Fear to return to your country?
Our Expert Immigration Lawyers have more than 12 years of experience in PROTECTION VISA
Fill in the form now to meet with our Protection Visa Lawyers
Our Expert Immigration Lawyers have more than 12 years of experience in PROTECTION VISA
Fill in the form now to meet with our Protection Visa Lawyers
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 their home country and would like to stay in Australia permanently. We have a proven success record in assisting nationals of China, Pakistan, India, Fiji, Malaysia, Iran, Nepal, Mauritius, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sri Lanka and many other countries.
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 consultation
2021 A coup d’état in Myanmar (known locally as the Spring Revolution (နွေဦးတော်လှန်ရေ)) began on the morning of 1 February 2021, when democratically elected members of the country’s ruling party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), were deposed by the Tatmadaw—Myanmar’s military—which then vested power in a stratocracy. As of 18 April 2021, at least 737 protesters and bystanders, of which at least 44 were children, have been killed by military or police forces and at least 3,229 people detained. The Tatmadaw proclaimed a year-long state of emergency and declared power had been transferred to Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services Min Aung Hlaing. It declared the results of the November 2020 general election invalid and stated its intent to hold a new election at the end of the state of emergency even though most of Myanmar’s people are satisfied with the results of the election.[Demonstrations and a deadly crackdown have roiled the nation since 1st February 2021. The coup brought back full military rule following years of quasi-democracy.
The coup returned the country to full military rule after a short span of quasi-democracy that began in 2011, when the military, which had been in power since 1962, implemented parliamentary elections and other reforms. In the weeks since the coup, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the country’s ousted civilian leader, has faced charges in a secret court.
The overall human rights situation in Myanmar deteriorated in 2020, including heightened restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Fighting between Myanmar’s military and several ethnic armed groups continued, with government forces committing increased abuses against ethnic Kachin, Karen, Rakhine, Rohingya, and Shan minority populations. Military and police abuses were amplified with arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, and killings in custody.
In addition, the government of Myanmar in 2019 continued to defy international calls to seriously investigate human rights violations against ethnic minorities in Shan, Kachin, Karen, and Rakhine States. A United Nations-mandated Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) found sufficient evidence to call for the investigation of senior military officials for crimes against humanity and genocide against ethnic Rohingya Muslims. The government has been unwilling to address the root causes of the crises, including systematic persecution and violence, statelessness, and continued military impunity
The Pakistan government is increasingly silencing critical voices of journalists and activists under the pretext of national security. Enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture take place with impunity, while security forces exercise undue political influence over civilian authorities. Blasphemy-related violence against religious minorities, fostered in part by government persecution and discriminatory laws, is frequent. Authorities have failed to establish adequate protection or accountability for abuses against women and girls, including “honor” killings and forced marriage. Over 490 people have been executed since the government ended an unofficial ban on the death penalty in late 2014.
After more than 60 years in power, the ruling UMNO-led coalition that had governed Malaysia since independence was defeated in May 2018 by the Pakatan Harapan alliance, led by former Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir, who established a new party and joined longtime political foes to oust his former protégé Najib Razak. Having run on an election manifesto promising to abolish oppressive laws and make Malaysia’s human rights record “respected by the world,” expectations for the new government are high. With a range of rights-restricting laws on the books, a police force with a history of abuse and impunity, and government institutions weakened by the efforts of the prior administration to maintain political control and suppress discussion of government corruption, the new government faces steep challenges to meeting its human rights pledges.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Top Protection Claims MALAYSIA:
China remains a one-party authoritarian state that systemically curbs fundamental rights. Since President Xi Jinping assumed power in 2013, the government has arbitrarily detained and prosecuted hundreds of activists and human rights lawyers and defenders. It has tightened control over nongovernmental organizations, activists, media, and the internet through a slew of new laws that cast activism and peaceful criticism as state security threats. In 2016, the government abducted and forcibly disappeared several critics in Hong Kong and other countries. The government’s highly repressive rule in the ethnic minority regions of Xinjiang and Tibet persists. Despite legislation to protect against custodial torture, the practice remains widespread, including of Communist Party members accused of corruption.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity China has no law protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and there is no legal recognition of same-sex partnership. Possibly because their activism is not considered threatening to the state, LGBT individuals enjoyed some success advancing legal cases in 2016. In January, a Hunan court heard a case filed by Sun Wenlin against the local Bureau of Civil Affairs, which had refused to marry Sun and his male partner. Though the court ruled against Sun in April, his case—the first gay marriage lawsuit accepted by Chinese courts—attracted wide media attention. In June, a Henan court accepted a case filed by Yu Hu against a mental health hospital that had subjected him to 19 days of involuntary “therapy” to “cure” his homosexuality. Also in June, a Guangdong university student, Qiu Bai, sued the Ministry of Education over textbooks that depict homosexuality as an illness. Qiu filed a similar suit in 2015, though she withdrew it later because the department had promised to look into the matter. She decided to sue again after the authorities’ pledge failed to materialize. In June, China voted against a UN resolution creating an expert post dedicated to addressing violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Top Protection Claims from CHINA:
Under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government, pro-BJP vigilantes have committed violence against religious minorities, marginalized communities, and critics of the government. The failure of authorities to investigate attacks, while promoting Hindu supremacy and ultra-nationalism, has further encouraged violence. Supreme court rulings in 2017 strengthened fundamental rights, equal rights for women, and accountability for security force violations. However, security forces continue to commit arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings with impunity. New laws and policies aimed at justice for sexual violence survivors have not ended barriers to reporting such crimes. Foreign funding regulations are used to target nongovernmental organizations critical of the government.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Top Protection Claims from INDIA:
President Hassan Rouhani secured a second four-year term in office in May 2017, in an election marked by debate over the state of civil and political rights in Iran. But despite harsh criticisms he made on the human rights situation during his campaign, he has done little to curtail the rampant violations of the security apparatus and the judiciary. Authorities responded to widespread protests expressing frustration against the government, including allegations of corruption and the lack of political and social freedoms, with mass arbitrary arrests and unfair trials. Several women have also been arrested and detained for their protests against mandatory dress laws.
