Protection Visa to Permanent Residency

Our Expert Immigration Lawyers have more than 12 years of experience in PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY

Fill in the form now to meet with our Protection Visa Lawyers

Law Council of Australia
Best Immigration Law Firm

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY – SUBCLASS 866

Our Immigration Lawyers can help you with your Permanent Protection Visa. Most of our permanent 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.

ABOUT PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY

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

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY (866 VISA) –  COUNTRIES

MYANMAR (BURMA)

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.

READ MORE

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.

2020

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.

2019

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

PAKISTAN

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims from PAKISTAN:

  • Christians and Christian converts
  • LGBTI persons
  • Cast marriages
  • Women fearing gender-based violence
  • Political parties and affiliation
  • Ahmadis
  • Blasphemy-related violence
  • High-profile Shi’a persons
  • Hazaras & Turis

MALAYSIA

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.
READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims MALAYSIA:

  • Minority ethnic groups (Orang Asli)
  • Indian Malaysians involved in gangs
  • Human rights defenders
  • Government-opposing political views
  • LGBTI persons 
  • Promoters of Ahmadi Islam or Christianity 
  • Muslims who attempt to convert from Islam or marry a non-Muslim

CHINA

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.

READ MORE

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:

  • Same sex relationships
  • Gender identity
  • Religious minorities
  • Opposition of state
  • Falun Gong

INDIA

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims from INDIA:

  • Scheduled Tribes (Adivasi & Dalits)
  • Attacks by Hindu nationalists on Muslims and Christians
  • Conversion from Hinduism Religion 
  • LGBTI Persons (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity)
  • Cast marriages
  • People owing money to loan sharks face a moderate risk of harassment

IRAN

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims from IRAN:

  • Same sex relationships
  • Gender identity
  • Christian converts
  • Religious minorities

EGYPT

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims from EGYPT:

  • Same sex relationships
  • Gender identity
  • Coptic Christians
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses

LEBANON

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims from LEBANON:

  • Same sex relationships
  • Gender identity
  • Minority religious groups

BANGLADESH

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

CAMBODIA

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

INDONESIA

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

SINGAPORE

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

SRI LANKA

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

Top Protection Claims SRI LANKA:

  • Evangelical Christians and Muslims 
  • LGBTI persons
  • Tamil separatist groups
  • Deaths in Custody
  • Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
  • Extrajudicial Killings

RUSSIA

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.

READ MORE

Source: Human Rights Watch

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY (866 VISA) – REQUIREMENTS

To be a refugee and apply for a protection visa to permanent residency 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:

  • outside their country of nationality or former habitual residence (their home country) and
  • owing to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’, is unable or unwilling to return to their home country or to seek the protection of that country.

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 and be eligible to apply for a permanent protection visa 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.

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY (866 VISA) – FEAR OF PERSECUTION

Well-founded fear of persecution The Act states that a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

  • they fear persecution for at least one of five reasons specified in the Act
  • there is a real chance that, if the person returns to their home country, they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons
    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of their home country
  • at least one of the five reasons must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution
  • the persecution involves both ‘serious harm’ to the person and ‘systematic and discriminatory conduct’.

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY – THE FIVE REASONS

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:

  • Race
  • Religion
  • Nationality
  • Membership of a particular social group (PSG – family and non-family)
  • Political opinion.

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY – COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

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.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 (CTH)

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:

  • arbitrary deprivation of life
  • the death penalty
  • torture
  • cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment
  • degrading treatment or punishment.

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.

Particular social group

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:

  • each member of the group shares a characteristic
  • the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic
  • any of the following apply:
    • the characteristic is innate or immutable (cannot be changed)
    • the characteristic is so fundamental to a person’s identity or conscience, they should not be forced to renounce it (go against it); or
    • the characteristic distinguishes the group from the rest of society
  • the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
Serious harm

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:

  • a threat to the person’s life or liberty
  • significant physical harassment of the person
  • significant physical ill treatment of the person
  • significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist (ability to survive)
  • denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist (ability to survive)
  • denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist (ability to survive).
Systematic and discriminatory conduct

To have a well-founded fear of persecution, the persecution feared must also involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

  • Systematic means the harm is not random or generalised, but is targeted against the person.
  • Discriminatory means the conduct of the persecutor affects the person or members of a group in a way that singles that person or a group out from the rest of the community.

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.

Real chance of persecution

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.

Seeking protection from authorities in their home country

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.

A right to enter and reside in another country

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.

Modifying behaviours

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:

  • conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience
  • require the person to conceal or hide a characteristic that is innate or immutable (one that they could not change), or
  • require the person to:
    • change their religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal their true religious beliefs, or cease to be
    • involved in the practice of their faith
    • conceal their true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin
    • change their political beliefs or conceal their true political beliefs
    • conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability
    • enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child
    • alter their sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal their true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Helping People Just Like You

What matters to us most is what our clients have to say about their experience once everything has been resolved. Below are some of the messages we have received from people we’ve represented.

