Questioned by Immigration at the Airport on a 30 day entry

[paz]

Just a quick note.

All around the world a visa is the right to get to an immigration checkpoint. At said checkpoint the officer has final word as to wether or not on May or may not enter. For any reason they see fit.

That's just a fact that should be kept in mind when botching about immigration policy.

That is not a fact but your uninformed opinion. All of the world a decision to refuse someone with a valid visa cannot not taken by "the officer" but from a higher rank office that has the express power to do. It must be motivated and supported by the law, not "for any reason they see fit". and it goes accompanied by substantial paperwork. It can also be appealed. So, it not something that is done easily in Thailand or elsewhere. So in this case it you that botched posting.

[paz]

Thanks for the clarification Maestro. It really helps to know what is going on. I certainly don't want to do anything wrong here. I just want to know the precise rules and policies so that I can then choose the option which works best for me. It can be very frustrating to think one is doing things that were thought to be legal and then to be told that they are improper.

It is legal to enter often on visa exempt, within to the guidelines above, otherwise you would not have let be in. Thai Immigration is not there to make exceptions.

Edited May 10, 2015 by paz

[vermin on arrival]

Thanks for the clarification Maestro. It really helps to know what is going on. I certainly don't want to do anything wrong here. I just want to know the precise rules and policies so that I can then choose the option which works best for me. It can be very frustrating to think one is doing things that were thought to be legal and then to be told that they are improper.

It is legal to enter repeatedly on visa exempt, within to the guidelines above, otherwise you would not have let be in Thai Immigration is not there to make exceptions.

I guess my point, which may not have been adequately expressed, was that I was doing legal things, but then being told that it was improper or faulted by the airport immigration officers was confusing (after all CW gave me the extensions, but airport immigration didn't like me using them). It also would have been nice to know abut the informal policy of flagging people for questioning based on the quantity of 30 day exempt stamps being used in a 6 month or 1 year period. Flagging peple for questions implies that there is suspicion of improper behavior which I am not doing.

[natas]

Just a quick note.

All around the world a visa is the right to get to an immigration checkpoint. At said checkpoint the officer has final word as to wether or not on May or may not enter. For any reason they see fit.

That's just a fact that should be kept in mind when botching about immigration policy.

That is not a fact but your uninformed opinion. All of the world a decision to refuse someone with a valid visa cannot not taken by "the officer" but from a higher rank office that has the express power to do. It must be motivated and supported by the law, not "for any reason they see fit". and it goes accompanied by substantial paperwork. It can also be appealed. So, it not something that is done easily in Thailand or elsewhere. So in this case it you that botched posting.

Your opinion.

Wikipedia puts it in two places. So uninformed I am not.

"Even having a visa does not guarantee entry to the host country. The border crossing authorities make the final determination to allow entry, and may even cancel a visa at the border if the alien cannot demonstrate to their satisfaction that they will abide by the status their visa grants them."

"Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter a country and thus are, in some countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country. In each instance, a visa is subject to permission by an immigration official at the time of actual entry and can be revoked at any time."

As far as your statement of the decision being made by an office not an officer... Since when did you or anyone else get your entry stamp from an office and not an officer? I have personally witnessed in 2 countries people being denied / nearly denied entry from an immigration officer although the person had a visa. One was at JFK where they explained exactly what I wrote. They hold the ball. Can deny entry even if you have a visa.

Furthermore since someone is truly uninformed: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deny+entry+despite+visa

Try this: and read of many situations where it went down as I described.

Uninformed indeed...

[paz]

Your opinion.

Wikipedia puts it in two places. So uninformed I am not.

"Even having a visa does not guarantee entry to the host country. The border crossing authorities make the final determination to allow entry, and may even cancel a visa at the border if the alien cannot demonstrate to their satisfaction that they will abide by the status their visa grants them."

"Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter a country and thus are, in some countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country. In each instance, a visa is subject to permission by an immigration official at the time of actual entry and can be revoked at any time."

As far as your statement of the decision being made by an office not an officer... Since when did you or anyone else get your entry stamp from an office and not an officer? I have personally witnessed in 2 countries people being denied / nearly denied entry from an immigration officer although the person had a visa. One was at JFK where they explained exactly what I wrote. They hold the ball. Can deny entry even if you have a visa.

