Yes of course, but why would this be a problem? It's routine.

@Deano ************

don't take your phone with you on the street. Don't take any money either. Just a few dollars, and keep them in your shoes. Don't leave them in your hotel either. Just don't have cash. Keep your phone in a different city while you're in PP and get it back later.

@Declan *********

if you extend a student visa (studying Thai), they'll speak Thai and you're required to answer in Thai. I'm assuming that if you do, they won't be tough and they'll give you the extension. I'm just so surprised that other branches of immigrations do not apply this logic and just keep grilling student, even long after they've switched to other visa types.

It's like questioning someone about the theft of an apple back in 1995, despite having been found not guilty by police in the same year, or after being guilty but having been punished accordingly. It should then be done with.

@Declan *********

you'd say that being able to speak Thai would make all the difference with a student visa history. Really surprised that it doesn't.

@Deano ************

that sounds a little too steep. I'd look into other visa types. How about the DTV?

@Ralph ******

I don't see how that relates to the discussion, but okay. It's not absurd imo that countries can refuse entry on any ground despite visas. It would be absurd if they did refuse everyone coming. But to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any countries doing that.

Congrats!

@Ralph ******

so because an extension is not guaranteed, people are required to buy flights out of Thailand at a time they don't plan to fly? Despite that it is also just required to leave Thailand before your visa stamp expires, regardless of whether flights were pre-purchased or not, and this policy is enforced? And despite that having a flight within 60 days guarantees by no means that people will actually fly out? Also, if many flights can be postponed or cancelled? No sir, this is absurdity at its finest. The whole rule is absurd because it achieves nothing and it only a nuisance for many and causes sunk cost that Thailand doesn't even benefit from, but the fact that extendability is not accounted for makes it even more absurd. FYI, other countries such as Indonesia (where having onward ticket is enforced much more strictly upon entering and they require it even for 6 month visas) and The Philippines DO account for extendability.

There aren't many countries that don't have this absurd policy, but there's a notable example: Australia. Despite that they're strict with many things, at some point they appear to have realized how pointless requiring proof of onward travel really is, and they just stopped it. They only require it now for transit visas.

That's up to them. You would hope they realize the absurdity of requiring a ticket within 60 days, if at the same time you can extend to 90. Makes no sense. Yet, that appears to be the most common interpretation.

I write "appears to be" and "most common" because it is very unlikely immigrations will ask you in the first place. So we don't really know how they interpret their own rule. If anyone would ask, it's your airline. So it's their interpretation that matters. And as it is not their own rule they need to enforce, if a rule can be interpreted in two ways, it makes a bit of sense to go with the stricter version. So they'd refuse boarding if your ticket is within 90 and not within 60 days, despite this being absurd. But that is why it appears that that is the most common interpretation.

No