Extension of stay for Retirement - New Requirement

[Knocker33]

No wonder they have dropped in the world's places to retire. Expect an even bigger drop next year. I have just changed to a marriage extension and the pressure they tried put on me to keep the retirement extension was comical. Coming out with all kinds of rubbish

I asked wasn't it just that they wanted control of MY money for a year. No answer. 

[DrJack54]

51 minutes ago, Knocker33 said:

No wonder they have dropped in the world's places to retire. Expect an even bigger drop next year. I have just changed to a marriage extension and the pressure they tried put on me to keep the retirement extension was comical. Coming out with all kinds of rubbish

I asked wasn't it just that they wanted control of MY money for a year. No answer. 

Can you outline the process for changing from based on retirement to based on marriage.

Meaning the detail of money in bank prior to attending immigration for extension based on marriage.

Edited March 8, 2021 by DrJack54

[ubonjoe]

On 3/8/2021 at 7:44 PM, DrJack54 said:

Meaning the detail of money in bank prior to attending immigration for extension based on marriage.

You just need to keep enough to meet 400k baht requirement for 2 months. Plus meet the retirement requirements before those 2 months.

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You just need to keep enough to meet 400k baht requirement for 2 months. Plus meet the retirement requirements before those 2 months.

Yes, thought as much, just pointing out to anyone thinking of changing reason for extension is aware of exactly what you stated.

Edited March 10, 2021 by DrJack54

[Baerboxer]

On 3/6/2021 at 10:31 PM, damascase said:

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

 

Perhaps. But why not check monthly then? Yes that would be an overkill. But why only check the 400k after 6 months and not 9? 

I really have no idea, nor does anyone else. We can speculate but that all it is. 

And why are all offices not verifying compliance? 

The reason Big Joke introduced this during his short reign seems to have been lost really. All it has done is create another rule that some seek to circumvent, and more bureaucracy for some. 

I haven't read any reports so far of anyone whose not complied. So we have yet to see what happens. 

[Baerboxer]

On 3/6/2021 at 10:38 PM, DrJack54 said:

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

 

It's in the first sentence! You read that way before the reference to TM30.

[Baerboxer]

On 3/6/2021 at 10:35 PM, DrJack54 said:

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

 

They could. But that doesn't mean other offices won't follow suit or introduce their own variant. What is not known is why some have chosen to do this, others not.

Is it some how envisaged as saving them time when processing renewal applications? Or have some offices had issues with people not complying? Or another idea to get people to use agents? 

Unfortunately, it's all speculation. 

[Baerboxer]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:58 AM, DrJack54 said:

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.

 

 

Given that most if not all offices seem to have their preferences and quirks; not to mention individual IO oddities, why do you insist on calling these offices "rogue' for checking compliance in a way that's not how you'd prefer? 

[Baerboxer]

On 3/8/2021 at 9:48 AM, DrJack54 said:

@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.

 

These type of changes, IME, usually occur when new senior officer(s) come in. It seems they like to change a few things to show they've arrived! 

Bit like charging a fee for the "free" address confirmation - some charge, some don't. But depends on the boss at the time.

[DouglasTsui]

On 3/7/2021 at 7:58 AM, DrJack54 said:

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.

 

wow...Rogue indeed

[Baerboxer]

On 3/8/2021 at 11:40 AM, Chicken George said:

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. 

 

I thinks that's what they, or the vast majority did, to start with. 

But that doesn't answer how they would deal with the issue of the previous extension being cancelled as soon as you went below the required balance.  If, as some offices clearly indicate, your extension of stay permission is cancelled, then you would be on overstay because you are here without a valid visa or visa extension. 

The have been no reports of this actually happening, and hopefully no one will ever find themselves in that position. But until then, prudence seems better.

[Baerboxer]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:58 AM, DrJack54 said:

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.

 

 

There is no empirical evidence to check how it works. But logically, if you were overseas and missed reporting back showing your bank balance was maintained, you'd have to go when you returned. 

Of course, assuming the balance has been maintained.

[Peter Denis]

34 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

I thinks that's what they, or the vast majority did, to start with. 

But that doesn't answer how they would deal with the issue of the previous extension being cancelled as soon as you went below the required balance.  If, as some offices clearly indicate, your extension of stay permission is cancelled, then you would be on overstay because you are here without a valid visa or visa extension. 

The have been no reports of this actually happening, and hopefully no one will ever find themselves in that position. But until then, prudence seems better.

Once again, it would depend on the Imm office (and the Imm officer handling your application) what would happen if they detect that you did not meet the condition of having maintained the +800K/+400K during the 12 months prior to your current application using the Funds-in-Bank method for the 1-year extension based on your original Non Imm O or O-A Visa for reason of retirement.

And there have been reports of applicants that applied for their new 1-year extension and that did not realize at the moment of application that they did NOT fully meet the condition of maintaining the required funds during the 12 months prior to their application.  What will happen depends on the gravity of the non-compliance, the period during which applicant did not comply and the friendliness/flexibility of the officer handling your application.