Furthermore since someone is truly uninformed: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deny+entry+despite+visa

Try this: and read of many situations where it went down as I described.

Uninformed indeed...

You are the one wrong here. You said, "the officer" - wrong. Sorry ,I misspelled "higher rank officer", not "office". And you said "any reason they see fit" - wrong. Does wikipedia says that ? Then you made assuming and unfounded accusations toward the OP intentions... not good.

Furthermore this forum is about Thailand immigration, not the entire world. The legal reasons to deny entry are listed in law, and in fact Thai immigration (this is not the US) uses them, do you want to see the list ?

Hint: others that newly joined the forum like you, came here and wanted to teach and preach. Then they were told what is what, and are not trying anymore.

I recommend you accept the facts and move on.

Edited May 10, 2015 by paz

[dbrenn]

Your opinion.

Wikipedia puts it in two places. So uninformed I am not.

"Even having a visa does not guarantee entry to the host country. The border crossing authorities make the final determination to allow entry, and may even cancel a visa at the border if the alien cannot demonstrate to their satisfaction that they will abide by the status their visa grants them."

"Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter a country and thus are, in some countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country. In each instance, a visa is subject to permission by an immigration official at the time of actual entry and can be revoked at any time."

As far as your statement of the decision being made by an office not an officer... Since when did you or anyone else get your entry stamp from an office and not an officer? I have personally witnessed in 2 countries people being denied / nearly denied entry from an immigration officer although the person had a visa. One was at JFK where they explained exactly what I wrote. They hold the ball. Can deny entry even if you have a visa.

Furthermore since someone is truly uninformed: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deny+entry+despite+visa

Try this: and read of many situations where it went down as I described.

Uninformed indeed...

You are the one wrong here. You said, "the officer" - wrong. Sorry ,I misspelled "higher rank officer", not "office". And you said "any reason they see fit" - wrong. Does wikipedia says that ? Then you made assuming and unfounded accusations toward the OP intentions... not good.

Furthermore this forum is about Thailand immigration, not the entire world. The legal reasons to deny entry are listed in law, and in fact Thai immigration (this is not the US) uses them, do you want to see the list ?

Hint: others that newly joined the forum like you, came here and wanted to teach and preach. Then they were told what is what, and are not trying anymore.

I recommend you accept the facts and move on.

Section 12.3 of the immigration act states that they can refuse you entry if you are entering the country to take up employment illegally, i.e., contrary to the terms of your visa or visa exempt status.

How does one prove that he or she is not working illegally? Haven't there been instances of refusal or out/in entry to resident 'tourists', based on the suspicion of working, with entry still refused even when the senior officer was asked to make a decision? If so, then that would appear to substantiate Natas's point that (here, like other countries) one can be refused immigration clearance according to the opinion of the officer (or his superior) at the border. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't this happened in the past?

I don't see the need to be so hard on Nadas for being new - sometimes newbies have valid points to make too, and should not be chased off the forum by the 'senior poster police' for making them

Edited May 11, 2015 by dbrenn

[Mario2008]

The oficer at the border makes a decision, but by law you can appeal this decison with the minister/immigration commission and utlimately there is the administrative court. So it is not a final decision and the officer needs to have valid reasons. (That is why they ask for rpoof of funds or a ticket out, if you haven't got them they have a very valid reason to deny you entry and no appeal will help).

[dbrenn]

The oficer at the border makes a decision, but by law you can appeal this decison with the minister/immigration commission and utlimately there is the administrative court. So it is not a final decision and the officer needs to have valid reasons. (That is why they ask for rpoof of funds or a ticket out, if you haven't got them they have a very valid reason to deny you entry and no appeal will help).

Granted Mario2008 that there is an appeal process. But how does that help a poor unfortunate getting refused entry at the border, on the suspicion of working illegally? Access to a lengthy appeal system is a hard and costly process, made harder unless one is in Thailand, and proving that one is not working illegally, even in court, may be difficult for resident 'tourists' with no work permit and no apparent or taxable income. The practicalities of appealing a decision, only to face the prospect that the whole process might be repeated in the future, would more likely lead to a decision to live elsewhere. I don't know of anyone who would plan his or her future in a country where he or she faced that prospect at each and every arrival. This is, perhaps and for whatever reason, immigration's strategy of controlling the numbers without bothering to change the law.

