DTV Visa Rejected: Why Applications Fail and What To Do Next

Why DTV applications are refused

Eight defects sink DTV applications. Two of them are new since 31 August 2026.

1. A missing or out-of-window criminal record certificate — mandatory for every applicant since 31 August 2026; the accepted age runs from three months (Washington DC, Los Angeles, Munich) to six (London, Rome), and nine missions had still not published the requirement when we checked on 3 September 2026.
2. Residence evidence below the filing mission's standard — "proof of permanent residence" means indefinite leave to remain at London and a valid driving licence at Los Angeles.
3. Money that arrived too recently — Washington DC requires ฿500,000 held "for each month" across "the last three months".
4. Filing from the wrong place — from inside Thailand, or from outside the mission's published jurisdiction.
5. Filing too early — The Hague rejects applications submitted more than 90 days before the intended arrival date.
6. Form-data errors — a name that does not match the passport's machine-readable zone, a mistyped email, a cropped photo page in place of a photograph.
7. Document mechanics — uploads over Seoul's 3 MB limit, unclear scans, translations notarised by a local notary rather than an embassy or ministry, a passport short of six months' validity.
8. A qualifying activity you cannot evidence — a real remote job with no authenticated contract, or a gym that cannot produce its licence.

Every one of those is a requirement a Thai mission publishes. The order they are in is not: no mission publishes refusal statistics, so ranking causes by frequency — here or anywhere — is judgement rather than data, and we say so again where it matters below.

You cannot appeal any of them, the government fee is not refunded, and no mission publishes a waiting period before you may file again. The rest of this page takes each defect in turn — the two new ones first, then the six older ones in their own numbered sections — with what the refusal actually cost you and which defects are worth re-filing on.

The short answer

A DTV refusal is not an appealable decision. No Thai mission publishes an appeals route, a review procedure, or a way to ask for reasons — and several state in writing that they do not have to give you any. The wording is near-identical boilerplate across missions. The Royal Thai Consulate-General in Los Angeles publishes: "Consular officers reserve the right to request additional documents as deemed necessary and reserve the right to reject any application without having to provide reasons." Washington DC and Chicago publish the same sentence almost word for word. Seoul and Ho Chi Minh City publish their own variants.

So the realistic remedy is a fresh application, not a challenge to the old one. There is no published waiting period. You may file again the day after a refusal — but if you were refused on funds, filing again quickly is the worst thing you can do, for reasons that are arithmetic rather than opinion. That is covered below.

One thing worth saying at the top, because it is where most of the damage is done: nobody publishes why DTV applications fail. Not the missions, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not any official source we could find. There is no published refusal rate. A "62–94%" approval figure circulates on visa blogs; we went looking for it in its claimed source and it is not there. Any article that ranks refusal causes "by frequency" — including this one — is offering judgement, not data. We would rather tell you that than pretend to a precision we do not have.

Updated 3 September 2026. Two documents changed for every applicant on 31 August 2026: proof of permanent residence replaced the old "document indicating current location", and a certificate of criminal record clearance became mandatory. That adds two new ways for a file to fail, and they are covered in their own section below, before the six older ones. If your application straddles that date, start with our guide to the 31 August 2026 rule change.

What a refusal letter does and does not tell you

Assume it tells you almost nothing.

In practice, applicants receive a status change on thaievisa.go.th and, at most, a short line stating the application was not approved. Missions are not obliged to itemise the defect, and the published policy language quoted above exists precisely so they do not have to. Reading the letter forensically is wasted effort. Rebuilding the file is not.

Two nuances are worth knowing.

First, refusal is not the only non-approval outcome. Seoul's published wording reserves the right to "request additional documents, cancel, reject or change visa type as deemed necessary." An officer can decide your file describes something other than what you applied for. That is not a refusal, but it is not what you asked for either.

Second, at some missions a weak file produces delay rather than rejection. London publishes that "if the applicant not submitting all listed documents or submitted a screenshot or unclear file, he/she will get a request for more documents which will delay the Visa processing time." A document request is a second chance. Treat one as urgent, not as bad news.

You will also encounter sites that look official and are not. royalthaiembassy.com is a commercial visa service, not a Thai government mission, despite a domain that reads like one. Genuine Thai missions sit on thaiembassy.org subdomains — london.thaiembassy.org, washingtondc.thaiembassy.org, and so on — and the only official filing portal is thaievisa.go.th. A recently refused applicant, searching in a hurry, is exactly the person who mistakes one for the other. Check the domain before you pay anyone, including us.

What a refusal actually costs

The government fee, in full. Every mission we checked publishes this in terms that leave no room:

• The Hague: "Once payment has been made, the application processing fee (visa fee) CANNOT be refunded if the application is cancelled or rejected."
• Washington DC: "the visa fee is non-refundable."
• Los Angeles: "Visa fee is non-refundable, please double check all information before submitting."
• Chicago: "Visa fee is non-refundable, please check your information is correct before submit the application."
• Seoul: "any fees paid are non-refundable."
• Singapore repeats it in capitals: "NON-REFUNDABLE".
• Ho Chi Minh City states the same.

How much that is depends entirely on where you filed. The DTV fee is set per mission, and there is no universal figure: London publishes £300, Washington DC publishes $400, Singapore publishes 500 SGD, against a nominal ฿10,000. Quote yourself the figure from the mission you actually filed at, not the one an agency put in a blog post.

You should also be sceptical of anyone advertising a refund that covers the government fee. Several agencies do. Seven missions we checked state in writing that they will not refund it, and no agency can override that — at best they are refunding their own margin. For the sake of symmetry: our professional fees are non-refundable once work begins, and we cannot recover a government fee either. If we could, we would say so.

We have not found a mission that publishes a way to amend a refused application, correct a field, or switch category without paying again. That is consistent with the non-refund language, but we cannot cite a rule saying so, so treat it as the likely position rather than a certainty.

Does a refusal follow you?

Honestly: we do not know, and neither does anyone claiming otherwise. We found no primary source confirming that a DTV refusal is retained on a record visible to the next officer, and no published field on the e-Visa form requiring you to declare a prior refusal.

What is true is structural. Applications go through one national platform, tied to your passport number. It is prudent to assume a previous application is visible to whoever handles the next one. It is not prudent to accept anyone's confident account of how heavily it weighs, because no mission publishes what is retained or for how long.

The practical implication is the same either way: your second application should be better, not merely resubmitted.

Two new ways to fail, added on 31 August 2026

Everything in the section that follows was true before 31 August 2026 and is still true. This part is new — and, as a judgement rather than a statistic, it is currently the easiest way to lose a fee, because the requirement is national and the mission checklists have not all caught up with it.

At 00:00 Thailand time on 31 August 2026 the e-Visa system changed two supporting documents for every DTV applicant. Proof of permanent residence replaced the old "document indicating current location", and a certificate of criminal record clearance became mandatory. The Royal Thai Embassy in London published both in a single announcement; the Royal Thai Embassy in Seoul published the same two changes with the same effective timestamp, which is what marks this as a national e-Visa change rather than one mission's revision. Nothing else in the announcement changed, although Vientiane says applicants must now also be a national or permanent resident of the country where they file; see below. The full account, with the mission-by-mission tables and the primary sources, is in our guide to the 31 August 2026 rule change.

A missing or out-of-window criminal record certificate. It is mandatory for everyone now, not only for the nationalities that already faced extra checks, and it fails in two ways.

The first is not filing one at all, usually because the mission's own checklist has not caught up. When we checked on 3 September 2026, nine missions — Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City, Yangon, Phnom Penh, Oslo, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Madrid and Budapest — still did not list the certificate anywhere. A silent page is not an exemption from a change made in the national e-Visa system, and no mission publishes a remedy for having relied on its own out-of-date checklist. If yours is silent, ask it in writing before you file.

The second is filing a certificate that is too old for the window your mission applies. London and Rome accept one issued within six months; Washington DC, Los Angeles and Munich require three months; Taipei, Fukuoka and Helsinki require the certificate without publishing a window at all. Hong Kong requests it from the police directly rather than asking the applicant for it. Three months is a short window to hold against an issuing authority's own turnaround plus an embassy processing time that nobody publishes, so order the certificate late in your preparation rather than first, and do not assume another mission's six months applies to yours.

Residence evidence that does not meet the filing mission's standard. The wording changed nationally; what satisfies it did not. London asks for permanent residence in the UK, Ireland or the British Overseas Territories — UK indefinite leave to remain, or Irish long-term residency. Los Angeles accepts a valid US visa or a valid driving licence, and Washington DC a valid US visa. Washington DC, Los Angeles and Helsinki currently carry both the old line and the new one on the same page. Singapore's page, updated on 31 August itself, still asks only for a "Document indicating current location in Singapore".

