Jump to content
BANGKOK 18 July 2019 09:45
ubonjoe

The Multiple Entry Tourist Visa Topic (METV)

Recommended Posts

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.
What was your history though? I've only heard of one case, you. Maybe others?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:
56 minutes ago, Briggsy said:
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.

What was your history though? I've only heard of one case, you. Maybe others?

Back to back METV’s used to live in the country.

Share this post


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

Back to back METV’s used to live in the country.

Are you acting as my spokesperson? If so, your statement is not correct.

Share this post


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

Back to back METV’s used to live in the country.

No doubt something like that. Of course, in order to get the METV in the UK, he would have needed to be out of the country for at least a week or so. More accurately, he had spent more time in Thailand than the IO supervisor on duty deemed appropriate. Immigration officials, these days, have the green light to overrule the decisions of consul generals of embassies.

Edited by BritTim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BritTim said:

No doubt something like that. Of course, in order to get the METV in the UK, he would have needed to be out of the country for at least a week or so. More accurately, he had spent more time in Thailand than the IO supervisor on duty deemed appropriate. Immigration officials, these days, have the green light to overrule the decisions of consul generals of embassies.

These days and all days before; having a visa does not guarantee entry as that decision is, and has always been, down to the IO. So nothing had been overruled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Are you acting as my spokesperson? If so, your statement is not correct.

Which part is wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Are you acting as my spokesperson? If so, your statement is not correct.

So what is your history, could be useful to others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, elviajero said:

These days and all days before; having a visa does not guarantee entry as that decision is, and has always been, down to the IO. So nothing had been overruled.

In the past, with the exception of the Minister, immigration officials were only supposed to deny entry according to the (real) reasons specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act. Anyone reading the Act with an open mind can see that the intention was to make decisions on allowing or denying entry as clearcut as possible, leaving no scope for officials to arbitrarily deny (or allow) entry. Thai law is not like the law of most countries where immigration officials have wide discretion. When the consul general decides you have met the requirements for a tourist visa, signing it, and the immigration official says "no, you are not a genuine tourist" how is this not overruling the consul's decision?

Share this post


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

In the past, with the exception of the Minister, immigration officials were only supposed to deny entry according to the (real) reasons specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act.

 

Can you show me one report of someone being denied entry for a reason other than section 12 or section 16 or regulation.

 

Quote

Anyone reading the Act with an open mind can see that the intention was to make decisions on allowing or denying entry as clearcut as possible, leaving no scope for officials to arbitrarily deny (or allow) entry.

Section 16 makes you wrong.

 

Official memos to foreign consuls and directives issued to IO's make you wrong.

 

Quote

Thai law is not like the law of most countries where immigration officials have wide discretion.

Can you quote me the section of the UK immigration act that gives the border force "wide discretion"?

 

Thai immigration law has set reasons for denying entry and then section 16 which gives them power - if necessary - via the MoI; discretionary or otherwise.

 

Quote

When the consul general decides you have met the requirements for a tourist visa, signing it, and the immigration official says "no, you are not a genuine tourist" how is this not overruling the consul's decision?

Because it's the IO's job to decide, with powers given to them by the IC/IB/MoI.

 

There is still a disconnect between immigration who police the border and consulates that make money from issuing visas. Some consulates exists purely to make money from visa sales, and will sell to anyone that can provide the paperwork required to satisfy any oversight.

Edited by elviajero

Share this post


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

Can you show me one report of someone being denied entry for a reason other than section 12 ....

Our disagreement over the intention of Section 12 (3) is never going to be resolved. It is your belief that the Section is intended to give immigration officials full discretion to deny entry to anyone by simply claiming that they do not think it appropriate for the individual to be in the country. I think that is an absurd interpretation of that reason for denied entry. Section 12 (3) was probably intended to be a little broader than just proof of sufficient finance, but no way was it a grant of unlimited power to immigration officials. Indeed, I think the assumption that it does would make Section 16 superfluous.