I have read reports of applicants where a friendly Imm Officer, told them they did not meet the conditions for their new 1-year extension of stay, but allowed them to leave the Office so that they could 'repair/fix' the situation.  E.g. by making a border-run and returning VisaExempt which then allows to start from scratch again by applying for a new Non Imm O Visa.  Or by engaging a Fixer Agent to circumvent the financial condition for their new 1-year extension application.

BUT I have also come across a very troubling report of an applicant who thought he could make use of the +800K and lower it to +400K during the first 3 months after he received his 1-year extension of stay.  He did that during the 2th month of his extension, and so when he applied for his new 1-year extension of stay, he was technically more than 10 months on 'overstay' because of that breach during the 2nd month.  And the unfortunate got the Full Penalty for that non-compliance.  As the overstay was more than 90 Days, he got a 20,000 Thai baht overstay fine and was deported with a 1 year ban from Thailand.

Obviously, that's an incredible harsh punishment for what in his case was a simple misunderstanding of the rules, and he was not aware of that otherwise he would of course have never applied at his local Imm Office with that clear non-compliance and encountering a totally inflexible and unfriendly Officer.  If he had consulted somebody in the know about his situation, the advice should have been NOT to apply at Immigration but to exit Thailand and re-enter VisaExempt (or to engage a Fixer Agent). 

Afterthought > In his case the +800K bank-balance check by Immigration would have been a Blessing in Disguise, because that would have limited his 'overstay' to under 90 days, and a fine would have solved the matter.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Peter Denis

[JimGant]

You mean, those using rogue visa agents to sidestep the 800k in the bank requirement -- are now going to be found out? How sad. And here I thought Imm officers (some, at least) were getting a piece of the pie from these rogue visa agents..... But, aghast, the golden goose is being barbecued, at least by some Imm offices. Is this a nod towards integrity? Naaaa. Probably the rogue visa agents had become too niggardly with their commissions.

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, JimGant said:

You mean, those using rogue visa agents to sidestep the 800k in the bank requirement -- are now going to be found out? How sad. And here I thought Imm officers (some, at least) were getting a piece of the pie from these rogue visa agents..... But, aghast, the golden goose is being barbecued, at least by some Imm offices. Is this a nod towards integrity? Naaaa. Probably the rogue visa agents had become too niggardly with their commissions.

The Fixer Agents that can circumvent the 800K/400K requirement for your 1-year retirement extension of stay application, are doing your application in 'friendly' Imm Offices where they have connections.  So, unless they provide 3-month bank-balance circumvention, as part of their Fixer service, they will opt to do your application at Imm Offices where they do not have that 3-month bank-balance check.

But of course, you would also have to do your 90-day report at the office where your 1-year extension of stay was provided.  That's why users of the service normally 'relocate' back to the address where they are actually living, by filing a relocation TM-30 at their local Imm office (which has to be done in person).  Of course the Imm officer of your local Imm Office will know exactly what happened when you relocate back to your address (which you didn't leave in the first place). But it is a general accepted/tolerated practice to use a Fixer Agent and the Imm officer of your local Imm Office is unlikely to 'rock the boat' (you never know who is on the take at the other side and the connections he might have higher-up).

[DrJack54]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

. What is not known is why some have chosen to do this, others not

Talk about putting a spin on things.

There are ~ 80 immigration offices. I suggest 70+ offices do not require return to imm 3 months post application to check funds. To put it more simply there are a few rogue offices that require this, with Jomtien being the largest. Absolute ridiculous situation.

[DogNo1]

Does anybody know the reasoning behind the extension of stay requirements?  What is the purpose of the 90-day reporting?  In Japan, there is no such thing.  Of course, you must register with the local ward or city office where you are staying when you first arrive.  You are then given a residence card that is good for several years and must be renewed at the local office when it expires.  At the city office, you can enroll in Japanese Health Insurance for which you pay a monthly fee and 30% of the cost when you use medical or dental services.  You can use any provider public or private.

[DrJack54]

6 minutes ago, DogNo1 said:

Does anybody know the reasoning behind the extension of stay requirements?  What is the purpose of the 90-day reporting?  In Japan, there is no such thing.  Of course, you must register with the local ward or city office where you are staying when you first arrive.  You are then given a residence card that is good for several years and must be renewed at the local office when it expires.  At the city office, you can enroll in Japanese Health Insurance for which you pay a monthly fee and 30% of the cost when you use medical or dental services.  You can use any provider public or private.

Say what! 

We ain't in Japan and I suggest what Japan does has nothing to do with with what Thailand chooses to do. 

BTW when I visit Japan I get stamped in for 90 days. My Thai partner gets stamped in for 15. I believe many countries have more easy requirements than Thailand. Personally I have found living in Thailand for last 10 years a cakewalk.

[DogNo1]

Why can't visa policies of different countries be compared? And why can't the reasoning behind the policies be questioned?  I have lived between Japan and Thailand for many years.  Policies in Thailand have changed and I'm interested in the reasoning for the policies.

