Our Expert Immigration Lawyers are currently helping Cambodians to apply for PROTECTION VISA and PERMANENT RESIDENCE in Australia. But you must be quick. Things may change as we speak.
Fill in the form to see if you are eligible for a Cambodia Protection Visa
BOOK A CONSULTATION
The ruling Cambodian People’s Party has intensified its crackdown on independent media, local human rights defenders, and land rights activists. In April, Hun Sen used the Covid-19 pandemic to enact a draconian state of emergency law that severely restricts fundamental liberties.
Between January and April, authorities detained and interrogated at least 30 people, including a 14-year-old girl, for Facebook posts.
On 4 June, Wanchalearm Satsaksit, a 37-year-old Thai opposition activist living in exile in Cambodia, was abducted by unidentified persons in the capital, Phnom Penh. His whereabouts remained unknown.
Rights to free expression and peaceful assembly are sharply curtailed, and there is no accountability for serious abuses.
That’s why many Cambodians currently in Australia are applying for Protection Visa to stay permanently in Australia.
Our Immigration Lawyers can help you with your Onshore Protection Visa. Most of our protection visa clients are international students and tourists who fear to return to Cambodia and would like to stay in Australia permanently. We have a proven success record in assisting nationals of Cambodia.
On 28 July 1951, the Refugee Convention was adopted by a United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries, in Geneva. Australia became a party (acceded) to the Convention on 22 January 1954. The Refugee Convention came into force on 21 April 1954.
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This means that Australia has voluntarily committed to comply with their provisions in good faith and to take the necessary steps to give effect to those treaties under domestic law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26).
Under Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention, Australia has an obligation not to:
“… expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.
Claim your consultationTo be a refugee in Australia, an asylum seeker must be assessed as meeting certain legal criteria. The meaning of a ‘refugee’ in the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) is a person in Australia who is:
This definition is forward-looking. Even if a person has suffered persecution in the past, they are not a refugee by the meaning in the Act unless they have a well-founded fear of persecution and there is a real chance they will be persecuted in their home country now, if they were to return. However, past events could establish a real chance of persecution if the person were to return.
A person might become a refugee after arriving in Australia. This could occur if there is a change of circumstances in their home country or a change in personal circumstances after they left that gives them a well-founded fear of persecution if they were to return.
Well-founded fear of persecution The Act states that a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
Section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act provides an exhaustive list of the five reasons for which a person may claim that a persecutor is motivated to inflict harm upon them. The five reasons are consistent with those in Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention. The reasons are:
Complementary protection is protection for those who are not refugees according to the Act, but who can’t return to their home country because they will suffer certain types of harm which engage Australia’s other protection obligations.
These obligations come from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and have been incorporated into the Act.
A person can be granted a protection visa on the basis of complementary protection if there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk the person will suffer ‘significant harm’ if they were removed from Australia to their home country.
The complimentary protection provisions enable visa applicants to claim protection on broader grounds than those contained in the Refugee Convention, reflecting Australia’s obligations under international human rights law.
International human rights law precludes countries from sending people back to places where they face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of their life, or a real risk of being tortured or exposed to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Section 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) largely gives effect to those obligations in domestic law. People at risk of this kind of harm are eligible for a protection visa. In this way, human rights law provides a ‘complement’ to protection under the Refugee Convention, hence the name ‘complementary protection’.
Specifically, section 36(2A) provides that Australia is not permitted to remove people to countries where they face a real risk of one or more of the following:
Complementary protection introduced greater efficiency, transparency and accountability into Australia’s protection regime. Prior to March 2012, Australia was unable to guarantee that people who did not meet the refugee definition in the Refugee Convention, but who nonetheless faced serious human rights abuses if returned to their country of origin or habitual residence, would be granted protection.
There are two types of particular social groups described in the Act. One provides criteria to be met if a person claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution because they are a member of a particular social group that consists of their family. The other type provides that a person will be a member of a particular social group if:
To have a well-founded fear of persecution, the persecution feared must involve serious harm to the person. Serious harm includes, but is not limited to:
To have a well-founded fear of persecution, the persecution feared must also involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
This means that if the serious harm feared by the person is not directed at them or a group to which they belong, for one of the five reasons above, the person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and will not be a refugee.
For the fear of persecution to be well founded, there must be a ‘real chance’ that the persecution would happen in the reasonably foreseeable future if the person was to return to their home country. Real chance means that the fear of persecution is not remote or far-fetched.
If there is a place in their home country where the person can live without a well-founded fear of persecution, they will not be a refugee. However, they must be able to safely and legally access that place.
If the government or other parties that control all or a large part of the person’s home country is willing and able to offer effective protection to the person, they might not meet the definition of refugee. However, the person must be able to access the protection and the protection must be of a durable nature (provided on an ongoing basis). If the protection is able to be provided by the government, the protection must also include an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system. If this protection is able to be provided, the person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and will not be a refugee.
If a person has a right to enter and reside in another country in which they do not fear persecution or significant harm, they must take all possible steps to exercise that right. If they do not, they might not be a refugee.
According to the Act, a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they can take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution their home country. However, this would not be the case if such a change would:
If you are eligible, yes you can. The Protection (866) Visa can only be lodged whilst you are in Australia.
Yes, the DHA will normally interview you to discuss the claims on your application. However, we have seen applicants being refused without even being invited to an interview.
The DHA will normally won’t interview the applicants who have lodged a weak protection visa application, where the applicant has provided vague claims and has failed to submit supporting evidence to reinforce their protection claims.
A protection visa holder with Condition 8559 must apply to the DHA for permission to travel to their home country before they depart.
To have a well-founded fear of persecution, a person must fear serious harm because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and/or political opinion. Otherwise, the applicant’s claims must satisfy the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Yes. This visa entitles holders to permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship and the ability to apply to sponsor their family.
A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person will be at a real risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under international treaties to which it is a party, including:
Yes, but only if you make a valid application. If your application is valid, you will be given a Bridging Visa to continue to stay in Australia until your protection visa application is finally determined. This means if your student visa or tourist visa expires, you won’t need to be concerned, as the Bridging Visa will allow you to stay in Australia during the processing time.
Yes, you can. The fact that you have lodged a student visa and now you are on a bridging visa wont be an issue. In Australia, please can apply for multiple visa applications at the same time.
The scope and meaning of political opinion in the context of s5J(1)(a) of the Act is not defined. Nor is there any definition of political opinion within the Refugees Convention (Article 1A(2)) which 5J(1)(a) codifies. There is, however, significant direction from the courts on the matter.
A broad approach should be taken to determining what is political:
