Why did two applicants receive different visa outcomes despite seemingly similar applications for Thailand?

A Tale of Two Courses

I am sharing the following experience for everyone’s knowledge. Interpret the results as you will, and I would love to hear everyone’s opinions. I am presenting the facts as they happened, none of this is heresy and can be verified if anyone has any doubts.

For context, I own a Muay Thai gym that many people in this group have used (Tiger Eye) and have been involved in a lot of DTV applications, covering around 70 nationalities and applications through roughly 50 different embassies and consulates. Even with that experience, I don't consider myself the arbiter of truth. My position has always been that there are simply too many variables that we don't fully understand, and each embassy seems to weigh factors differently.

About a week ago, two different people received two very different outcomes that went completely against the conventional wisdom and advice. I understand that most people are trying to help, and I genuinely think there is a lot of useful information shared here. But I also think we need to be careful not to mistake common advice for universal truth.

The first case was a British citizen applying in London. They applied with a one-month course. They met the financial requirements, but there wasn't anything particularly noteworthy about the application, and as far as I'm aware they had no ongoing income.

They were approved.

The second case was a Western European citizen applying in Jakarta. This applicant had a one-year course, well over the minimum financial requirement, more than one million baht in liquid savings, additional liquid funds in another account, investments, a detailed financial explanation, and a professionally written cover letter. They had also recently started a business and included a well-structured prospectus explaining its future income potential, although in my opinion that wasn't even necessary because their savings alone comfortably exceeded the requirements.

Honestly, it was one of the most meticulously prepared applications I've seen.

They were given a METV. They weren’t even rejected. They were given a METV which is valid for 6 months and obviously doesn’t cover a commitment to train for one year. People are told that you must have 9 months or 12 months or you risk getting an METV. This case directly contradicts that notion. Obviously, in previous cases where applicants got a METV perhaps course length was a factor, but this case makes you wonder if that is actually the case?

Now, could there have been factors that I wasn't aware of? Absolutely. None of us ever has the complete picture.

But these aren't isolated examples from my experience.

The reason I'm sharing this is because I often see people immediately assume that if someone is rejected with a course shorter than nine or twelve months, then the course length must have been the reason. Likewise, if someone is approved with a one-year course, it's often presented as proof that a one-year course is the "safe" option. And if someone is approved with a course length less than 6 months (or even less than 9 months) they are told they got lucky.

These two cases tell a different story.

Of course, all else being equal, a longer course probably makes for a stronger application. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But I also don't think the evidence suggests that course length is the overwhelmingly dominant factor that it's sometimes made out to be.

My advice has always been to focus on the specific embassy you're applying through, because embassies clearly have different approaches and different expectations.

Ultimately, I think the biggest takeaway is that we should all be a little more cautious about speaking in absolutes. This Facebook group contains a huge amount of valuable information, but it's still only a sample of applicants. It may have its own biases, blind spots, and patterns that don't necessarily reflect the totality of DTV applications worldwide.

In the end DO YOUR DUE DILLIGENCE. Make a genuine intention to actually do the activity you are signing up for. Look at the embassy specific requirements because each embassy is NOT the same. Some of them have vastly different expectations and requirements.

Good luck everyone.