[Piscis]

As mentioned before:

What will happen if i am not in Thailand at that date i have to show there is still the required balance in my Passbook? Would they exept that argument just because the exit/entry stamp in my Passport? Would i have to show up immigration after i return to Thailand to proof funds? If i get a multi Entry Re-Entry permit, should i explain the upcomming not possible funds report upon gettingt that Re-Entry permit?

Or would it be excepted from the IO if i send my spouse to the IO, so she can show them that the required funds are still there?

I am very confused on how to handle that situation. If i know my next stay in Thailand would be less than 3 months, does it makes sense at all to enter on that exsiting Re-Entry permit?

Thanks!

John

[DrJack54]

23 minutes ago, Piscis said:

As mentioned before:

What will happen if i am not in Thailand at that date i have to show there is still the required balance in my Passbook? Would they exept that argument just because the exit/entry stamp in my Passport? Would i have to show up immigration after i return to Thailand to proof funds? If i get a multi Entry Re-Entry permit, should i explain the upcomming not possible funds report upon gettingt that Re-Entry permit?

Or would it be excepted from the IO if i send my spouse to the IO, so she can show them that the required funds are still there?

I am very confused on how to handle that situation. If i know my next stay in Thailand would be less than 3 months, does it makes sense at all to enter on that exsiting Re-Entry permit?

Thanks!

John

Stop worrying. If you deal with imm office that requires you to show bankbook post 3 months and you are not in the country then just visit imm office upon return. Bring along passport to show stamps out/in and TM6. 

[Baerboxer]

On 3/11/2021 at 3:09 PM, DrJack54 said:

Talk about putting a spin on things.

There are ~ 80 immigration offices. I suggest 70+ offices do not require return to imm 3 months post application to check funds. To put it more simply there are a few rogue offices that require this, with Jomtien being the largest. Absolute ridiculous situation.

 

What are you talking about? Some do, some don't. You seem to think that just because many don't it means that's some sort of rule. It doesn't. The issue is there are no standard and set procedures around how officers must apply the rules and verify things. Therefore there can be no "rogues" as you insist but simply differences. As to what makes some officers and offices do things differently, we can only speculate as their is no direction or comment from the center.

 

[Baerboxer]

On 3/12/2021 at 7:59 PM, DrJack54 said:

Stop worrying. If you deal with imm office that requires you to show bankbook post 3 months and you are not in the country then just visit imm office upon return. Bring along passport to show stamps out/in and TM6. 

 

And you have this on authority do you?

 

No, it's just you thinking you can apply common sense and logic, as you see it. And as we've read, time and time again, common sense and logic have nothing to do with it. All depends on the individual officer on the day!

 

I'd suggest anyone in this position contacts their Immigration Office and ask them before, not after.

[DrJack54]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

I'd suggest anyone in this position contacts their Immigration Office and ask them before, not after

You making this stuff up! So if using money in bank and your imm office (ie Jomtien) requires you to show your bankbook etc 3 months after extension granted and you just happen to be overseas then you need fly back to Thailand to show your bank book. 

Good one. Ha

[mikebike]

On 3/8/2021 at 8:53 AM, Peter Denis said:

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.

No. It most definitely is not. As mentioned by the poster you were responding to, the consulate letter is BY FAR the easiest.

[mikebike]

On 3/8/2021 at 9:48 AM, DrJack54 said:

Being Oz and not having the option of income affidavit from my embassy I use money in the bank method.

Why have certain countries dispensed with the verification letter? Seems like it is your own govts making things harder for you... Thai rules are still fine with income verification letter even after all the kerfuffle a couple of years ago.

[mikebike]

On 3/12/2021 at 5:13 PM, DogNo1 said:

Why can't visa policies of different countries be compared? And why can't the reasoning behind the policies be questioned?  I have lived between Japan and Thailand for many years.  Policies in Thailand have changed and I'm interested in the reasoning for the policies.

Discuss away, but you will never reach a conclusion comparing the vagaries of immigration rules of various sovereign countries with wildly different governing philosophies.

[DrJack54]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Seems like it is your own govts making things harder for you...

The thing is the embassy (I will only refer to Oz) were not "verifying" anything. They simply accepted you statuary declaration.  Think USA call em affidavit.

In any event they are witnessing your signing of Dec.

I was also told by embassy staff that the Oz embassy should not have been providing stat decs in the first place as they can only be used in Au.

Note I'm just repeating what I was told first hand by this embassy person. No idea if accurate.

[mikebike]

55 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

The thing is the embassy (I will only refer to Oz) were not "verifying" anything. They simply accepted you statuary declaration.  Think USA call em affidavit.

In any event they are witnessing your signing of Dec.

I was also told by embassy staff that the Oz embassy should not have been providing stat decs in the first place as they can only be used in Au.

Note I'm just repeating what I was told first hand by this embassy person. No idea if accurate.

Understood. What they are saying is: we cannot be arsed to make your life easier, we don't care if it's cool with Thailand, we choose to not help.

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Understood. What they are saying is: we cannot be arsed to make your life easier, we don't care if it's cool with Thailand, we choose to not help.

All of that was discussed when they stopped doing them due to immigration wanting them to be verified back in 2018..

The 3 embassies that don't do them now could not verify the income under the rules and regulations they had to comply with.