousnomad said:

That is concerning. I wonder if anyone else has gone over there and had the same experience?
@ubonjoe....care to chime in on what this person has reported???

I have had the same experience, at Chiang Mai on 10th April.  Was originally on Non Imm O Marriage visa, which was extended for 60 days from 21 Jan. On trying to extend on 19th March I was told I had to get a Covid 19 Letter from the Brit Embassy (took 6 days incl w/end, by which time I was on Overstay!). I received an "Under Consideration stamp, come back 10th April". On 10th I got a 10 day extension to 20th, but my stamp says "Holder must leave the Kingdom" by 20th. My plan is to request another embassy letter, and submit the full documents for another Covid extension.  Anyone know if I would get another one, and will it also require a trip to C.Mai every 10 days. Thanks. 

By the way, have they considered if so many extensions need to be renewed again on 30th April, what crowds will turn up on that day? Recipe for Covid disaster? 

[davidhen]

I entered Thailand on a non-imm-o 90 day visa which expires today (14th April) and was scheduled to fly out with Thai Airways, who cancelled all April and May flights, tonight.

I have seen and read the exemption notice which is posted on the Pattaya (Jomtien) IO office gates. For my circumstance, and I do appreciate that many other scenarios exist with other people, the notice is clear, and, accordingly I shall be doing nothing until, either 30th April, or "until further notice", as advised by the notice.

[vermin on arrival]

Well to try and confirm my situation, I called both the immigration hotline 1178 and Chaeng Wattana Immigration today. They both told me since I was legal to stay on March 30th even though I had gone on March 26 for emergency covid extension with an under consideration stamp for April 23rd that  I did not have to report on the 23rd for the final stamp, and I have an automatic extension until April 30th. Chaeng Wattana asked what passport I had and I told them US with original 30 day stay, and the women said don't worry no problem. Should I trust them or still go? Am i paranoid? Any confirmation from people going to CW?

Edited April 14, 2020 by vermin on arrival

[ubonjoe]

16 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I believe it is not sensible to say that you can postpone your 90-day report for safety reasons, but must risk death to apply for your extension of stay on time. If that is the government's intention, the Order should at least say so.

The intent was to reduce the crowds at immigration due the high number of people showing up for extensions due to them not being able to leave the country.

The 90 day report being dropped was to further reduce the crowds to do something not related to staying in the country.

Now that the crowds have been reduced it lowers the chance of getting corvid 19 for those doing annual extensions.

[Maestro]

6 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

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.

...

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.

 

Yours is a very good question and, in fact, I cerebrated long and hard to think of a group of foreigners who might have a permission to stay not based on any of the criteria listed in clause 2(1) of the Ministerial Notification. At one pint I thought I got one, the Thai Elite Visa, but then I realised that it is covered by the part which I have highlighted in bold in the quote below.

 

Quote

(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 (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);

 

[jackdd]

8 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Yours is a very good question and, in fact, I cerebrated long and hard to think of a group of foreigners who might have a permission to stay not based on any of the criteria listed in clause 2(1) of the Ministerial Notification. At one pint I thought I got one, the Thai Elite Visa, but then I realised that it is covered by the part which I have highlighted in bold in the quote below.

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

Because there are some groups of people to who it doesn't apply. For example people who had a permission to stay which expired before 26th March and who have been on overstay. I guess it also doesn't apply to stateless people and refugees.

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

IO did not want to include those on long-stay 1-year extensions, because these can be handled 'business as usual'.  If they would also have included those in the amnesty, by making it applicable for ALL foreigners, they might as well have closed the immigration offices altogether.

And why not? The name of the game is social distancing, so that's why non essential establishments like pubs are closed. Drivers license renewals now have an automatic 15 days extension -- until after the crisis, when it will be established the pecking order of renewal tranges. Other activity, not renewal, continues. Same model could apply to Immigration.

 

And you say "business as usual." Hmmmm. The poor bloke who can't get an income letter from his embassy, 'cause it's closed for the duration, thus can't get a renewed extension..... How do you explain "business as usual" to him.

 

Nope, think I'll rely on the advice from my embassy, namely all extensions of stay, including my one-year retirement extension, are covered by the amnesty; the argument against just doesn't hold water. Anyway, when this mess is all behind us, I'm sure amnesty will be granted to all situations of "misunderstanding." To do otherwise would be nonsensical.

[Peter Denis]

1 minute ago, JimGant said:

...

Nope, think I'll rely on the advice from my embassy, namely all extensions of stay, including my one-year retirement extension, are covered by the amnesty; the argument against just doesn't hold water. Anyway, when this mess is all behind us, I'm sure amnesty will be granted to all situations of "misunderstanding." To do otherwise would be nonsensical.

I hope for you that you are right, but unfortunately I am fairly sure that you will be in for a rude awakening...

[vermin on arrival]

@Peter DenisWhat do you think about my post #232? Thanks.

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, vermin on arrival said:

Well to try and confirm my situation, I called both the immigration hotline 1178 and Chaeng Wattana Immigration today. They both told me since I was legal to stay on March 30th even though I had gone on March 26 for emergency covid extension with an under consideration stamp for April 23rd that  I did not have to report on the 23rd for the final stamp, and I have an automatic extension until April 30th. Chaeng Wattana asked what passport I had and I told them US with original 30 day stay, and the women said don't worry no problem. Should I trust them or still go? Am i paranoid? Any confirmation from people going to CW?

From your report it seems that IO takes the 'sensible approach' because of your VisaExempt entry with a permission to stay till March 30.

And since you meet the amnesty criteria your permission to stay is automatically extended till April 30 (and will probably be prolonged).

Their reasoning will most probably be that it was - on hindsight - not necessary for you to apply for the emergency extension which provided you with the under consideration stamp till April 23.

So given that double IO confirmation and the fact that you meet the amnesty criteria, it is fairly certain that you can ignore the report-back date, as you are already covered under the amnesty.

 

[vermin on arrival]

Just now, Peter Denis said:

From your report it seems that IO takes the 'sensible approach' because of your VisaExempt entry with a permission to stay till March 30.

And since you meet the amnesty criteria your permission to stay is automatically extended till April 30 (and will probably be prolonged).

Their reasoning will most probably be that it was - on hindsight - not necessary for you to apply for the emergency extension which provided you with the under consideration stamp till April 23.

So given that double IO confirmation and the fact that you meet the amnesty criteria, it is fairly certain that you can ignore the report-back date, as you are already covered under the amnesty.

 

Thanks man. I am so stressed out now I just needed some confirmation from an intelligent and informed observer that I was good to not go. Have a great day : )