News Forum - Deadline on Friday to apply for 60-day “Covid” visa extension

[Stonker]

29 minutes ago, Faz said:

If you re-read what I stated was that most Immigration offices will allow you to apply 7-14 days before your current permission of stay expires for 60 day Covid extensions - but they won't allow you to apply 30 days beforehand as they do with 1 year annual extensions of stay.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about your local immigration office, nor have I ever mentioned anything about 30 days beforehand.

All I'm saying, is that according to some posting here the immigration offices in Pattaya and Phuket give considerably more leeway than yours does.

That's all I've ever said on this particular aspect.

39 minutes ago, Faz said:

Would you like to retract your further quoted statement underneath after I've quoted what I previously stated, instead of misquoting others to suit your storyline.

I can't retract or edit it as the timeline has passed, but I'll certainly post an amended version which I'll do next.

If you can replace the previous post, or delete it and leave the replacement, that would be appreciated.

[Faz]

27 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You've evidently completely mis-read what I've written, again.

I don't say or suggest in any possible way that there are " 'many' that state the 60 day Covid extensions are being abused."

 

  Your previous words in quote Stonker.

20 hours ago, Stonker said:

What a number of people are saying, of whom I'm one, is that many of those on Covid extensions are openly abusing the system and giving the rest of us here a bad name, either as begpackers, by not wearing masks, or by working illegally.

"Many", but far from all. 

 

[Stonker]

23 hours ago, oldschooler said:

If you go in 7-14 days before extn. expiry, you just lose those 7-14 days from new extn period. so no point unless you just cant get into imm. on expiry date for any reason.

(replacement reply)

 

Of course there's a point!

If the cut off date is 30 November and your extension expiry date is 7 December, and you don't go early then you have to leave on 7 December.

If you go early, though, before the cut off date, you can then stay until 28 January.

It's the difference between being allowed to stay for another week and another two months!

That's allowed in Phuket and Pattaya, certainly more than 7 days in advance and apparently more than 14, which is what I've been saying others have said, and even in @Faz's immigration office it may only be 7-14 days in advance,  so even there there's plenty of point - two months vs one week!

(apologies for any previous misunderstanding)

 

[Stonker]

30 minutes ago, Faz said:

That is absolute nonsense Stonker.

It clearly states on a TM7 form (Application for extension of temporary stay in the Kingdom)  'Applicant must submit the application in person with the exceptions of handicapped patients or persons with disabilities'.
Alternatively you can also sign a 'Power of Attorney' for A N Other to do it on your behalf.

I submit extension applications on behalf of 'handicapped persons or with disabilities' all the time, including 60 day Covid extensions. Both the application process and extension stamp are perfectly legitimate.

As for: 'That's the same in pretty much any Country' is again false.
You can quite legally submit Visa applications on behalf of the applicant. The application forms usually request the name and contact details of the person completing and submitting the application, which is not the same as the applicant themselves.
 

Quite correct, it is indeed "absolute nonsense" as I've ommited part of the post so the post makes non sense at all.

Unfortunately I've again passed the 'edit' time limit so am unable to edit it.

What that part of the post should have read is as follows:

"

19 hours ago, oldschooler said:

everyone who has a visa / extn. stamped in passport & on Imm. computer, within expiry date, is here legally.

No, that's not correct, whether it's for a Covid extension or anything else. If the information you (or an agent) has submitted is incorrect, then your visa / extension isn't valid. That's the same in pretty much any country. "

I simply omitted "is incorrect".

Thank you for pointing out the oversight, and I'd be happy if you could edit it for me although this probably makes it clear.

[Faz]

29 minutes ago, Stonker said:

According to the "regulations", the Covid extensions aren't for those who "don't want to return home"

Mmmm! Why then on the 'affidavit' does it state 'or the pandemic situation is still ongoing' as a valid reason to apply for the 60 day Covid extension. That doesn't mean the pandemic situation is still ongoing in Thailand, it means the pandemic situation is still ongoing in the Country they'd be returning to, so want to remain in Thailand - e.g. ''They don't want to return home''.

No doubt I'll have misunderstood what you stated again.

[Stonker]

17 minutes ago, Faz said:

  Your previous words in quote Stonker.

Yes, that's what I've written but it's not in any way what you've said I did which you've either completely misunderstood or you're mis-representing.

You said (quote):

 

2 hours ago, Faz said:

Where are these 'many' that state the 60 day Covid extensions are being abused.

What I wrote, which you quoted twice, was:

 

21 hours ago, Stonker said:

What a number of people are saying, of whom I'm one, is that many of those on Covid extensions are openly abusing the system and giving the rest of us here a bad name, either as begpackers, by not wearing masks, or by working illegally.

"Many", but far from all. 

 

As I said before  "I don't say or suggest in any possible way that there are " 'many' that state the 60 day Covid extensions are being abused."

What I said, and I don't see how it could possibly be any clearer, is that "a number of people" are saying that, "of whom I'm one".

