Jump to content
BANGKOK 21 July 2019 01:19
ubonjoe

The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Based on recent reports, if you are not staying in a hotel, a TM30 might be necessary. None of the other items is needed.

Thanks for the info! I have a relatively affordable apartment, so I just signed a 1 year lease, even though I'm a tourist. Still have a while before I need the extension and can still do a visa run, so seems very solvable. The apartment is owned by a relatively big company with a lot of properties, so they might have done the TM30 already and just not given it to me. I've asked now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an METV from the UK a while back. One of the docs they ask for (unless you're employed) is your tax return. On the front of the tax return there is a box you have to tick if you were not resident in the UK for tax purposes. On my next return, I will have to tick that box. The return will show income from UK properties, so the fact that the box is ticked doesn't really imply that I am working abroad, but could still set alarm bells ringing.

 

I'm thinking it would be a bad idea to apply for an METV on the back of a return with the non-resident box ticked, but any thoughts / info would be good.

 

Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got an METV from the UK a while back. One of the docs they ask for (unless you're employed) is your tax return. On the front of the tax return there is a box you have to tick if you were not resident in the UK for tax purposes. On my next return, I will have to tick that box. The return will show income from UK properties, so the fact that the box is ticked doesn't really imply that I am working abroad, but could still set alarm bells ringing.
 
I'm thinking it would be a bad idea to apply for an METV on the back of a return with the non-resident box ticked, but any thoughts / info would be good.
 
Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?
you are over thinking it, for me they give the self assessment a cursory glance
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Percy Penguin said:

Also, if you spend X months in Thailand, I can't see immigration caring whether you do it on SETVs or on an METV. Is that fair to say?

That is my opinion. However, the fact that you travelled back to home country, and are entering by air from "home", is a point in your favour, I think (not a guarantee against immigration abrogating your visa, though).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BritTim said:

That is my opinion. However, the fact that you travelled back to home country, and are entering by air from "home", is a point in your favour, I think (not a guarantee against immigration abrogating your visa, though).

Another point might be that when applying for the METV, you prove you have about 200k THB in a bank account. When IOs arbitrarily deny people they stamp reason 12.2 in the passport which basically means that this person doesn't have money. That's obviously a bit problematic if the person recently proved that they have money to the embassy / consulate (and depending on the country, the visa holder even showed that he is employed there).

If an IO would deny a person for 12.2, this would mean that the IO declares the embassy / consulate which issued the visa as incompetent. If the denied person contacts the embassy and complains about this, maybe they would initiate an official complain about the IO because they don't like to be called imcompetent to do their job.

 

For a SETV you usually don't prove funds (i know, at some places you have to show 20k THB), so the above situation would not arise.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/28/2019 at 2:21 AM, jackdd said:

Nobody says non-existent laws are broken.

JackThompson; " so they break the law they are supposed to be enforcing."

 

I'm waiting to see evidence of the law the IO's are breaking.

 

Quote

IOs tell people one reason for denial and stamp another one in their passport, which shows that they are denying them arbitrarily, but there is now law which allows them to do this.

They are denying based on discretionary powers given by the IB/IC/MoI.

 

If they were denying based on time spent in the country it would be unlawful in the absence of a law or regulation allowing them to use that. But they aren't.

 

There are several reasons why they don't need to set a hard and fast rule, but they do not need to when denying long term tourists because they can legitimately be denied under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9.

 

They are lawfully denying entry using formal procedure and reasons listed in the immigration act.

 

Quote

So if they deny people in such a way, the IOs are abusing their official power, are detaining them illegally, are causing damage to them, and are probably breaking several other laws.

Show me the law that states a foreigner must be let in to the country. I can show you the law that allows immigration to lawfully detain anyone they do not want to allow entry to.

 

 

You/others may not like how they do things, but it is what it is. As Ive written many times; the alternative is to set hard rules through regulation. That would not stop them denying entry, in fact the numbers of denials would almost certainly increase. Why you/others want that is beyond me when you're supposed to be on the side of the long term tourist!

 

 

Edited by elviajero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

The Immigration Act has very specific "only" reasons for denial of entry.  "Staying repeatedly on Tourist Entries" is not listed as a reason to deny entry.

And they are not denied using that reason.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

Denying entry for a false reason / pretense.

They are denying entry based on the specific reasons listed in the immigration act.

 

Regardless of the underlying reason they can and do use other legitimate reasons.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

No one has been mis-informed.  I described exactly what has happened to many.  The person I responded to now knows what could potentially happen, and how to avoid problems.  That is the most important thing.

You mis-inform all the time based on your limited experience and anti-immigration bias.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 3:49 AM, JackThompson said:

Your disagreement with me on the IOs breaking the law does not change the reality the poster could face.

The reality is simple. Anyone staying long term in the country as a tourist is potentially going to get denied. It's not due to individual IO's, but immigration policy. You have all the evidence you need but do not want to accept it. The fact that the consulates stamp passports with a message along the lines of what the IO's are saying at the border is evidence enough. But for you it's all about cliques, lawless airports, corruption (without money being asked for) etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, elviajero said:

There are several reasons why they don't need to set a hard and fast rule, but they do not need to when denying long term tourists because they can legitimately be denied under 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9.