So the same phrase is a settled-immigration-status test at one mission and a driving licence at another, and the failure mode is obvious once stated: filing at a strict mission on evidence assembled for a lenient one. London at least publishes that an incomplete file triggers a request for more documents and a delay. Not every mission publishes that courtesy.

And one thing that is being reported in the wrong shape. You will read that from 31 August you must apply in your country of citizenship or legal residence. Citizenship is not required — no page makes you file where you hold a passport, though Vientiane accepts its own nationals as well as permanent residents. Residence is the test that bites. The Royal Thai Consulate-General in Savannakhet, page updated 27 August 2026, states it in a single sentence: "Effective from 31 August 2026, applicants must be permanent residents of the country where the visa application is submitted." Kuala Lumpur and Berlin carry the same requirement in mission-neutral wording.

Updated 17 October 2026. We said here that, as of 3 September 2026, it was not published at Vientiane, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Manila, Canberra, Ottawa or Tokyo. Vientiane was wrong: the Royal Thai Embassy there, on a visa page stamped 28 August 2026, says applicants must "Be a national or permanent resident of the country where the visa application is submitted" and that the new requirements take effect "worldwide". Re-read on 17 October 2026, Tokyo and Manila publish it too, and Ho Chi Minh City asks foreigners for a Vietnamese temporary or permanent residence card; Canberra has posted only the national announcement, and Ottawa and Hanoi nothing. Mexico City, on a page updated 2 October 2026, still publishes the opposite: it accepts applications "regardless of the applicant's nationality or residency status, provided that the applicant is physically present and remains in one of the countries under its jurisdiction throughout the application process". For a file you are about to submit, the distinction is sharp: at a mission that has published the requirement, a third-country application now fails on a rule; at one that has not, the old position is still on the page. Neither is a reason to assume a quiet mission will stay quiet while your application sits with it.

If you filed before the change, Seoul states — in Korean, and only in Korean — that applications submitted before 31 August 2026 continue to be examined under the previous document requirements. London's English announcement contains no transition provision at all. That is one mission's published position rather than a national guarantee, so if your file is still pending, ask the mission holding it rather than assuming you are covered.

The six things that sink DTV applications

These six predate the 31 August 2026 change and are unaffected by it. The ordering below is our judgement, formed from the requirements missions publish and the defects they warn about. It is not derived from refusal statistics, because none exist.

1. Fund seasoning — money that arrived too recently

The ฿500,000 requirement is well known. The part that fails people is when the money was there. We take the seasoning question apart mission by mission in our guide to the ฿500,000 proof of funds; this section covers only what it does to a refusal.

Washington DC's DTV page requires "recent saving or checking bank statements for the last three months with an ending balance of no less than 500,000 THB or ($16,000 USD) for each month that shows the applicant's name and date." Read that literally, because officers do. Money that lands in month three does not satisfy a rule written per month. Oslo requires "bank statements showing an ending balance of at least 500,000 THB over the past three months." Singapore requires "bank saving statements balance at least 500,000 THB (Approximtely 20,000 SGD) for the past 3 months." Frankfurt likewise specifies the last three months.

Here is the non-obvious part. Three-month seasoning is not universal on the published pages. London states the amount — "no less than £12,000 (500,000 THB)" — with no month requirement at all. Los Angeles asks only for "a copy of a recent saving or checking bank statement with an ending balance of no less than 500,000 THB or ($17,000 USD)." So three months is the strictest published standard, not a Thailand-wide rule — and preparing to the strictest standard is the only rational play, because you are filing at one mission and cannot control which officer applies which reading.

Two further details worth internalising:

• The baht figure is the requirement; the currency conversions are indicative and inconsistent. Washington DC publishes $16,000 as the equivalent of ฿500,000. Los Angeles publishes $17,000. London publishes £12,000. Singapore publishes roughly 20,000 SGD. These are all official pages and they do not agree with one another. If you hold foreign currency, leave real headroom above the baht figure so an adverse exchange rate on the day of assessment does not put you underneath it.
• What does not work: crypto holdings, brokerage accounts, pension pots and available credit. A company account in your business's name is not your account. These are the files we see rebuilt most often.
• A seasoned balance on a stale statement still fails. Seasoning is how long the money sat there; freshness is how old the paper is, and missions test them separately. Seoul requires the bank statement itself to have been issued within one week of the application date (발급일 일주일 이내), so a three-month-old statement showing a flawless balance history can be refused as stale. You will see "within 30 days" quoted for this rule; no mission page we read publishes that figure, and the one mission that does publish a window is stricter than it. Other missions may apply the same rule without publishing it — Seoul's is the only one we have been able to confirm — so order the statement the week you file, not the month you start preparing.

On whose name the account carries, our standard advice needs a correction that we are obliged to publish because it is in the missions' own words. Washington DC and Los Angeles both state: "In case of submitting a family bank statement, proof of relationship (i.e. birth certificate, marriage certificate) must be provided." Washington DC additionally lists a sponsorship letter, as do London, Frankfurt and Ho Chi Minh City. Your own account, in your own passport name, remains the cleanest file by a distance. But "it must be in your name" is not a universal published rule, and you should check the mission you are actually filing at.

2. Filing from the wrong place

Two separate errors, both fatal.

From inside Thailand. The Hague states directly that your application will be rejected if you are already in Thailand during the visa process. The DTV is applied for from outside the country. There is no in-country workaround. If you are in Thailand now, read what you can do instead.

From outside the mission's jurisdiction. This is real, documented, and enforced. Seoul requires that "applicants must be residing in the Republic of Korea on the date of visa application submission," and reserves the right to cancel or reject applications from those who are not. Singapore grants the DTV only to "Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents" (page edited 7 September 2026). London accepts applications only from those who "currently reside in the UK, Ireland, or UK Territories," adds that applicants "must remain physically" there because it reserves the right to request an in-person interview, and requires non-UK citizens to produce a BRP card or UKVI settlement status letter.

In the United States the jurisdictions are named state by state. Los Angeles covers thirteen: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, plus the US Pacific Territories. Washington DC covers thirteen states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Filing at the wrong one is not a technicality that gets waved through.

Note also that where you are is itself a checked document, and that document changed on 31 August 2026: proof of permanent residence now replaces the old "document indicating current location (driving license, bank statement, or proof of stay)", although Washington DC, Los Angeles and Helsinki currently list both lines. See the section above for what each mission accepts. Either way, the mission is checking.

Working out which mission can actually accept you is a lookup rather than a judgement call, and we walk through it in which embassy to apply through.

3. Applying too early

Almost nobody covers this, and it is published. The Hague states that applications submitted more than 90 days before the intended date of arrival will be rejected, and asks applicants to file at least one month but no longer than two months before travel, because most visas carry only 60–90 days' validity from issuance.

This is not unique to The Hague. Washington DC publishes the same principle — "applications should not be submitted more than 90 days in advance, as the validity of most visas is typically only 90 days" — and advises applying "at least 30 days prior to the departure date." Check your own mission's window before you file. An eager applicant filing five months out can lose the fee for enthusiasm alone.

While you are there, check the processing time the mission publishes for itself, because there is no Thailand-wide or DTV-specific figure — the numbers below are general e-Visa processing times, not DTV service standards. The Hague publishes 5–10 working days for a complete application, and warns that applications from certain nationals can take up to three months. Seoul publishes "approximately 7 business days from the date of submission." Los Angeles publishes "up to 15 business days (Weekend and Holiday Excluded)," and asks for "an additional 5 business days after you submitted additional documents." Chicago publishes that applications "are usually processed within 15 days." Washington DC publishes that you should see updates on your dashboard "within 15 business days." Anyone quoting you a single DTV processing time is quoting one mission, or nothing.

4. Form-data errors

The Hague and Oslo both publish dedicated "common mistakes" pages for e-Visa applications. They are general e-Visa guidance rather than DTV-specific, but they are the closest thing to an official list of what applicants get wrong, and they are unglamorous:

• Names: your name must be spelled exactly as it appears in the machine-readable zone of your passport. Abbreviations, initials in place of full names, omitted name components and missing spaces ("Johanwiik" for "Johan Wiik") are all flagged.
• Special characters: Oslo requires Æ, Ø and Å to be converted to AE, OE and AA.
• Passport number transcription errors.
• Photographs: a cropped image of the passport photo page instead of an actual recent photograph.
• Email addresses mistyped — all automatic communication from the e-Visa system goes to that address, so the mission's document request never arrives.
• Nationality errors, particularly among dual nationals.
• Submitting documents that were not requested. Both missions tell you to submit only what is explicitly asked for. Padding a file does not strengthen it.
• Self-created or unsigned declaration forms. The official form is downloaded from thaievisa.go.th; your own version will be rejected.