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government continues to oversee Egypt’s worst human rights crisis in decades and has escalated the use of counterterrorism laws to prosecute peaceful dissidents. The government has arrested scores of al-Sisi’s critics, including potential presidential candidates, ahead of the 2018 presidential elections that was held in an unfair and unfree environment. Police and the National Security Agency have systematically used torture and enforced disappearances. The government has sent thousands of civilians to military courts, undermined the judiciary’s independence, and executed dozens of people following flawed trials. The government continues to ban most forms of independent organization and peaceful assembly.
In May 2018, Lebanon held parliamentary elections for the first time since 2009. Public critique of authorities has resulted in prosecutions, threatening freedom of speech and security forces are cracking down on LGBT activities. Detainees report torture and ill-treatment despite the passage of a 2017 law criminalizing torture. Open burning of waste is threatening the health of nearby residents, despite the passage of a law prohibiting the practice in late 2018. Parliament repealed a law that allowed rapists to escape prosecution by marrying the victim, but women continue to face systematic discrimination and violence. Approximately 74 percent of the estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees lack legal status, restricting their movement and access to work, healthcare, and education.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Top Protection Claims from LEBANON:
The Bangladesh government has intensified its crackdown on civil society, media, and critics. Authorities have killed and disappeared members of the political opposition, while failing to protect bloggers, gay rights activists, and religious minorities from violent and often fatal attacks by militant groups. The government’s response to extremist violence has perpetuated security forces’ long-standing use of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Rights to freedom of speech and assembly are under sustained attack by the increasingly authoritarian government. Bangladesh has one of the highest rates of child marriage in the world.
The ruling Cambodian People’s Party maintains power through violence, politically motivated prosecutions, repressive laws, and corruption. Prime Minister Hun Sen, in power since 1985, oversees one-party rule in the National Assembly since government-controlled courts dissolved the main opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party, detained opposition leader Kem Sokha, and banned more than 100 opposition members from politics in the lead up to sham elections in July 2018. The government has also intensified its crackdown on independent media, local human rights defenders, and land rights activists. Rights to free expression and peaceful assembly are sharply curtailed, and there is no accountability for serious abuses.
Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s rhetorical support for human rights has not led to meaningful policy initiatives. Religious minorities face harassment, intimidation, and violence from Sunni militants, government officials, and security forces. Indonesian authorities restrict foreign media access to Papua on the pretext of a low-level insurgency. Indonesian security forces rarely face justice for serious abuses, particularly in Papua. The government has failed to deliver on a promised reconciliation mechanism for the 1965-66 massacres. The Indonesian government abets widespread attacks on sexual and gender minorities through officials’ hateful rhetoric and discrimination. Authorities targeted private gatherings of LGBT individuals and criminalized consensual same-sex conduct.
Singapore’s political environment is stifling. Citizens face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly through overly broad criminal laws and regulations. In 2017, the country tightened the already strict limits on public assemblies contained in the Public Order Act, which requires police permits for any “cause-related” assembly outside the closely monitored “Speakers’ Corner.” The rights of the LGBT community are severely curtailed: sexual relations between men remains a criminal offense, and there are no legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sri Lanka has stalled on efforts to address accountability and reconciliation from its three-decade-long civil war, which ended in 2009. Despite government pledges, there has been little progress in prosecuting those responsible for wartime abuses or providing justice for victims. The draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act remains in effect, facilitating torture and other abuse. The government has failed to initiate reforms to the security sector and criminal justice system, such as establishing accountability for police abuses or bringing criminal laws in line with international standards. Muslims and other religious minorities face ongoing threats and violence from ultra-nationalist groups.
Today, Russia is more repressive than it has ever been in the post-Soviet era. The state has tightened control over free expression, assembly, and speech, aiming to silence independent critics, including online. The authorities crack down on critical media, viciously harass political activists and peaceful protesters, engage in smear campaigns against independent groups, increasingly use their power to ban foreign organizations as “undesirable,” and penalize Russian nationals and organizations for supposed involvement with them. Chechen authorities are waging their war on human rights defenders, resorting to such tactics as fabrication of criminal cases, attacks on property and threats of retaliation against family members. With Moscow’s tacit blessing, local security officials forcibly disappear and torture those deemed undesirable, including gay or bi-sexual men, suspected jihadists, presumed drug users and critics of the government.
To 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: