Integrity Legal

A little known fact: Thailand is one of the few countries not colonized by the British that gave serious thought to adopting the common law. Had Thailand opted to become a common law nation the legal system would probably look very different today. Thailand is a “Civil Law” country and as a result, Thailand Real Estate law and Thai Property regulations are promulgated through the Thai Civil and Commercial Code.

There are two property rights which are relatively uncommon in English speaking countries: the usufruct and superficies. These two legal mechanisms can provide a wide range of property rights to the person who employs them. The following is an explanation of these two legal concepts for those wishing to enjoy property rights in the Kingdom of Thailand.

A usufruct grants the person holding the usufruct with the right to enjoy the use of the land in Thailand. A usufruct can be extremely beneficial because it can be written in such a way that a foreigner can be granted lifetime enjoyment of property. That being said, should the foreigner decide to place structures upon his usufruct, then those structures may need to be abandoned if and when the usufruct comes to an end.

This is where a right of superficies comes into play. The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand makes provisions regarding superficies, the law states:

When the right of superficies is extinguished, the superficiary may take away his buildings, structures or plantations, provided he restores the land to its former condition.

Therefore, a usufruct is a very useful legal instrument because it could allow a foreigner to have lifetime enjoyment of property, but the foreigner may lose his rights to his or her structures should the usufruct expire (either during his lifetime or upon his death). By utilizing a superficies a foreigner could better protect his or her interests with regard to a Thai usufruct.

It should be noted that the holder of both a usufruct and superficies can assign his or her rights in the provisions of an instrument like a Thai lease or rental agreement. Generally, a lease such as this would expire upon the death of the usufruct holder, but Thai courts have held that leases written upon usufructs shall remain binding past the date of the usufruct holders death. The leasee in that situation would be required to continue paying the originally agreed upon payments, but the payments would be made to the underlying land owner after the usufruct holder’s death. Keep in mind that this rule was made pursuant to a Thai Supreme Court decision. Since precedent is not binding in Thailand, this may not be a hard and fast rule.

For more information regarding this subject please see: Thailand Real Estate FAQ or Thai Condo law

(Please be advised: This is not legal advice it is a personal opinion. No attorney-client relationship should be inferred to exist between the writer and any reader of this post.)

US Immigration and Nationality is an interesting and complex area of American jurisprudence. As a statutorily driven field of law, it can be one of the more rules driven areas of Federal regulation. Many Americans born in the United States acquire their citizenship through a combination of jus sanguinis (Latin meaning “right of blood”) and/or jus soli (Latin meaning “right of the soil” or “right of the territory”). For those born outside of the United States, or its possessions, how can United States Citizenship be proven? This is why the United States government has promulgated the US Certificate of Citizenship.

The Certificate of United States Citizenship is a legal document distributed by the government authorities of the United States of America and used in order to provide proof of the bearer’s United States Citizenship. Those who are qualified to submit an application for a United States Certificate of Citizenship include those who acquired United States of America citizenship while living in the United States or those Americans who were born outside of the United States, or any possession or territory of the USA, to United States citizens. Specifically eligible to submit an application for a US Certificate of Citizenship are:

• those born abroad who have parents with United States citizenship, or

• those with at least one naturalized parent who naturalized when the citizen was  under 18 years of age and met special criteria of United States Immigration and Nationality law.

It should be noted that the US certificate of citizenship is a substantially different document from the United States naturalization certificate. Naturalization occurs when a foreign national acquires United States Citizenship. The certificate of naturalization is conferred in order to prove acquisition of US Citizenship. The certificate of citizenship is generally granted to those who were born as United States Citizens.  Therefore, the documents, although similar, denote two different types of US Citizenship.  Generally, one must submit an application to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in order to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship. USCIS is an agency under the Department of Homeland Security which is tasked with maintaining Immigration, naturalization, and Citizenship records for those persons in the USA.

United States Citizenship is important from a US Immigration perspective because only a US Citizen can petition for a K1 visa (fiance visa) or a K-3 visa (expedited marriage visa) on behalf of a foreign national. Therefore, proving one’s United States Citizenship could be critical in obtaining a USA Visa for a foreign loved one.

(This content is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute advice regarding the law. No Lawyer-Client Relationship exists between author and reader.)

