Extension of stay for Retirement - New Requirement

[Baerboxer]

I extended my permission to stay end of last month. Pathumthani immigration now requires 2 additional visits to confirm the financials are maintained. My extension was granted and a slip inserted in my passport. The requirement now is to go back in 3 months to show the 800k ThB balance minimum has been maintained; and then go back in another 3 months to show the 400k ThB balance minimum has been maintained. The slip also states that failure to go back or maintain the balances means the visa / extension is cancelled. The nice lady who takes the photographs and hands finished passports back was carefully pointing this out to everyone.

 

Other changes were that the officer checking documents also now takes the fee and inserts it in your passport before taking the docs through to the general office. Change is given with the receipt and passport are returned. You used to have to get a new TM30 produced first. Now they just take a photocopy of the existing one. If you don't have one then you must go and get one first.

 

General comment: almost all of the officers were new, including the seniors. The general office was full of stacks of forms and paperwork, tied in large bundles with ribbon; stacked 2-3 feet high. Must be having a clear out?  

The process was very quick and efficient. The officers worked hard and the queue cleared very quickly. But I really have no idea as to why they now want to see bank books after 3 months and again after 6. 

[Orton Rd]

They changed the rules to stop people getting round the time the money has to be in the bank and the only result has been more work for the visa agents. I would go with an agent if this nonsense breaks out at my office, and I could use all that money

[damascase]

47 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

But I really have no idea as to why they now want to see bank books after 3 months and again after 6. 

They are only verifying whether you comply with the legal requirements........

[DrJack54]

2 minutes ago, damascase said:

They are only verifying whether you comply with the legal requirements........

They can check all that at time of next extension. The same way that 95+% of immigration offices currently do.

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

You used to have to get a new TM30 produced first.

You should include your immigration office in the title as items like this one are not required. Along with other items.

Edited March 6, 2021 by DrJack54

[david555]

19 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

You should include your immigration office in the title as items like this one are not required. Along with other items.

But this is the second rapport  one ,as before same request at  Kanchanaburi  

 

[DrJack54]

Just now, david555 said:

But this is the second rapport  one ,as before same request at  Kanchanaburi  

 

That's correct. Also one of the big boys, Jomtien, also required same nonsense.

There is ~ 80 immigration offices and perhaps less than 10 are doing this puppet show.

[david555]

Just now, DrJack54 said:

That's correct. Also one of the big boys, Jomtien, also required same nonsense.

There is ~ 80 immigration offices and perhaps less than 10 are doing this puppet show.

My Jomtien only asked 1 time  , after 90 day ..... no  second follow up , maybe a new trend ...???? , every 90 day following maybe ????

[DrJack54]

18 minutes ago, david555 said:

My Jomtien only asked 1 time  , after 90 day ..... no  second follow up , maybe a new trend ...???? , every 90 day following maybe ????

I missed that. Are you saying reports back 3 months post approval then again 3 months later to check on the 400k? 

Apparently they are thinking about online report when we need go to toilet.

[david555]

15 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I missed that. Are you saying reports back 3 months post approval then again 3 months later to check on the 400k? 

Apparently they are thinking about online report when we need go to toilet.

no !.... just a thought of what could become after first 90 day money  check , second 90 day money check ...... so hence i just presume a new trend  .... year round 90 day money check could become out of it , let hope not , as for me just a walk to te beach , but for those living rural a pain  to travel

 

was a long time they troubled us with some new restrictions ......

Edited March 6, 2021 by david555

[UKresonant]

The extension thing "Money in the Bank" for retirement does not appear very useful for someone who would ask for a  multi-entry permit and may not be around at the time they want to check something. Where the re-entry would substitute the 90 day report, the financial report remains to cause disruption to p r o n k r y ????

So you could be away enjoying a bit of your retirement in Japan or back in home country, and the extension gets cancelled (assumed guilty until proved innocent ????) . It seems this requirement wants you tethered to the office! (Boring  ???? )

So hypothetically does this mean aspiring frequent multi entry permit holders, may only use income method to be sure? (assuming SARS Cov-2 shall dissipate or mutate to be not so nasty).

Edited March 6, 2021 by UKresonant

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, UKresonant said:

The extension thing "Money in the Bank" for retirement does not appear very useful for someone who would ask for a  multi-entry permit and may not be around at the time they want to check something. Where the re-entry would substitute the 90 day report, the financial report remains to cause disruption to p r o n k r y ????

So you could be away enjoying a bit of your retirement in Japan or back in home country, and the extension gets cancelled (assumed guilty until proved innocent ????) . It seems this requirement wants you tethered to the office! (Boring  ???? )

So hypothetically does this mean aspiring frequent multi entry permit holders, may only use income method to be sure? (assuming SARS Cov-2 shall dissipate or mutate to be not so nasty).

Don't think it works that way.

If your were o/s the report back showing the funds would need to be done upon return.

Your stamp in pp would show when you exited and returned.

However don't know how it works when your away from your area in Thailand. Perhaps someone that deals with one of these rogue immigration offices could advise.

 

[peleid]

This has been like this since last year at my immigration, nothing new

[Gold Star]

In order to simplify things, I thought I would put in the 800k instead of getting my Canadian Consular affidavit letter proving annual income from my tax return once a year. 

Yet it appears the income method is far less hassle that the 800k method as they don't keep asking you several times a year if you still earn an income.

[Peter Denis]

This 3-month bank-balance check has also been introduced at my SiSaKet Immigration office for those making use of the Funds-in-Bank method when on a 1-year extension of stay for reason of retirement based on their original Non Imm O or O-A Visa.

Luckily at SiSaKet immigration they also 'reset' your 90-day reporting date when applying for the 1-year extension of stay, so that at least when having to come back for the 3-month bank-balance check you can do your 90-day report in one go.

Still it is of course a nuisance for those (like myself) who live far away from their local Imm Office to have to go back there 3 months after extension approval to have them check whether your bank-balance has not slipped under +800K.  Luckily once agian, at SiSaKet IO they do not require a 3-month bank-statement for doing that check, an updated Bank pass-book will do.

>> It would be extremely annoying if on top of that +800K bank-balance check after 3 months, if they would also - like for the OPs Pathumthani Imm Office - require you to come back after 6 months for a +400K bank-balance check. 

If my Imm Office would implement that 3-monthly return also after 6 months (and why not, also after 9 months) I would strongly consider changing to a different method to provide evidence of meeting the financial requirements,

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

In order to simplify things, I thought I would put in the 800k instead of getting my Canadian Consular affidavit letter proving annual income from my tax return once a year. 

Yet it appears the income method is far less hassle that the 800k method as they don't keep asking you several times a year if you still earn an income.

Without that +800K bank-balance check, the Funds-in-Bank method is by far the easiest way to meet the financial requirements for your 1-year retirement extensions based on your original Non Imm O or O-A Visa.

When eligible for the Embassy issued foreign income letter, that would be a worthwhile alternative (but not available for US, UK or Australian citizens).

I would not recommend switching to the Monthly Income Transfer method, as that is a quagmire of additional requirements that need to be met. 

[foreverlomsak]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:30 PM, DrJack54 said:

Apparently they are thinking about online report when we need go to toilet.

No, you've got to hold your hand up like kindergarten kids

[DrJack54]

45 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

When eligible for the Embassy issued foreign income letter, that would be a worthwhile alternative (but not available for US, UK or Australian citizens).

I would not recommend switching to the Monthly Income Transfer method, as that is a quagmire of additional requirements that need to be met. 

@Gold Star I think the above advice is on the money.

Being Oz and not having the option of income affidavit from my embassy I use money in the bank method. I choose to put 800+ in an FD account and just leave it.

Be aware that's it's very few immigration offices that require you to return 3 months after your extension is approved. As far as I know no office has required the 3 month report back followed by another 3 months later. However I guess anything is possible.

If you know your plans re living area when in Thailand you could check out local requirements. The vast majority do not require follow up check as per Jomtien along with few others which make their own rules.

[actonion]

I had that happen last September in Jomtien, the first time in 19 years of renewing my Visa,  but no slip of paper was inserted into my Passport..

[pmarlin]

I was going to switch to the money in the bank method but it's turning out the income method is easier as IO try to nail the cheaters using the money in the bank method.  Income method only requires a trip to the bank and you are done with it . Did it that way last year and it was easy except for the wait at he bank to get the two letters and credit advice statements. The hassle with money in the bank is caused by those who use agents who fund or lend you the money.

[DrJack54]

24 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

I was going to switch to the money in the bank method but it's turning out the income method is easier as IO try to nail the cheaters using the money in the bank method.  Income method only requires a trip to the bank and you are done with it . Did it that way last year and it was easy except for the wait at he bank to get the two letters and credit advice statements. The hassle with money in the bank is caused by those who use agents who fund or lend you the money.

That is simply not true. The hassle with using money in the bank method is down to few rogue offices requiring folk to return back to office 3 months later. 

When I apply for annual extension at CW, I obtain bank letter at banks lower level and present that along with photocopies of last 12 month transactions. That's it. Walk in the park. Don't be confused by few random rogue offices. Perhaps you deal with Jomtien.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by DrJack54

[Peter Denis]

7 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

I was going to switch to the money in the bank method but it's turning out the income method is easier as IO try to nail the cheaters using the money in the bank method.  Income method only requires a trip to the bank and you are done with it . Did it that way last year and it was easy except for the wait at he bank to get the two letters and credit advice statements. The hassle with money in the bank is caused by those who use agents who fund or lend you the money.

Whichever method you choose to meet the financial requirements for your 1-year extension of stay based on your original Non Imm O or O-A Visa, it ALWAYS requires a trip to the Bank.