None of this requires a consultant to fix. It requires an hour and a second pair of eyes.

5. Document quality and file mechanics

Seoul publishes that uploads must be "JPG or PDF files with a maximum file size of 3 MB." That limit interacts badly with the previous point: an oversized scan gets compressed until it is exactly the "unclear file" that London warns will trigger a document request or worse.

Washington DC requires that "all supporting materials that are issued outside of Thailand and the U.S. must be accompanied by certified English translations and notarized by an Embassy or Ministry of Foreign Affairs only" — not a local notary.

Passport validity is checked against your travel date, not your application date. Kuala Lumpur requires the original passport "Must be valid within 6 months from the travel date". Yangon requires "at least six months of remaining validity and blank visa pages". A passport with five months left when you intend to fly is a refusal that no amount of financial evidence rescues — and it is the one defect you can check in ten seconds, before you pay a fee that nobody refunds.

6. A weak qualifying activity

The three categories are published: DTV1 workcation (remote employees, freelancers, owners of businesses registered abroad), DTV2 Thai soft power activities, DTV3 dependants — spouses and unmarried children under 20, who apply separately and after the primary applicant is approved.

For workcation, the failure is evidentiary rather than substantive, and the heaviest published standard we have found is Kuala Lumpur's: an employment contract or employment certificate and a copy of the employing company's registration or business licence, each "authenticated by the embassy of the country where the company is located", plus a professional portfolio evidencing remote-worker or freelancer status. That authentication chain routinely takes weeks, and it blindsides applicants who budgeted a fortnight for the whole application. A genuine remote job evidenced only by a profile page and a handful of invoices is the version of this file we rebuild most often, and at a mission applying Kuala Lumpur's standard it does not clear. Business owners meet the same wall in a different shape: the company must be documented as registered outside Thailand, and — for the funds test — a company account is not your account.

For soft power, note that the provider can sink your application. Singapore's soft power page requires provider documentation that differs by activity: a "Letter from Muay Thai camp to Board of Boxing Sport" for Muay Thai; "School license, Business license or Affidavit" for culinary training; "Business license, Affidavit" for medical treatment. If your gym, school or clinic cannot produce the right registration document, your file is weak regardless of how genuine your intent is.

Two qualifications, stated as the uncertain things they are. Thai language schools no longer qualify under soft power — this is Ministry of Foreign Affairs guidance reported through 2025, and we have not been able to obtain the underlying document, so we attribute it rather than cite it. Those applicants should be looking at an ED or ED Plus visa. Separately, the widely repeated "programme must be at least six months" threshold appears on no mission page we found — Singapore's soft power page states no minimum duration at all. It is observed embassy practice, not a published rule, and we will not present it as one.

The nationality overlay

This is not a refusal cause so much as a timing and process overlay, but it derails applications that were otherwise sound.

These are the missions' own lists, reproduced so you can check whether yours appears on one. Naming a country here documents what a Thai mission has published about it — it is not an offer to act there. We do not provide services to, from, or within Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, or the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions (terms).

London names thirty nationalities whose applicants "must apply for Thai visa in person at the Royal Thai Embassy in London," including Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Egypt, Ghana, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. For Nigerian passport holders, London requires either an NDLEA (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) clearance certificate, certified by the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and legalised by the Royal Thai Embassy in Abuja, or a police clearance certificate obtained in the UK or Ireland. The alternative matters — plenty of writing on this omits it.

Yangon publishes its own list of twenty-nine nationalities with additional requirements, and the rules within it differ by group. A group of twenty-three — including Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and a number of African states — face, without a Foreign Resident Card, "a background check and apporved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which takes up to 4 weeks." North Korean, Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian nationals may apply only if they hold an FRC, and still face a check of up to four weeks. Nigerian nationals may apply only with an FRC, plus a local background clearance certificate.