 

I am also unconvinced by your stated belief that there are secret orders to immigration officials at certain entry points to abrogate visas. I see no reason why such orders would be either kept secret or only apply to certain crossing points. Immigration, quite reasonably, does have the responsibility to decide if people should be granted visa exempt entry (and the fact that they have this discretion was made public with advanced notice, albeit the announcements are harder to find now than five years ago). It does not follow that they are empowered to override the decisions of embassies/consulates on whether someone qualifies for a visa. If visas are being improperly issued, that is a matter for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to deal with, not the Immigration Bureau by a refusal to recognise properly issued visas.

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

  

Quote

Anyone reading the Act with an open mind can see that the intention was to make decisions on allowing or denying entry as clearcut as possible, leaving no scope for officials to arbitrarily deny (or allow) entry.

Section 16 makes you wrong.

This is what Section 16 states:

Quote

Section 16

In the instance where for reason of national welfare or safeguarding the public peace, culture, morality, or welfare, or when the Minister considers it improper to allow any alien or any group of alien to enter into the Kingdom, the Minister shall have power to exclude said alien or group aliens from entering into the Kingdom.

I simply do not agree with you that Minister in the Section is intended to mean any immigration official. Certainly, the Minister could issue an order that tourist entries be limited to 180 days in any calendar year (or similar). It would be totally against the spirit of the Act for the Minister to give a secret order that any immigration official has total discretion to arbitrarily deny entry to anyone they decide should not have been issued a visa.

 

... meanwhile,

 

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

Can you quote me the section of the UK immigration act that gives the border force "wide discretion"?

(Immigration Act of 1971 as amended)

Quote

4Administration of control.

(1)The power under this Act to give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom shall be exercised by immigration officers, and the power to give leave to remain in the United Kingdom, or to vary any leave under section 3(3)(a) (whether as regards duration or conditions) [F30or to cancel any leave under section 3C(3A)] , shall be exercised by the Secretary of State; and, unless otherwise [F31allowed by or under] this Act, those powers shall be exercised by notice in writing given to the person affected, except that the powers under section 3(3)(a) may be exercised generally in respect of any class of persons by order made by statutory instrument.

The UK Immigration Act is heavy reading, but gives immigration officials wide power to limit entry. After entry, it gives them little to no power to decide if someone should be deported. That becomes a matter for the Secretary of State alone.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 1:18 AM, BritTim said:

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.

Thanks, I will look to fly to Penang and bus it over then.  I suppose two wasted days is tolerable if it gives me the best chance of getting in for 60-70

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 1:18 AM, BritTim said:

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.

with the METV, theres no restrictions for the amount of extensions you can do right? i've done extensions before no problem (on visa exempt stamps and the old double/triple entry visas), but not on the METV before, only asking because when i read on the consulate website earlier it states...

Quote

There is no restriction on the number of times you can enter whilst the visa remains valid. With careful planning, by saving the 30-day extension for your final entry, it is possible to get an accumulation of almost 9 months in Thailand. If you make your final entry into Thailand a couple of days before the ENTER BEFORE date as shown on the visa you should be granted your final 60-day stay and then you could visit a Thai Immigration Office near to where you are staying in Thailand on about day 55 of your 60-day stay and request the 30-day extension.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamieLambo said:

with the METV, theres no restrictions for the amount of extensions you can do right? i've done extensions before no problem (on visa exempt stamps and the old double/triple entry visas), but not on the METV before, only asking because when i read on the consulate website earlier it states...

No restrictions. You are allowed one 30-day extension of each entry on an METV. As is so often the case with information on Thai consulate websites, that advice you quoted is erroneous.

Of course, depending on where you are staying, a border bounce for a fresh 60-day entry may make more sense than a 1,900 baht 30-day extension, but the extension is definitely permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 2:22 PM, BritTim said:

No restrictions. You are allowed one 30-day extension of each entry on an METV. As is so often the case with information on Thai consulate websites, that advice you quoted is erroneous.

Of course, depending on where you are staying, a border bounce for a fresh 60-day entry may make more sense than a 1,900 baht 30-day extension, but the extension is definitely permitted.

as i thought

thanks for clearing that up Tim 👌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, just wondering is the 30 day extension on the metv multi entry? 

 

So basically I entered on a few days prior to the valid until date to get 8 months in total then will get a 30 day extension to make this 9 months in total, so wondering does the "powers" of the metv being multi entry flow into the additional days?

 

I thank you in advance 

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...