This blog has been keeping track of the US Immigration implications of recognition of Same Sex Marriage under United States Federal law. Currently, a US law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), precludes the United States Federal government from recognizing same sex marriage (even when the marriage was validly executed in one of the fifty US States). Also, DOMA provides American states with the option of not recognizing same-sex unions in other states (although this provision has been question on Full Faith and Credit grounds).  Since the United States government does not recognize same sex marriage, same sex bi-national couples cannot obtain US Immigration benefits based upon a marital relationship.

There are currently movements to provide immigration benefits for same-sex couples. One pending bill is known as the Uniting American Families Act which has apparently been reborn under a new moniker: the Re-Uniting American Families Act. There is also a movement gaining a great deal of steam that seeks a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. It is this author’s opinion, that eventually the Defense of Marriage Act will be repealed. The upshot of DOMA’s repeal will be an increase in family immigration benefits for same sex couples.

This pending legislation and political movement has been the focal point of many posts previously written on this blog, but since this blog is also concerned with Thai law, it begs the question: does Thailand recognize same sex marriage? The short answer: No. It should be noted that Thailand is one of the most tolerant cultures in the world, particularly regarding gay rights. That being said, there is no process under Thai law for legalizing a relationship of two people who are of the same sex. In many countries, a legal partnership known as a “civil union” is used to legitimize a relationship between two people of the same sex.  In Thailand, there is no “civil union” mechanism for providing legal protection for a same sex couple. That being said, Thailand marriage registration is often not a method employed by a couple who wishes to have an ongoing relationship. It is quite common in Thailand for a couple to have a marriage ceremony (customary or religious), but never actually register a marriage in Thailand with the local Amphur office (District Office). Therefore, as a practical matter Thai same sex couples can maintain a domestic relationship in a manner similar to different sex couples who choose not to legalize their union.

At the present time there does not appear to be any political movement to legalize same sex marriage in Thailand. For those who wish to protect their same sex loved one, legal mechanisms such as a Thai will can assist in providing legal benefits usually accorded to those in a different sex relationship.

For more information please see: Bangkok Lawyer, or Visa Lawyer Thailand.

(Please note that the information contained herein is intended for educational purposes only. No lawyer-client relationship is created by reading this piece.)

Many Expatriates resident in the Kingdom of Thailand eventually come to the point where they wish to purchase property. In many cases, particularly in Bangkok, a Thai Condo will suit their needs perfectly. However, there are many people who do not wish to live in a Thai Condominium. These people often opt to purchase some form of Thai Real Estate.

One of the major problems that comes with purchasing Real Estate in Thailand is the de facto prohibition on foreign ownership of land in Thailand. Some people decide to use a Thai company to own land. This is possible although one needs to carefully construct the corporation so as not to violate the relevant laws regarding Thai “nominee shareholders.” Other less advisable methods are employed by foreigners to enjoy the benefits of property in Thailand. In some cases, a Thai spouse will put her name on the “Chanote” (Title Deed) while the foreign spouse actually pays for the property. This can be very disadvantageous because in transactions such as this the Thai Land Department will often require that the foreign spouse sign an affidavit explaining that the Thai property in question was not purchased with money provided by the foreign spouse and as a result the foreign spouse shall have no claim to the Thai property.

These type of disadvantageous scenarios create a situation where the foreigner’s interests must be protected while also remaining legal pursuant to the provisions of the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. In cases such as this, some foreign nationals opt to record a Thai lease. This instrument would provide property enjoyment rights for a maximum of 30 years. Another method that could be employed by a foreigner is the recording of a Thai Mortgage. This method would have the benefit of securing the foreigner’s monetary interest in the property. However, in many cases, the foreigner simply wants to have his interests in his home protected.  If this is the case then it may be best to bifurcate (split) the Title of the Real Estate.

Under Thailand Property Law there are ways of splitting the Thai Title Deed of a residential property. Basically, the foreign national could be designated as the Title holder of the physical residence (house) while the Title to the land remains in the name of a Thai national. By bifurcating the Title in such a way, the foreigner’s interests are better protected. That being said, it would probably be wise to contact a Thailand property lawyer to assist with creating the proper legal instruments as bifurcating Thai Title can be quite complicated and requires dealing with the Land Department of Thailand.

For more information please see property lawyer thailand or bangkok lawyer

(Please be aware: this piece is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is formed by reading this blog post.)