Why restrict the reason to 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9. It would be just as lawful to deny entry under, say, 12.4 or 12.7. How does someone prove they are not mentally unstable? The immigration official can just say that is what they believe. Indeed, since the underlying reason for the denial is that immigration thinks someone would have to be crazy to spend many months in Thailand as a genuine tourist, 12 (4) would seem the most logical reason for the denial. Further, how do we know someone is not a danger to the public? Again, the official could claim that, in his opinion, it is the case.

Edited by BritTim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Why restrict the reason to 12.2, 12.3 or 12.9. It would be just as lawful to deny entry under, say, 12.4 or 12.7. How does someone prove they are not mentally unstable? The immigration official can just say that is what they believe. Indeed, since the underlying reason for the denial is that immigration thinks someone would have to be crazy to spend many months in Thailand as a genuine tourist, 12 (4) would seem the most logical reason for the denial. Further, how do we know someone is not a danger to the public? Again, the official could claim that, in his opinion, it is the case.

Why would you be surprised that a countries immigration policy favours the country and not the alien? The power is all with the IO’s. 

 

They use 2 and 3 as they are relevant to the underlying reason for denial. If you’ve spent months in the country you haven’t satisfied 2, and are possibly/likely doing 2. As most long term tourists now know to carry cash they can’t use 9 much these days.

 

I suppose they could claim the ‘tourist’ was really a prostitute (8), but it’s not really needed when 2 can be used in virtually every case.

Edited by elviajero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Why would you be surprised that a countries immigration policy favours the country and not the alien? The power is all with the IO’s. 

 

They use 2 and 3 as they are relevant to the underlying reason for denial. If you’ve spent months in the country you haven’t satisfied 2, and are possibly/likely doing 2. As most long term tourists now know to carry cash they can’t use 9 much these days.

 

I suppose they could claim the ‘tourist’ was really a prostitute (8), but it’s not really needed when 2 can be used in virtually every case.

We clearly disagree on the intentions of those who drafted the Immigration Act. It is my belief that they wanted immigration officials to have very limited discretion: only denying entry for the reasons (real reasons) in Section 12 of the Act (also not allowing officials to allow in those excluded under Section 12). Allowing officials to cite any reason under Section 12 they like without the slightest real basis or evidence for doing so makes a mockery of the Act's intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BritTim said:

We clearly disagree on the intentions of those who drafted the Immigration Act. It is my belief that they wanted immigration officials to have very limited discretion: only denying entry for the reasons (real reasons) in Section 12 of the Act (also not allowing officials to allow in those excluded under Section 12). Allowing officials to cite any reason under Section 12 they like without the slightest real basis or evidence for doing so makes a mockery of the Act's intentions.

Part of the acts intention is to give power to IO's through the Immigration Commission/Minister of Interior to police the countries borders. 

 

Some reasons listed in section 12 are clearly written in vague terms to give IO's the very discretion you believe they shouldn't/don't have. And section 16 gives the Minister ultimate power to instruct immigration/IO's to deny entry to whoever the minister authorises.

 

How does someone accused of entering to work prove they aren't? Answer; they cant. And the act is deliberately written that way. The same applies to many of the reasons listed.

 

Everything that has happened since 2006 backs up the fact that the authorities (IC/MoI) have ordered all concerned - from Consuls to border IO's - to get tough on long term tourism, and they are using whatever lawful means they can.

 

 

Edited by elviajero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And section 16 gives the Minister ultimate power to instruct immigration/IO's to deny entry to whoever the minister authorises.

We absolutely agree on that. However, what is the point if every immigration official has the same power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've got my usual pre trip paranoia.

 

Going in just before the end of back to back METV's.  Spent around 7 months of 12 in LoS.  Heading in around 3 days before the enter before date.  Am i better going in over land from Malaysia given the only other option will be into Swampy./ Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

 

Also, I haven't done a 30 day extension on this visa, is it possible to extend another 30 days even when the METV enter before date has passed?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sampson said:

So I've got my usual pre trip paranoia.

 

Going in just before the end of back to back METV's.  Spent around 7 months of 12 in LoS.  Heading in around 3 days before the enter before date.  Am i better going in over land from Malaysia given the only other option will be into Swampy./ Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

 

Also, I haven't done a 30 day extension on this visa, is it possible to extend another 30 days even when the METV enter before date has passed?  

For safety, entering by land might be best.

 

Yes, any tourist entry can be extended for 30 days. Your visa, and its expiry date, has no effect on the extension of your permission to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, sampson said:

Am I worrying about nothing given the paperwork shows you have a job or business and money in another country (UK) to get the visa in the first place? Most of the problems seem to be on visa waivers and SETV runners but still paranoid as usual.   

I was denied on a brand new METV from the UK. I provided all the documentation required (proof of funds, UK employment, return flight, hotel booking). This was not even considered by Suwannaphum immigration. I was swiftly denied entry with no discussion.

 

METV's are now fair game for denial. Use a land entry.

Edited by Briggsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...