The "many" you've misquoted clearly has absolutely nothing to do with that.

 

[Faz]

14 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Of course there's a point!

If the cut off date is 30 November and your extension expiry date is 7 December, and you don't go early then you have to leave on 7 December.

If you go early, though, before the cut off date, you can then stay until 28 January.

It's the difference between being allowed to stay for another week and another two months!

And if you current permission of stay expired on Dec 7th, my Immigration office would permit you to apply earlier, 7 -14 days early at the Immigration officers discretion. As it stands it's immaterial as it's well published beforehand that Immigration are once again extending the 'Covid application' scheme once again to Jan 25th 2022. https://www.tratimmigration.com/
Thus by applying early in November and not on the due date of 7th December in your example, you'd have actually lost days as most offices tend to date the next 60 day permission of stay stamp from the date of application.

Those you may have read about applying 'early' are panicking in my opinion and it's completely at Immigrations discretion 'how early'. 7-14 days being the norm.
Immigration have to continue to extend the Covid extension application scheme until such time local borders reopen, in particular Lao, to enable those with Thai family/spouse the opportunity to apply for a further Non Imm O ME Visa. To cease beforehand, would force many foreigners with Thai family/spouse to either 'leave' Thailand or put themselves in a position of 'overstay'.

[Stonker]

18 minutes ago, Faz said:

Mmmm! Why then on the 'affidavit' does it state 'or the pandemic situation is still ongoing' as a valid reason to apply for the 60 day Covid extension. That doesn't mean the pandemic situation is still ongoing in Thailand, it means the pandemic situation is still ongoing in the Country they'd be returning to, so want to remain in Thailand - e.g. ''They don't want to return home''.

Probably because "the pandemic situation is still ongoing".

If it stated instead that they "don't want to return home due to the current Covid situation" that would be a different matter.

But it doesn't.

21 minutes ago, Faz said:

No doubt I'll have misunderstood what you stated again.

Well, it very clearly wouldn't be the first time since you've clearly managed it with what I said about what "many" state, and with what I said about applying for Covid extensions, both of which you've completely misunderstood and misrepresented.

I've retracted and apologised for the post I made in error to @oldschooler, replacing it, and for the typo I made omitting two words where the ommission meant the post made no sense.

Maybe it would bring some balance to this thread if you reciprocated where you've very clearly not only done the same, but then doubled down on it.

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, Faz said:

And if you current permission of stay expired on Dec 7th, my Immigration office would permit you to apply earlier, 7 -14 days early at the Immigration officers discretion. As it stands it's immaterial as it's well published beforehand that Immigration are once again extending the 'Covid application' scheme once again to Jan 25th 2022. https://www.tratimmigration.com/
Thus by applying early in November and not on the due date of 7th December in your example, you'd have actually lost days as most offices tend to date the next 60 day permission of stay stamp from the date of application.

As I've said, repeatedly, we're not in disagreement over this, although for some reason you seem to think we are.

9 minutes ago, Faz said:

Those you may have read about applying 'early' are panicking in my opinion and it's completely at Immigrations discretion 'how early'. 7-14 days being the norm.
Immigration have to continue to extend the Covid extension application scheme until such time local borders reopen, in particular Lao, to enable those with Thai family/spouse the opportunity to apply for a further Non Imm O ME Visa. To cease beforehand, would force many foreigners with Thai family/spouse to either 'leave' Thailand or put themselves in a position of 'overstay'.

Well, that's your "opinion" and, again, I'm not disagreeing with it - simply saying what other people have said which was that their offices appeared to give longer than yours, which you earlier seemed to disagree with.

[Stonker]

On 11/26/2021 at 9:18 PM, Changnam43 said:

What is your number then?

For what it's worth, returning to this, the number was put at around 150,000 back in September 2020, over a year ago based on figures from Thai Immigration.

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/visa/new-visa-amnesty-allows-foreigners-to-stay-in-thailand-until-october-31-with-60-day-extensions

I'd suggest that as very few will have joined them since then given the restrictions, and many will have probably since returned home, possibly most, the number is likely to be considerably less than that despite the claims made here. 

[Changnam43]

34 minutes ago, Stonker said:

For what it's worth, returning to this, the number was put at around 150,000 back in September 2020, over a year ago based on figures from Thai Immigration.

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/visa/new-visa-amnesty-allows-foreigners-to-stay-in-thailand-until-october-31-with-60-day-extensions

I'd suggest that as very few will have joined them since then given the restrictions, and many will have probably since returned home, possibly most, the number is likely to be considerably less than that despite the claims made here. 

Well it is interesting that Thai immigration put a figure on it.  But it wouldn't surprise me if that figure was simply a guess.

Had that figure remained stable that would be 1.7 billion Baht a year in fees for sixty day extensions.  And contrary to what another poster said earlier I think the administrative costs involved in considering such applications are minimal.  The consideration involved is little more than have they got a valid passport and is there enough space to put a stamp in it.  Presumably they check their blacklist too as I think they do that in all cases.