The K-1 visa is a very popular visa for Thai nationals who have a US Citizen loved one. The US Embassy in Bangkok processes a large number of fiance visa cases each year. Many of those who apply for a United States K-1 visa have questions about their status once they reach the USA. In most cases, the answers are cut and dried, but there are some questions that have more nuanced answers.

Many people who travel to the United States on a K1 visa seem to immediately ask the question: Can I work now that I’m here? The answer to that question would be a qualified “yes.” Under the relevant provisions of 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(6), a K-1 visa holder may be entitled to apply for what is known as work authorization. Work authorization is sometimes referred to as a “work permit.” Similar to a work permit in Thailand, the work authorization document in the United States must be obtained by petitioning the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

The work permit’s technical name is: Employment Authorization Document (EAD). There are those who are under the mistaken impression that work authorization is a right. In fact, under current United States Immigration laws the K-1 visa holder is not entitled to work authorization as a matter of right, but is simply entitled to submit an application for said status.

A downside of obtaining an Employment Authorization Document while in K-1 status is the fact that the Employment Authorization only lasts as long as the applicant is in K1 status. So it is subject to expiration as soon as the K-1 visa holder’s status changes. This results in employment authorization that lasts for a negligible duration. In most cases, obtaining Work Authorization is often not a net benefit to the prospective applicant except in certain rare circumstances.

That being said, there are other methods of gaining work authorization. A possibly more beneficial option for the prospective work authorization applicant would be to submit an EAD petition in conjunction with an I-485 petition for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence (green card). This method is advantageous because the fee for the Employment Authorization Document is included in the adjustment fee and the result is a net reduction in expenses. Also, the Employment Authorization Document will be valid for one year.

Further, A Thai spouse of a US Citizen present in the United States on a non-immigrant K-3 visa is eligible for work authorization. In the case of the J-1 visa and F-1 visa, the visa holder may be able to obtain a work permit depending upon the situation. Although, particularly in the case of the US Student Visa, work authorization will be severely restricted.

All of this being said, it should be noted that once the K-1 visa holder successfully adjusts status to permanent residence they will have a green card and be legally allowed to work in the United States of America.

(This post is meant for educational purposes only. No Attorney-Client relationship is formed by reading this content.)

The government of the Kingdom of Thailand has erected many protectionist economic measures. One of the most prevalent legal restrictions imposed upon foreigners in Thailand is the de facto prohibition on land ownership under Thailand Real Estate Law. There is a common misconception that foreigners are not allowed to own land. Technically, this is not the case. In reality, the law states that a foreigner may purchase Thai Real Estate if he or she obtains approval from the Minister of the Interior of Thailand. As a practical matter, obtaining this approval is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The upshot of these restrictions is a virtual bar on foreign ownership of Thai Real Estate.

In Thailand, a freehold Title deed is known as a “Chanote.” Due to the aforementioned legal restrictions it is a virtual impossibility for a foreign national to obtain a Chanote for Thai property. That being said, some years ago the Thai government carved out a legal niche whereby a foreigner could obtain a Freehold Title to a Condominium in Thailand. This exemption is subject to certain conditions. First, the Condo must meet the definition of “Condominium” under the act which means that the paperwork for the building must be completely in order. Another very important aspect of this legislation is the fact that a foreign quota is imposed upon a condominium complex. The law states that foreign ownership may only account for 49% of a condominium’s total number of units. The other 51% must be set aside for those of Thai nationality.

This foreign quota provision can lead to a problem because Condos that are highly desired or in desirable areas are not available for foreign purchase. Further, it can be a great disadvantage to Condominium developers in Thailand because there is generally an income discrepancy between foreign and Thai property buyers. As a result, legal devices are sometimes utilized to circumvent the foreign freehold quota on a Thai condo.

For many years, the classic method of providing foreign control of Thai real property was through the use of a Thai Company to own land. In the recent past, the Thai parliament passed legislation which outlawed the use of “nominee shareholders” in ostensibly Thai companies to own real estate. This mechanism has been employed by Condominium developers to get around the freehold quota. Basically, the developer sets up a Thai company, sell the condo to the company, and then sells the company, that now owns an otherwise quota restricted condo, to a foreigner. As a result, the foreigner owns a company which owns a condo in freehold that could not be legally purchased outright. As with any corporate structure involving “nominees,” the use of nominees is prohibited, but the definition of “nominee” is left somewhat vague under Thai law. Specialized legal advice should be sought where corporate structures are utilized for property ownership.