Going back to the point Natas raised: haven't immigration officers indeed been refusing entry, and / or making the process of entry extremely onerous, based on their suspicion that the traveller is intending to breach the condition of his or her visa exempt or tourist status?

Edited May 11, 2015 by dbrenn

[Mario2008]

The appeal process through the ministerimmigraiton commission takes 7 days, if they don't reach a desicion by then you are automatically allowed to enter.

Can't say how long an appeal on the court will take, but the administrative court is not shy in correcting the government and the government knows this. The main problem is that people are reluctant to take steps.

Yes, immigration officers make it troublesome if they have a suspecion. But mostly in that case they check if one has the required sum of cash and a ticket out within the required time frame. If that is in order they normally warn you that you must have a visa next time and let you through.

[natas]

Your opinion.

Wikipedia puts it in two places. So uninformed I am not.

"Even having a visa does not guarantee entry to the host country. The border crossing authorities make the final determination to allow entry, and may even cancel a visa at the border if the alien cannot demonstrate to their satisfaction that they will abide by the status their visa grants them."

"Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter a country and thus are, in some countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country. In each instance, a visa is subject to permission by an immigration official at the time of actual entry and can be revoked at any time."

As far as your statement of the decision being made by an office not an officer... Since when did you or anyone else get your entry stamp from an office and not an officer? I have personally witnessed in 2 countries people being denied / nearly denied entry from an immigration officer although the person had a visa. One was at JFK where they explained exactly what I wrote. They hold the ball. Can deny entry even if you have a visa.

Furthermore since someone is truly uninformed: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deny+entry+despite+visa

Try this: and read of many situations where it went down as I described.

Uninformed indeed...

You are the one wrong here. You said, "the officer" - wrong. Sorry ,I misspelled "higher rank officer", not "office". And you said "any reason they see fit" - wrong. Does wikipedia says that ? Then you made assuming and unfounded accusations toward the OP intentions... not good.

Furthermore this forum is about Thailand immigration, not the entire world. The legal reasons to deny entry are listed in law, and in fact Thai immigration (this is not the US) uses them, do you want to see the list ?

Hint: others that newly joined the forum like you, came here and wanted to teach and preach. Then they were told what is what, and are not trying anymore.

I recommend you accept the facts and move on.

Wikipedia doesn't generally include specific cases, ThaiVisa does although, I have read about several cases where entry denial is proposed to be grounded on false, unfair or unlawful reasons, (for example http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/744109-has-anyone-on-2828-or-similar-equal-time-rota-actually-been-refused-entry/page-2) or a search for "entry denial reasons" renders more.

Fact is fact, immigration at the airport or land crossing can and does deny entry to people; to valid visa holders and even to it's own citizens! (my THAI wife was denied entry at PoiPet on her THAI passport, no amount of discussing or rationalizing would help the situation.) If anyone is interested in that crazy story I might find time to post it someday.

The rest can be argued to death, I have a life and I do not want to waste time or clog up the forum with a bunch of nitpicking and trying to show that I'm better than anyone else. This is not a priority of mine. I made no accusations whatsoever to you or the OP in my post, it was general information to keep in mind when weighing the options and thinking about THAI Visas or exempts to them as in this case.

I think many are unaware of the fact that the final decision of entry is made at the instance of entry, not by the embassy, consulate, and does not always "follow the rules" You and many members have repeatedly stated and confirmed that: "The Consulate websites do not have update credible information" (from the previous linked post) Many would agree that at times it appears they make up the rules as they go along. It can be a stressful and devastating situation, having as many real world facts on hand is something that comes in handy in these situations. Being arrogant and telling the official they are wrong and they cant or must do this or that will only get you in a worse situation in my experience. The information in my post is meant to give reason to people NOT to think they are entitled to entry because they think they are following the rules. I will not back down on the usefulness of this, I wouldn't have posted it if I did not believe it was useful information, again TV has too much un-useful bickering and downright rude posts.

I think a better HINT to new users is to share their experience knowledge and thoughts without regard to the bullies, arrogant, and often bitter users who seem to often jump all over people and give the forum an overall negative feel. I'm sure other lurkers and newbies such as myself appreciate helpful posts.