Beyond that headline number the rest of your post is just speculation that suits your position.

Immigration's guess/estimate/carefully calculated figure does make my figure of 100,000 look reasonable; to me at least.

 

[oldschooler]

On 11/25/2021 at 9:43 AM, mark147 said:

At Chiang Mai immigration yesterday, one of the staff told me the 25 January extension was official. Here are some other things I didn't know (for tourists):

1. You have to get the normal 30-day extension (which, like usual, always starts from the end of your entry visa) before you can apply for a covid extension
2. The first covid extension begins on the date of application (so apply just before your 30-day extension expires). This is because you are changing visa type
3. Subsequent covid extensions always begin from the end of the previous covid extension

point 3 wrong.they all start from application date and can still be further trimmed back three days….

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Changnam43 said:

Beyond that headline number the rest of your post is just speculation that suits your position.

Immigration's guess/estimate/carefully calculated figure does make my figure of 100,000 look reasonable; to me at least.

Hardly "suits my position", as I said from the start that I don't know and that I prefer not to speculate !

What I find very unlikely, though, is that two thirds of those here over a year ago are still here without a regular visa or any local income for those like the teachers who'd been moonlighting - we'll just have to disagree on that one !

[Faz]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

Probably because "the pandemic situation is still ongoing".

If it stated instead that they "don't want to return home due to the current Covid situation" that would be a different matter.

But it doesn't.

Well that's the way Immigration worded it and the intent is because they don't want to return home because ''the pandemic situation is still ongoing'' and Immigration deem that a valid reason to grant 60 day Covid extensions.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Faz said:

Well that's the way Immigration worded it and the intent is because they don't want to return home because ''the pandemic situation is still ongoing'' and Immigration deem that a valid reason to grant 60 day Covid extensions.

The way Immigration worded it is what it says on the form - that "the pandemic situation is still ongoing".

What you're saying simply isn't what Immigration have very clearly said, although your interpretation is  closer than what you say I've written is to what I've said, which couldn't be clearer on all counts.

I don't see any point adding to this ping pong.

[Faz]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

The way Immigration worded it is what it says on the form - that "the pandemic situation is still ongoing".

What you're saying simply isn't what Immigration have very clearly said, although your interpretation is  closer than what you say I've written is to what I've said, which couldn't be clearer on all counts.

You can word it however you want on the TM7 in your own words.
''Don't want to go back to my home Country'' and on the affidavit because ''the pandemic is still ongoing'' 

[LoongFred]

16 hours ago, Changnam43 said:

Well it is interesting that Thai immigration put a figure on it.  But it wouldn't surprise me if that figure was simply a guess.

Had that figure remained stable that would be 1.7 billion Baht a year in fees for sixty day extensions.  And contrary to what another poster said earlier I think the administrative costs involved in considering such applications are minimal.  The consideration involved is little more than have they got a valid passport and is there enough space to put a stamp in it.  Presumably they check their blacklist too as I think they do that in all cases.

Beyond that headline number the rest of your post is just speculation that suits your position.

Immigration's guess/estimate/carefully calculated figure does make my figure of 100,000 look reasonable; to me at least.

The figure from Sept 2020 wasn't a hard number, however immigration was over run on the due date in Pattaya and Bangkok less so in Chiang Mai,  I think. Many of those switch to real visas because they were avoiding financials to get a Non of visa. My guess is that by looking only a Phuket and Pattaya the estimate is very high. Most people that can sustain themselves for 1 +year could get a real visa, especially if married. Those <50 and not married are probably most of those with problems.  Those with unresolved married issues or in same sex relationships would be included.

Nevertheless I'd be surprised if this figure in Nov 2021 goes >50k. 

[LoongFred]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:01 PM, Stonker said:

Hardly "suits my position", as I said from the start that I don't know and that I prefer not to speculate !

What I find very unlikely, though, is that two thirds of those here over a year ago are still here without a regular visa or any local income for those like the teachers who'd been moonlighting - we'll just have to disagree on that one !

If my recollections are correct, there were pandemonium at Thai immigration last year when the covid extensions were to end. Not seeing that this year indicates the problem isn't as widespread. My assumption is that most of those affected last year have changed visa type (recommended by Thai authorities) or have gone home. This is sort of an old story that's getting rehashed.

[gavi]

About 60 days covid extensions.

In Bangkok is becoming very hard toget. Furthermore, in the past, one could go to the Bkk immigration office 40 days in advance but now they want 14 days in advance.

I heard that doing the extension in Pattaya is easier, both because I heard that one could go before 14 days, and also because there are agencies in Pattaya that can convince the immigration officer.

Anyone with Pattaya experience that can suggest an agent, and maybe give more details about the process in Pattaya? Is it as fast as in Bangkok (a few minutes when there is no queue) or does it take multiple days?

 

[astro]

53 minutes ago, gavi said:

there are agencies in Pattaya that can convince the immigration officer.

I wonder how they do the convincing?