For more on Special Exemptions under Thai law for foreigners please see Amity Company Thailand

(This article is not legal advice. For such advice contact a licensed lawyer. No Lawyer-Client relationship is formed by reading this piece.)

Tuesday July 22, 2009 the website Thaivisa.com is reporting that the Royal Thai Consulate in Penang has apparently made a rule restricting issuance of multiple Thai tourist visas. As can be imagined, this is causing something of a stir among expats and long term vacationers in Thailand because the Royal Thai Consulate in Penang has long been a traditionally convenient post for those wishing to extend their stay in Thailand.

In recent years, the Royal Thai Consulate in Penang has tightened their regulations with regard to issuance of the Thai business visa. In many cases, applicants were continuously traveling to Penang, Malaysia in order to obtain visas for extended stays in the Kingdom with the bonus of having the right to petition for a Thailand work permit should it be deemed necessary at a later date.

The Thai Tourist visa is, by definition, not a visa intended for those wishing to engage in employment activities within the Kingdom of Thailand. Instead, it is a visa designed to allow foreign  nationals entry into Thailand for recreational purposes.  There have been cases where the Thai tourist visa was used to remain in Thailand and work illegally. A similar situation occurs in the United States when foreign nationals enter America using a US Tourist Visa and subsequently obtain employment. As the holder of a US Tourist visa does not have work authorization in the United States, this method of immigration is illegal. In both cases, the respective governments feel the need to crackdown on such activity in order to keep up enforcement of administrative and labor regulations.

That being said, in the case of restriction of Thai Tourist Visas one has to wonder if now was the appropriate time to make the rules more stringent. Currently Thai tourism is at one of its lowest ebbs in years. A combination of domestic turbulence, airport closures, and the world economic crisis has left much of the tourist sector in dire financial straits. Although, this author agrees that the Thailand immigration rules must be enforced, it seems an inopportune moment to begin such enforcement.

It should also be noted that this may not be a rule initiated by the Immigration authorities in Thailand. Consulates and Embassies abroad are governed under the jurisdiction of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That being said, Consulates and Embassies are allowed to set their own rules with regard to who they will issue visas to and under what conditions. It would seem that the Consulate in Penang has exercised their discretion in order to clamp down on those abusing the Thai Tourist Visa.

(This is not legal advice, nor should it be used as such. A lawyer-client relationship is not created by reading this posting.)

There are certain misunderstood aspects of the Thailand Business Visa that may need to be cleared up in order to properly understand how Thai Immigration views those non-Thai nationals in possession of a Thailand B visa.

First, a Thai business visa should not be inferred to impart the right to work in Thailand. Those holding Thai B Visas (Business), must still obtain a Thai work permit before they will be allowed to enjoy employment rights. Even then, Thai law, which in this respect is similar to United States Immigration law, restricts work authorization to a specified geographic location, namely the official address of the employer. That being said, it may be possible to get a second employer stamped into one’s Thai work permit and thereby allow employment with multiple organizations by officially authorizing such employment.

One very difficult concept for many to grasp is the idea that a visa does not confer the “right” to enter the country. This causes some confusion particularly with regard to United States Immigration. A USA visa simply gives the bearer the right to seek permission to enter the United States of America.

The Kingdom of Thailand views visas and travel documents in a similar light. In fact, it may be possible to be turned away at a port of entry in Thailand even where the prospective entrant has what is otherwise considered to be a valid visa. This issue became of acute concern nearly 5 years ago when operators began springing up throughout Thailand who offered to send one’s passport out of the Kingdom and have it sent back in with a new valid visa issued from an Embassy or Consulate abroad. In this situation, even though the visas were issued legally, the Thailand Immigration authorities at the port of entry began not only turning prospective entrants away, but also nullifying visas issued to someone who was in Thailand when the visa was issued at a diplomatic post abroad.