One correction to a claim we have made before, because the primary source contradicts it. Yangon states that Chinese nationals intending to stay more than 90 days are subject to a background check taking up to one week, not a month-long MFA approval — though it also notes that special circumstances require approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or concerned authorities. That is Yangon's published rule and we are not generalising it to every mission; London, by contrast, requires Chinese nationals to appear in person. Note too that India appears on London's in-person list but not on Yangon's list at all. These lists differ by mission. Read the one that applies to you.

Since 31 August 2026 all of this sits on top of the criminal record clearance certificate that every applicant now files, rather than in place of it. The announcement adds that certificate and says nothing about withdrawing nationality-specific clearances, so a Nigerian applicant at London should assume the NDLEA-or-UK-police-certificate requirement still stands alongside it until the mission says otherwise.

Re-applying: when, and whether

There is no published waiting period. We reviewed around ten mission sites and none imposes one. You are free to file again immediately, with a new full fee.

Do not. Re-filing an unchanged file produces an unchanged outcome, and costs you another £300 or $400 or 500 SGD to learn nothing.

The honest schedule depends on what was wrong:

• Form errors, wrong photo, oversized uploads, missing employment letter: fix and re-file as soon as the corrected documents exist. Days, not months.
• Wrong jurisdiction: re-file at the correct mission once you can evidence residence there. If you cannot evidence residence anywhere in that mission's territory, the problem is not the application. Choosing between the missions you are genuinely entitled to use is a separate question, and re-filing at a mission you have heard is lenient is not a strategy available to most applicants.
• Weak provider documentation: get the licence, affidavit or camp letter from the school or gym first. If they cannot produce one, change provider.
• A missing, stale or wrong-type criminal record certificate: order the one your mission names — an ACRO certificate at London, an FBI certificate at Los Angeles — and re-file once it is in hand. The wait belongs to the issuing authority, not to the embassy and not to us, so check that authority's own published turnaround before you promise yourself a date.
• Residence evidence below the mission's standard: this may not be fixable at that mission. If London wants indefinite leave to remain and you do not have it, a better-presented file will not close the gap. The question becomes which mission you are entitled to file at, not how to word the next application.
• Funds: wait. This is the one nobody wants to hear.

Rebuilding a file refused on funds

If your refusal was about money, the fix is not a better-written cover letter. It is time.

To satisfy the strictest published standard — Washington DC's ฿500,000 "for each month" across "the last three months" — you need three full monthly statements showing the balance held throughout. If your money only reached the account last week, that evidence cannot exist for roughly ninety days, no matter who prepares your file.

No consultant can shorten that window. We cannot. Paying us today buys you nothing before it closes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling optimism.

What to do in the meantime: park the funds in one account, in your own name, in a bank that issues statements showing a running balance rather than only an ending figure; stop moving money in and out of it; hold comfortably above ฿500,000 rather than at it, so a currency movement does not take you under; and do not close the account or transfer between accounts mid-window, which restarts the clock in evidentiary terms.

When re-applying is hopeless

We would rather say this than take the fee:

• You do not have ฿500,000 and cannot hold it for three months. There is no version of this file that works. Wait until you do.
• Your only qualifying activity is a Thai language course. On the guidance reported in 2025, that no longer qualifies under soft power. Look at an ED visa instead.
• You are inside Thailand and hoping to file from a hotel in Chiang Mai. It will be refused. Leave first.
• You are under 20. The minimum age is 20 and it is not negotiable.
• Your funds sit in crypto, a brokerage account, a pension, or a company account, and you are unwilling to move them into a personal bank account and season them. The requirement is a bank statement.

When you do not need us

Most of what we have described above is self-inflicted and self-fixable. If your refusal came down to a misspelt name, a cropped photo, an unreachable email address, a 6 MB PDF, or filing at Los Angeles when you live in Texas — you do not need a consultancy. You need a careful hour. The application is filed by you, at thaievisa.go.th, and the government fee is the same whether we are involved or not.

Where a third party earns their fee is narrower than the marketing suggests: files with genuine ambiguity — self-employment across multiple entities, a sponsor or family bank statement where the mission's published rules are thin, a nationality that triggers an in-person requirement or a background check, or a case where the right question is which mission to file at in the first place.

And no consultant controls the outcome. Officers decide, they are not required to explain, and anyone promising you approval is promising something they cannot deliver.

If you want a candid read on whether your rebuilt file is actually ready — or whether you should wait another two months — a free eligibility review gives you that before you commit to a package.