Answered5 years ago

Can a married couple both over 50 qualify for a dependent extension on a retirement visa in Thailand?

Retirement Visa Dependent Visa Visa Rules Thailand Immigration Visa Regulations NON-O Visa

George *************

asked Jul 22, 2021

1.4k

views

replies

likes

In answer to another recent question now closed, it was stated that applicants who are married to each other and are 50 years of age or over cannot make use of the dependent (follow) extension (for one of them).  As far as I know, this is, in fact, allowed, and wondered where the notion arises that when someone turns 50 they would suddenly no longer qualify for a dependent extension they would have qualified for before turning 50. This does not seem to be the case in Phuket so can anyone cite where the rule mentioned in the first sentence comes from

Answer summary

The question addresses the confusion regarding whether married couples both aged 50 or over can utilize a dependent extension on a retirement visa in Thailand. There appears to be no official rule that prohibits this, and anecdotal evidence suggests that various immigration offices may have differing interpretations. Some users report being able to maintain such extensions without issue. Additionally, requirements vary; if one spouse is under 50, they can still qualify as a dependent under the retirement visa rules. Clarifications from legal resources affirm that each spouse must meet financial requirements independently if both are over 50.

10 repliesnewest first

Click comment and we will ask for your email, then OTP, then name.

Tod *********

There is abso-tively posi-lutely NOTHING written in the police orders <- which govern EXTENSIONS OF STAYS that state once a spouse turns 50 they can no longer "piggy back" onto their partner's retirement extension.

ANY office telling you that is blowing smoke up your arse.

They might "suggest" that you both get retirement extensions by showing proof of funds individually but they cannot make someone who turns 50 get off a piggy back extension based on marriage to a foreigner on a retirement extension.

We mostly see people posting about this saying "my immigration office 'made' us do that" <- meaning they didn't have balls enough to tell the officer no, that's not right, we want to file a written appeal (which has to be sent to bangkok) and pushing it until they're allowed to actually follow the rules as they're written NOT as they're imagined by an all too full of themself immigration officer.

Sometimes I wonder how people manage to live here without a spine :/

5 years ago

Kool *******

It is hard to find specific details on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, as the only thing that mentions it is the very similar type O-X visa, which is just like the O-A retirement visa, except it is good for ten years, five years at a time, and it mentions that a wife of any age must meet the same requirements, but then on legal websites they state that yes, if the wife is over 50, then she must meet the same requirements. "The financial requirement will stay as it is for individual applications. Please take note, that if you and your wife are both aged 50 and above, each should meet the requirement, this requirement will not be presented as couples. Yet, if your wife has not reached the age of 50, she can act as your dependent."

*********************************************************************

5 years ago

Kool *******

I'm not going to argue with you. look it up on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.

5 years ago

Tod *********

@Kool ******

The ministry of foreign affairs runs the embassies which sell VISAS at the thai consulates OUTSIDE thailand.

They have zero to do with extensions of stays INSIDE the country.

It's the police orders by the Immigration Division of the Royal Thai Police that control extensions of stays inside the country

5 years ago

Kool *******

@Tod ********

that is true for most all extensions, except the type M/media visa extensions. For the six years I held that extension, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs handled all the paperwork, and determination of whether to accept the extension application, or refuse it, and who I interviewed with every year in-country, and is what lead to my confusion of what Ministry immigration operates under.

5 years ago

George *************

@Kool ******

I was not able to find any relevant information at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:

**********************************************************************************

5 years ago

George *************

Thanks for that reply. Of course, the link is to the website of a Thai law firm rather than a Thai Embassy. I took a look at some of the questions and answers in the comments at the bottom of that page and I don't think some of the answers were correct. I'm guessing there must be a Thai Embassy website somewhere that gives the same interpretation of the situation because a purported rule seems to have taken hold in the community.

5 years ago

Bobby ********

George Marinkovich. It might be this one. This is for extension, but I imagine the visa would be the same? This is for a spouse of an alien granted a temporary stay.

5 years ago

Stuart *********

Good question. I’ve seen posts stating you can’t and then others saying that they are on such a extension/ piggy back situation and no issue. Probably office dependant like many other times. I’ve not had personal experience so can’t confirm one way or the other.

5 years ago

George *************

Thanks for the reply. I've seen people refer to this rule which I doubt they are making up, but I would be very interested in the reasoning.

Here's an example that occurs to me:

Scenario 1)

Husband is 55 years old, wife is 49 years old.

Husband and wife are supported by savings and his pension.

Wife has no income of her own.

Husband gets a retirement extension.

Wife gets a dependent extension based on her husband.

Scenario 1 is allowed by the purported rule.

One year later,

Scenario 2)

All is the same except that husband is now 56 years old and wife is now 50 years old.

Scenario 2 is not allowed by the purported rule.

I'm not seeing the common sense behind this purported rule, not that common sense is necessarily required. Can anyone explain what is behind this purported rule?

5 years ago