Another common mistake regarding Thai Business visas involves the definition of “multiple entry.” Specifically, does a one year multiple entry Thai visa imply that the bearer may remain in Thailand uninterrupted without being forced to leave? Put simply: No. A Multiple entry visa holder must leave at least every 90 days in order to remain in legal immigration status in the Kingdom.  That being said, the multiple entry visa is commonly confused with the Thai visa extension. The extension allows the bearer to remain in Thailand for up to one year without being compelled to depart every 90 days.  The downside of the extension is the fact that one needs to obtain a reentry permit in order to leave the country. The multiple entry visa allows the person holding it to leave the Kingdom and return on the same visa so long as it remains valid. Hence the name, “multiple entry.”

For further information, Please see the US-Thai Treaty of Amity as certain Immigration rights are created under this bilateral agreement.

(This is not legal advice. For such advice contact an attorney. No lawyer-client relationship should be assumed to exist between author and reader.)

It would appear that although repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may not be happening anytime during the current legislative session. For same sex partners of United States Citizens, there may be hope that United States Federal Immigration Law could be modified in order to allow for United States immigration benefits for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trans-gender (LGBT) Couples.

Under the current laws on the books, embodied in the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Bi-national LGBT couples are precluded from obtaining immigration benefits based upon their relationship. Therefore, the same sex partner of an American Citizen cannot obtain United States Lawful Permanent Resident (Green card) status based upon their relationship in the same way that foreign spouse or fiance could. It would appear that this situation may soon change.

According to CBS News:

“[M]ore than 100 lawmakers in the House and about 20 in the Senate have signed onto bills that would add the United States to the 19 countries that already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.”

Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) is currently being considered in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Many lawmakers are hoping to amend the currently pending bills with proposed amendments to correct the immigration injustice being perpetrated against bi-national same-sex couples. However, the proposed amendments to this legislation do not come without challengers, further from CBS News:

“The long-standing fight over the country’s estimated 36,000 same sex couples of two nationalities is a small but emotional part of the debate over immigration reform. But including same-sex couples in the mix could make it harder to pass an immigration overhaul. A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.”

United States Representative Mike Honda is a supporter of the legislation aimed at ameliorating same-sex discrepancies in Immigration law. The so-called Re-Uniting American Families Act is similar to previous legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). In both proposals, an addition of the term “permanent partner,” will be made to the United States INA which will allow for a circumvention of the restrictions placed upon same sex couples under current federal law (DOMA).

President Obama has signaled his wish that some sort of US Immigration category be created that would allow same-sex couples to have benefits similar to different sex couples. There are questions among same-sex civil rights groups regarding just how much the President really supports their cause as the outcome of the same-sex immigration debate remains in doubt.

(This post is not legal advice. Contact a Licensed professional for legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is created between the writer and any reader of this article.)

For those seeking to submit a visa application the first thing to think about is which office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will take jurisdiction over adjudicating the petition. In instances involving an overseas filing of an Immigrant petition (sometimes known as Direct Consular Filing), this information is not useful, but for those living in the United States and filing non-immigrant spouse or fiance visa petitions, the following information may be helpful.

The K-1 visa application (the I-129f) should be filed with the office having jurisdiction over the petitioner’s home state.  There are currently two USCIS service centers adjudicating I-129f petitions (the K-3 visa application requires a supplemental I-129f petition after submission of an initial I-130 petition).

USICS Service Center: California

The California Service Center currently adjudicates petitions from the following US states and territories:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, or Wyoming. (As with all information concerning USCIS jurisdictional matters, the above list is subject to change.)

USICS Service Center: Vermont

The Vermont Service Center currently adjudicates petitions from the following US states and territories:

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. (As with all information concerning USCIS jurisdictional matters, the above list is subject to change.)

(Some people confuse the Vermont Service Center with the National Visa Center in New Hampshire. The National Visa Center is not an organ of USCIS, but is a visa application processing center under the administrative jurisdiction of the United States Department of State.)

For those American Citizens who are resident in the Kingdom of Thailand, it may be possible to file an Immigrant Visa application with the USCIS office in Bangkok, Thailand. However, unlike a USCIS Service Center, the Bangkok District Office does not generally adjudicate K-1 visa applications. Further, the USCIS Service Centers in California and Vermont are not the correct locations to submit Immigrant Visa (I-130) applications for spouses of United States Citizens who are resident in the United States. Therefore, one should do careful research before submitting any visa application in order to be sure that an application will not be rejected based upon lack of proper jurisdiction.

(Do not use this information as a substitute for competent legal advice. No attorney-client relationship should be inferred to have formed between author and reader.)