欧

Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, who also concurrently holds the post of Interior Minister, signed the "Prime Minister's Office Regulation on Deportation B.E. 2569 (2026)" on August 26. The regulation was published in the Royal Gazette on August 27 and took effect the following day, August 28. It is Thailand's first dedicated regulation on deportation procedures, aimed at establishing a faster and more efficient enforcement and coordination mechanism among the government agencies involved, replacing what had previously been a more piecemeal approach lacking unified standards. Prior to this, matters relating to the deportation of foreigners in Thailand were handled mainly under the 1979 Immigration Act, which granted authorities deportation powers but lacked unified administrative procedures, leaving actual enforcement highly dependent on ad hoc coordination between agencies on a case-by-case basis, with inconsistent efficiency. On June 16 this year, the Thai Cabinet passed a resolution assigning Deputy Prime Minister Pakorn Nilprapunt to lead coordination among relevant agencies in reviewing immigration-related laws, regulations and procedures, and this Prime Minister's Office regulation is the final outcome of that review.

Under the new regulation, deportation procedures apply to two categories of foreign nationals: first, those whose conduct is deemed to threaten public order, good morals or public wellbeing; and second, those convicted of specific offences, including illegal entry, illegal employment, illegal business operation, document forgery, or crimes carrying prison terms of five years or more. Once a person is determined to fall into either category, the relevant authorities can initiate deportation proceedings, which may also include a ban on re-entering Thailand. Under the old system, a foreigner facing deportation could file an appeal with the Immigration Bureau, together with supporting evidence and reasons, within 48 hours of being notified of the order, and deportation was generally suspended while the appeal was pending except in serious cases — a mechanism that protected the individual's right to contest the order but also often led to case backlogs and delayed enforcement. In addition, the new regulation extends coverage to principals, instigators or accomplices involved in any of the above offences, broadening the range of foreigners who can be deemed subject to deportation.

The regulation also establishes a tiered notification process linking the prison system with the Interior Ministry. According to Thai English-language media, led by the Bangkok Post, the Department of Corrections must give the Interior Ministry advance warning of foreign inmates facing release who may meet the deportation criteria — reports indicate this initial flag is typically issued roughly 50 days before release. Subsequently, the Director-General of the Department of Corrections must formally submit the inmate's full name, nationality and case record to the Interior Ministry's permanent secretary at least 15 days before the actual release date, so the ministry can review the information promptly and the Interior Minister can complete consideration of a deportation order before the person is released, avoiding procedural delays or a gap in which the individual goes unmonitored.

The regulation also sets a specific timeframe for carrying out a deportation order once issued: after the Interior Minister signs a deportation order, the person is generally required to leave Thailand within 30 days. In special circumstances, the Interior Minister may approve an extension, with each extension capped at 30 days and a maximum of two extensions allowed. This arrangement is seen as helping to prevent people awaiting removal from remaining in the country for extended periods in an unclear status, while giving enforcement agencies time to handle documentation, travel arrangements, and, where necessary, third-country placement.

Under the regulation, the Interior Minister holds final authority to issue deportation orders, which may also carry a condition banning the individual from re-entering Thailand for a set period or indefinitely. The draft regulation was led by Deputy Prime Minister Pakorn Nilprapunt, in coordination with the Royal Thai Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Justice. It was approved by the Cabinet on July 14 this year, and was formally signed into force after roughly a month and a half of preparation.

The regulation also incorporates a human-rights safeguard: if a person facing deportation would risk torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, degrading treatment, or enforced disappearance upon return to their country of origin, the authorities may arrange for the person to be transferred to a third country instead of deporting them directly home. Reports indicate this third-country arrangement is conditioned on another country or international organisation requesting the transfer and covering all associated costs. This provision links to the non-refoulement principle already established under Section 13 of Thailand's Anti-Torture and Enforced Disappearance Prevention Act, which prohibits government agencies and officials from expelling, deporting or extraditing a person to a country where they would be in danger of torture or similar risks.

Even while the regulation was still in draft form, a coalition of civil society organisations including Asylum Access had already called on the Thai government to review the draft to ensure it was consistent with the non-refoulement principle and Thailand's international human rights obligations. A report published by Fortify Rights on August 6 further noted that a provision allowing a person to be sent to the country where they had previously resided, when their nationality cannot be confirmed, risks being misused to forcibly return refugees and other vulnerable groups, potentially exposing them to persecution, torture, enforced disappearance or even death. The report specifically noted that groups such as Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, whose identities are difficult to verify, would be particularly exposed, and called for stricter screening and remedy procedures to be added during actual implementation.

Before this regulation, Thailand lacked a unified written standard for the deportation of foreigners who broke the law or were suspected of disturbing public order, and coordination between agencies often relied on ad hoc arrangements, which could lead to delayed information-sharing, unclear lines of responsibility, and even cases where individuals who should have been deported remained in the country due to procedural gaps. Setting out clear deportation criteria, agency responsibilities and timelines in the form of a Prime Minister's Office regulation is seen as one of the Thai government's key moves in recent years to strengthen immigration management and public security governance, particularly against a backdrop in which certain cases involving foreigners have drawn public attention and calls for stronger enforcement against lawbreaking foreign nationals.

Since the regulation took effect, domestic commentary in Thailand has been mixed. Thai political outlet Thai Examiner has pointed out that, because Anutin simultaneously holds the posts of Prime Minister and Interior Minister, the new regulation effectively places sweeping personal discretion to issue deportation orders in his hands — a point that has drawn attention from some commentators. Meanwhile, human rights organisations including Fortify Rights and the Manushya Foundation have raised concerns that the regulation's safeguards remain inadequate, warning it could open a faster "deportation channel" that some countries might use to pressure across borders or target dissidents and human rights defenders residing in Thailand. Because Thailand has not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol, groups such as Rohingya refugees, whose nationality can be difficult to verify, are seen as particularly at risk of forced return to the country where they previously resided. These organisations had earlier submitted comments on draft versions of the regulation to the Thai government, calling for it to be brought into line with the non-refoulement principle and Thailand's international human rights obligations. In a separate report, the same outlet described the overhaul as a wholesale reshaping of the deportation process, arguing that the new regulation concentrates immense discretionary power in the hands of the government.

As of now, the Thai Interior Ministry has not publicly released detailed implementation guidelines or disclosed any initial cases handled under the new regulation, so its real-world effect remains to be seen. Several Thai law firms and immigration advisory practices have already advised foreigners residing or doing business in Thailand, as well as their employers, to familiarise themselves promptly with the regulation's scope, notification procedures and avenues for appeal in order to reduce legal risk. Analysts say whether the regulation can strike a balance between strengthening enforcement efficiency and upholding Thailand's international human rights obligations will be a key point of continued scrutiny in the period ahead.