For the record: I did not newly join anyway, I've been here for many many years. I don't post often because for fear of being attacked.

[Pattaya46]

Fact is fact, immigration at the airport or land crossing can and does deny entry to people;

to valid visa holders and even to it's own citizens!

I think that now you are good to prove these last two points. . Some example? Some link?

[wooloomooloo]

Fact is fact, immigration at the airport or land crossing can and does deny entry to people;

to valid visa holders and even to it's own citizens!

I think that now you are good to prove these last two points. . Some example? Some link?

I note that natas is offline so I took a look. I googled and found this first example in seconds, and, sure enough, it was a TV link.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/742573-tourist-visa-holders-denied-entry-to-thailand-and-left-stranded-in-malaysia/

[Pattaya46]

I note that natas is offline so I took a look. I googled and found this first example in seconds, and, sure enough, it was a TV link.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/742573-tourist-visa-holders-denied-entry-to-thailand-and-left-stranded-in-malaysia/

First it's old already, and it's very different because it's a case of "back to back tourist visas" with already a "visa history" : "All of the foreigners who were denied entry had a previous history of multiple visa exempt entries or back to back tourist visas".

These are cases of people already in Thailand who try to stay longer. We are far from Natas initial claim that they can block your "for any reason they see fit". Here was a valid reason largely announced in the media.

[wooloomooloo]

How did I know you were going to say that Pattaya46? LOL.

I could continue searching but I'm not going to.

If immigration officers weren't conferred authority to deny entry on grounds they deemed in the country's interest, then we'd all just walk through, wouldn't we?

Natas is quite correct. You can be denied at any time. You might have the right of appeal but you'll be doing it out of country.

[vermin on arrival]

Fact is fact, immigration at the airport or land crossing can and does deny entry to people; to valid visa holders and even to it's own citizens! (my THAI wife was denied entry at PoiPet on her THAI passport, no amount of discussing or rationalizing would help the situation.) If anyone is interested in that crazy story I might find time to post it someday.

I'd be interested in hearing that one....

[chrisinth]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Fact is fact, immigration at the airport or land crossing can and does deny entry to people; to valid visa holders and even to it's own citizens! (my THAI wife was denied entry at PoiPet on her THAI passport, no amount of discussing or rationalizing would help the situation.) If anyone is interested in that crazy story I might find time to post it someday.

I'd be interested in hearing that one....

Yep, I'd second that. Even if she exited on another passport................

[Namplik]

Nothing really new here. In case of frequent travel to Thailand on visa exempt entries within 6 months time you are automatically flagged for questioning and you are not the first person being told to next time enter on a toruist visa or non-immigrant visa.

Might indeed be better to get a tourist visa for your next trip.

If after being flagged and you enter the next time with a TR, are you then "good to go" later with a few visa exemption entries? In other words, will a tourist visa break this chain of entries on visa exemptions?

[ubonjoe]

Nothing really new here. In case of frequent travel to Thailand on visa exempt entries within 6 months time you are automatically flagged for questioning and you are not the first person being told to next time enter on a toruist visa or non-immigrant visa.

Might indeed be better to get a tourist visa for your next trip.

If after being flagged and you enter the next time with a TR, are you then "good to go" later with a few visa exemption entries? In other words, will a tourist visa break this chain of entries on visa exemptions?

I think the 6 entry alert would remain but they would look favorably on you having a tourist visa entry since you last visa exempt entry and you would you not be questioned about your entry.

[Namplik]

Nothing really new here. In case of frequent travel to Thailand on visa exempt entries within 6 months time you are automatically flagged for questioning and you are not the first person being told to next time enter on a toruist visa or non-immigrant visa.

Might indeed be better to get a tourist visa for your next trip.

If after being flagged and you enter the next time with a TR, are you then "good to go" later with a few visa exemption entries? In other words, will a tourist visa break this chain of entries on visa exemptions?

I think the 6 entry alert would remain but they would look favorably on you having a tourist visa entry since you last visa exempt entry and you would you not be questioned about your entry.

Yes I don't think the TR entry will cause any questions, but I mean future entries on visa exemptions.

Have anybody here on TV done that? Got flagged, next entry on TR, and then tried to enter only on visa exemption?