But contrary to the Funds-in-Bank method when using the Monthly Income Transfer method, you would need to provide additional evidence:

- that each and every of the 12 monthly income transfers originated from abroad;

- the Imm Officer handling your application can ask your to provide evidence of the SOURCE of each of those 12 monthly income transfers (and some Imm Offices, e.g. Jomtien, ONLY accept a pension statement as proof of such SOURCE).

= = =

You also cannot 'switch' from one method to another mid-way.  This because the 1-year extension of stay application is a 2-step process:

1 - First the Imm Officer will check whether you did meet the conditions/requirements under which your 1-year permission to stay has been provided.  By switching mid-way from Funds-in-Bank to Monthly Income Transfer method (or vice-versa), you would not qualify for either and your application will be rejected.

2 - When you did 'honor' the conditions under which your current 1-year permission to stay was provided, the Imm Officer will then check whether you meet the requirements for your NEW 1-year extension of stay application.  And that means that there will be an 'overlap' period, during which it is recommended to meet both the conditions of your current 1-year extension as well as meeting the requirements for your new 1-year extension of stay.

When not switching from one method to another, the overlap-period is automatically taken care of, but that is NOT the case when switching, and you need to be very cautious that you do not accidentally fall between 2 chairs.  Considering that Imm Offices often have differing interpretations on how to interpret/apply the rules, it is strongly recommended to consult with them beforehand before switching method.

[pmarlin]

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

That is simply not true. The hassle with using money in the bank method is down to few rogue offices requiring folk to return back to office 3 months later. 

When I apply for annual extension at CW, I obtain bank letter at banks lower level and present that along with photocopies of last 12 month transactions. That's it. Walk in the park. Don't be confused by few random rogue offices. 

 

In my case it is true and you will see more IO will be doing what the OP experience.

[DrJack54]

2 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

In my case it is true and you will see more IO will be doing what the OP experience.

Which immigration office and your saying they require you to return after 3 and again after another 3 months?

[Chicken George]

My local office checks your balances for the previous year when you renew. If you have not kept the balance up no renewal and have to start again... No idea if they have canceled anyone's as I can only report what they said to me. 

[digger70]

On 3/6/2021 at 9:42 PM, Baerboxer said:

I extended my permission to stay end of last month. Pathumthani immigration now requires 2 additional visits to confirm the financials are maintained. My extension was granted and a slip inserted in my passport. The requirement now is to go back in 3 months to show the 800k ThB balance minimum has been maintained; and then go back in another 3 months to show the 400k ThB balance minimum has been maintained. The slip also states that failure to go back or maintain the balances means the visa / extension is cancelled. The nice lady who takes the photographs and hands finished passports back was carefully pointing this out to everyone.

 

Other changes were that the officer checking documents also now takes the fee and inserts it in your passport before taking the docs through to the general office. Change is given with the receipt and passport are returned. You used to have to get a new TM30 produced first. Now they just take a photocopy of the existing one. If you don't have one then you must go and get one first.

 

General comment: almost all of the officers were new, including the seniors. The general office was full of stacks of forms and paperwork, tied in large bundles with ribbon; stacked 2-3 feet high. Must be having a clear out?  

The process was very quick and efficient. The officers worked hard and the queue cleared very quickly. But I really have no idea as to why they now want to see bank books after 3 months and again after 6. 

 

Maybe this is to  make sure that one Has the Funds .

 And stop one using the Rogue agents if one doesn't Have the Funds or want to Invest ones funds instead of having sit it in an account that gives next to nothing interest.  ????

[Makoshark]

Just another reason why I prefer 65,000 every month 

 

never had an issue in 4 years 

[Acharn]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:30 PM, DrJack54 said:

Apparently they are thinking about ...

Speculating about what "they" are thinking is a waste of time. I am not a mind reader, and I don't know anybody else who is. 

[DogNo1]

If you do not have 800,000 in the bank at the time of your first 90-day report, will you be arrested and deported?  Or if you fall below 400,000 at any time?  I thought that the purpose of the 800,000 was to prove that you could support yourself during the year.  The requirement of a certain amount of funds in your account at various times contradicts that purpose.  If the authorities don't like what some agents are doing, they should find a different way to enforce compliance with their rules.  What is the purpose of requiring the maintenance of a certain balance anyway? If a hospital is not paid, is it able to seize the funds in the patient's bank account?  A hospital is in just as much jeapordy of not being paid by those of us who transfer 65,000 per month or from short-stay tourists or from overstayers.  

[DrJack54]

10 minutes ago, Acharn said:

Speculating about what "they" are thinking is a waste of time. I am not a mind reader, and I don't know anybody else who is. 

Come ON. Quote me in full. I stated was "apparently they are thinking about online report to go to the toilet"

You do not see an attempt at sarcasm.

Or maybe I missed your attempt.