Continued
The form for resident visa is found at the bottom of this page. http://dominicanembassycanada.gob.do/index.php/en/visa/item/371-resident-visa
All other Visa forms are found here http://dominicanembassycanada.gob.do/index.php/en/visa
- Thread starter Melisa Alcantara
- Start date
Dominican Immigration has extended the stay for tourist
Continued
The form for resident visa is found at the bottom of this page. http://dominicanembassycanada.gob.do/index.php/en/visa/item/371-resident-visa
All other Visa forms are found here http://dominicanembassycanada.gob.do/index.php/en/visa
We seem to be talking about two different situations here. You are referring to someone who is leaving the country and they are collecting an overstay fee, and the OT is about people who are entering the country and have overstayed in the past and can possibly now be denied entry(?).
Certainly a possibility and something that would not be a surprise. Keep in mind though, that the greatest impetus for immigration reform in this country is not coming from the DR government itself. Foreign countries of which Canada and the USA and some prominent EU parties have all been in talks with the DR about its lax approach to foreign nationals being able to easily disappear into the darkness of the interior of Hispaniola.
These countries hold the keys to the DR when it comes to approving bond issues and other measures that the DR desperately needs to fund its ongoing activities year to year. The DR didn't purchase a new computer system for the airports nor did it purchase the fingerprint scanners or the infrastructure to run a central database. This equipment, the training to use it and a lot of moral suasion comes from abroad.
The DR can forestall the inevitable, it cannot afford to ignore it or bring reform to a complete halt even if it wants to.
I agree they are different situations but what worries me is the liberal application of all aspects the new enforcement policy. Russ was told no more paying overstay fees at the airport when you first arrive. That leaves many people, including me, in a precarious position. We are used to paying our overstay fees up front. If I have to apply for the new extended tourist visa, it’s going to be an onerous process for me. I could opt out and spend the winter in another place and that saddens me because I like the DR. That’s why I’m hoping this new policy fades into the sunset by next fall.
I could but I would have to buy local vehicle insurance for any rentals I use instead of the $13 a day third party liability insurance offered by the car rental companies. After 30 days, I’m not eligible for the rental car insurance. I’m also a target for immigration police when they patrol the tourist bars, shops, etc. If I’m in overstay mode with no receipt to prove I paid the fees up front, then I’m basically an illegal alien. I’m not comfortable with that. Others may choose to take that risk but I want to enjoy my stay and not be looking over my shoulder all the time.
Is that really what immigration told your friend when he was leaving - no more paying overstay fees when you leave? That's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention tht the overstay fee system would be terminated(?).
There is no new extended tourist visa that I know of(?). The maximum permitted stay for a tourist is 60 days as always. The only thing new is that it appears the tourist card will now be good for 60 days.
Russ was told no more paying overstay fees to extend your tourist visa when you first arrive in the DR. We have been doing that for years. The option to pay on your way out of the DR still exists as I understand it.
Here is a translation of the third paragraph from the letter just issued by MIP/DGM:
In this sense, the General Directorate of Migration, making use of the powers granted by Law 285-04 and its Regulation of Application, established by presidential decree 631-11, provides that any foreign national who exceeds the period authorized for their stay in the national territory, whose limit should not exceed the (60) days when he enters as a tourist, is SUBJECT TO NO ADMISSION AT THE TIME OF RETURNING TO THE COUNTRY, without prejudice to the penalty or rate of stay to which the FIFTH paragraph of Resolution DGM-05-2013 on the immigration control procedure in the Dominican Republic.
"Without prejudice" is legalise that means they couldn't care less that you paid they overstay fee - they can still deny you entry.
In this sense, the General Directorate of Migration, making use of the powers granted by Law 285-04 and its Regulation of Application, established by presidential decree 631-11, provides that any foreign national who exceeds the period authorized for their stay in the national territory, whose limit should not exceed the (60) days when he enters as a tourist, is SUBJECT TO NO ADMISSION AT THE TIME OF RETURNING TO THE COUNTRY, without prejudice to the penalty or rate of stay to which the FIFTH paragraph of Resolution DGM-05-2013 on the immigration control procedure in the Dominican Republic.
"Without prejudice" is legalise that means they couldn't care less that you paid they overstay fee - they can still deny you entry.
Just for clarity, there are two letters from MIP issued recently.
One was sent to MA Immigration and was posted in the closed thread in full. This was apparently received on Friday 28th April and can be found in my post #5 link.
The second was sent to all the Foreign Embassies and consulates in DR on 17th April and is in post #36. MA has translated this particular letter and was on LinkedIn yesterday.
Both essentially say the same but if you carefully study the wording the targets seem to be those resident here beyond 60 days. Could be Venezuelans as main target but all foreign missions advised.
We don't know if any letter has been sent to Immigration Officers at Ports of Entry.
In both letters when they mention being "resident" here for more than 60 days they are referring to students, workers, investors who would, by their "naturaleza" would need to be here for more thn 60 days and need a visa.
As I said before, I don't see anyway possible that this is to target Venezuelans because the overwhelming majority of them come here to stay(or at least until things improve back home) and are not travelling back and forth where they would possibly be denied re-entry.
Venezuelans who have overstayed their visa are subject to deportation under current law and many have already been deported. Nothing new is needed.
"No more paying overstay fees at the Luperon Immigration Marina office if you are leaving at the POP Airport." That was once a practice for me...not anymore.
In the second paragraph of the MIP letter to Embassies and Consulates they specifically mention those overstaying the maximum 60 days for purpose of residency ...por estudio, trabajo, residencia, inversion....) and direct them to apply for the relevant visa and onto formal residency if that is the status needed. The first paragraph refers to people with a no resident status and that does not include for residency purposes.
Their target this appears to be long term overstayers permanently or semi-permanently living here and using the port of entry as a means of control adds another string to their bow.
If this is indeed true, this has nothing to with the tourist card and everything to do with those using the tourist visa. I believe most of us are confusing the two when they are two different entities. This also makes sense why they would permanently ban the citizens from the "less desirable" countries. Theyre not throwing away 1st world dollars.
Last edited:
A bow only needs one string. Why would someone want to add another string? Would it be a two string bow or are you suggesting a 2nd string in storage?
Perhaps you want to say they would be adding another arrow into their quiver.
Arrows would be much more valuable than additional bow strings.
I totally disagree. Both letters specifically mention denying entry for past overstays. They say nothing about deporting anyone.
Student, worker, investor, etc. are legal resident statuses. It goes without saying that temporary and permanent residents(which are mentioned specifically in the second letter) require a resident visa. I thought everybody knew that(?).
This letter states nothing NEW. It just states clearly that under the EXISTING laws that they have the right to deny ENTRY to those who have overstayed. Neither letter has anything to do with deportation.
This doesn't add any "string to their bow". They already had this right under existing law. This is not a new law.
Last edited: