Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the difference between revocation and non-extension of a Thai Visa. Now I got the inspiration to make this video from reading a recent article but wait for me to sort of cite this and then I am going to get into the analysis because we are going to go in a slightly, subtly different tangent and I think it is worth noting for folks that are here in Thailand, especially foreigners. Quoting directly, and I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Anutin rules out Fehr's Visa appeal. Quoting directly: "Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said that he would not consider any appeal made by a Swiss man whose Visa was revoked for allegedly kicking a doctor in Phuket." Quote: "Does anyone not want to see his Visa revoked? Not this Interior Minister," Mr. Anutin said during a visit to Si Sa Ket yesterday. Then they go into some analysis about the fact that this person has pending Criminal proceedings from which Mr. Anutin went on to say: "The Court case can continue," he said. "It has nothing to do with the Visa issue."

So again we are talking about two proceedings when we are talking about court cases versus Immigration matters. I have done another video I made contemporaneously with this one where we get into sort of dissecting that. Here's one further data point; it goes even further when you're looking at how this stuff works in practice is, there is also a difference between revocation of a Visa and failure to issue a new visa. I'll be very interested to see, in fact I have a pretty good idea of what this looks like in terms of procedurally so this person's Visa, the accused in this case's Visa, I believe based on prior reporting I believe by the Bangkok post, this person's Visa was set to expire March 13th anyway. It is going to expire in any event. I believe the current status has now been revoked and this person has been placed basically on a Visa, sort of a temporary stay based on the final, any final decision being made in the criminal adjudication, so basically the Visa status has been changed. Now I could be wrong on that thing, he could be just easing out the rest of his Visa up until the 13th but by the fact that they are reporting the Visa has been revoked, I am presuming that Visa was revoked and replaced basically with this temporary status pursuant to the conclusion of the criminal adjudication. 

Both of these are different. So that in and of itself, this person I believe was on a Business Visa presumably based on the reporting that has been revoked, then now okay the person is sitting there on temporary status again pending outcome in the criminal case, there is also the issue of what would be the outcome of a favourable adjudication and then maybe I want to get a new Visa. Well you would have to apply for extension; you have to make an application to extend, which this person would otherwise have had to have done in the event that their visa expired on the 13th. The reason I am trying to point out this difference is there is a fundamental difference between revocation of a Visa which has already been issued which as discussed in another video made contemporaneously with this one, in a revocation proceeding there may be a right to some form of an appeal. I think appeal is too strong a word. It denotes a lot of things especially in the Common Law, American Common Law vernacular that really isn't present; whatever you want to call 'appeal', may be 'expanded review'. So one Officer can make the decision to revoke a Visa and then you have a period of time to go ahead and ask for expanded review to have that person's decision reviewed by like a larger committee, if you will, a commission strictly speaking, to make the final decision but again it is not really an appeal. An appeal kind of presumes an adversarial posture that doesn't exist in an Immigration context. 

The point I am trying to make is there is revocation which is basically if you look at a visa as sort of a license to physically remain in a country, revocation is revocation of that license, but there were certain rights and benefits conferred and there was certain due process that had occurred to get a Visa issued, so you have a form of appeal or expanded review if you will in the event that a revocation occurs because you were detrimentally relying on the fact that you could remain in the Kingdom for the period of time stated in the Visa or the Visa extension I should say. Here is the difference. In the case of non-reissuance, or non-extension, there is no license granted in the first place. That's the difference. So for all practical purposes I guess you could say, there really is not any sort of appeal associated with just the decision, "No we are not going to re-extend that; we can just exercise our discretion and not allow you to re-extend" in much the same way an Immigration Officer - this is the plenary power of Immigration at work really - in much the same way that an Immigration Officer at a checkpoint in Thailand can state, "yeah I am not going to let you in", there's no right of appeal or anything, it's just there decision. So again, there's a different sort of legal posture associated with the extension or non-granting of an extension, as opposed to revocation of an already issued Visa.