Abdul hamid Adam
Abdul hamid A.
My partner and I walked into Gold Migration for the first time in early November 2023 for seeking help about my case in AAT. Saemeh Ghasemi help me and support me through with everything that I need to prepare for hearing in next few week. Saemeh Ghasemi also accompany and attend AAT hearing with me. Saemeh Ghasemi always give us mentally support, tell us don’t be stress. In January 2024, Saemeh called me and give me a good news, that we won ATT. Thank you Saemeh Ghasemi, you make my self and my partner can be together and stay in Australia together. Thank you Gold migration lawyers.read more
Simon m
Simon m
I engaged Gold Migration, because I had left things a little too late and there were some factors that were too complicated and too confusing and too high risk for me to do on my own.My first meeting with them was by video. I was looking at a set up with lined up desks much like you see in a court room drama. There were 3 people in the room. They asked me to describe my circumstances and they answered my questions. They were forthright and pulled no punches, they told me the risks and the issues I would have to deal with. Then they conferred together and then gave me a price. It wasn’t the most expensive I had been quoted, nor the cheapest, but what impressed me about them was the machine like efficiency they dealt with the problem from the beginning. There are NO surprises from this firm. They lay out all the costs at the time of engagement, they tell you the steps they will be taking and their approach.Remember this is Immigration you’re dealing with, even expert lawyers have no control over such a department, timescale is not in the control of you or your lawyers.For the first month it was a flurry of activity for me. They sent me a cloud based drive to upload all my documents and evidence to. They reviewed it and made suggestions. All of the statements they asked me to write came with examples and best way to write them. Then they told me they had everything they needed and to leave it with them. On reflection I realised I had witnessed a highly experienced team in action. They asked for and got what they needed, it was explained and documented and organised. They have a very efficient set of procedures they follow and they make sure all the boxes are ticked before they submit.You can’t fault this level of experience and practical application, you basically pay them and go along for the ride. Over the months as immigration dealt with the case they came back to me a few times and asked for more information. I know they wrote reports and fielded questions from immigration but all I got was a comment that everything was tracking as planned.The most interesting part for me to see was the obvious pleasure and satisfaction they enjoyed when they called me to tell me we finally had the PR visa. They took it personally and that meant a lot to me.Are they expensive ? Well that depends, how much is having your family members live with you in Australia worth to you ? They are not the cheapest , they are not the most expensive, but I am confident that they are the best!If you are worried about getting a loved one or a valued worker a visa, or you are having issues with your visa, you should not hesitate to go with the gold standard. Go with Gold Immigration and sleep better at night knowing your visa issue is in good hands.read more
Jalal Razavi
Jalal R.
Entrusting Gold Migration Lawyers was the best decision I ever made for my parents to obtain a safe and secure future here in Australia. A life changing decision for them.Our case manager was Saemeh Ghasemi who was instrumental in ensuring their Protection Visa was thoroughly detailed and solid. Saemeh was very kind caring and took extra effort to understand and appreciate the dire situation of my parents and was very supportive all the way to a successful "Visa Granted" outcome.Thank you Saemeh and team for your dedicated and supportive service to me and my parents."Gold Migration Lawyers indeed provides GOLD CLASS service" and I strongly recommend them to our family and friends.read more
Daniel Esdaile
Daniel E.
My partner and I had walked into Gold Migration for the first time in May of 2023. I was anxious at I knew by the time we would have to lodge our partner visa we would not have lived together for 12 months. Walt had given us the reassurance that all would be okay, I instantly felt that sigh of relief through the professional and welcoming service that Walt and his team had provided. We then began our journey with Gold Migration Lawyers, the whole time Walt had been there to support us through every enquiry and every piece of evidence. We eventually submitted our visa in October with every bit of confidence of a positive outcome. In February we got out 820 grant, the moment Walt had told me that the visa had been granted I began to cry of happiness. Thank you Walt! Thank you Gold migration lawyers, you have allowed myself and my partner to be in Australia together.read more
Ghassan Elbarhoun
Ghassan E.
I’d like to thank SAEMEH GHASEMI and her team for their exceptional work on our visa, very very easy process ,I highly recommend gold migration, thanks Samy.
Isoa Talevakaruamainairai
Isoa T.
Massive thank you goes to Saemeh Ghasemi and Carolyn Araboghlian at Gold Migration Lawyer for their relentless support throughout the process of preparing for my AAT appeal right through the exciting news of successfully wining the AAT Appeal. Wow absolutely amazing, to be able to work with Saemeh Ghasemi and Carolyn Araboghlian. Saemeh Ghansemi have been going extra miles to ensure that Gold Migration provide and delivered positive experience that took so much anxiety, nerves away and for genuinely cares about her clients. I am so pleased and grateful to be able to trust Gold Migration Lawyers for the Successful Outcome of my AAT Appeal. Even before the appeal I was already recommending Gold Migration Lawyer to my friends due to the best services that they have already initiate from the beginning of the services. I have never experience best services before thanking you so much Saemeh Ghasemi for going extra miles really means a lot to me personally and Thank You so much Gold Migration for an AMAZING SERVICES. I would definitely highly recommend Gold Migration Lawyers.read more
Tyler Meier
Tyler M.
Hiring Gold migration lawyers, and having Saemeh represent my partner was the best decision we could have made. My partner was applying for a Visa and had a hearing at the AAT, and Saemeh helped us prepare and get ready for the hearing and represented him very well, we were successful and found out within 2 weeks!! Saemeh’s had the expertise and knowledge to help us and we are so so thankful to her and the team at Gold Migration.read more
Syed Rizvi
Syed R.
Just wanted to say thank you walt for helping us getting our permanent residency after alot of bumps in our case.Thank you team gold migration
Kelvin Khant
Kelvin K.
Excellent service and you can always contact the team at anytime. absolutely recommended!

PROTECTION VISA TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY – frequently asked questions

Can I lodge a Permanent Protection Visa whilst in Australia?

If you are eligible, yes you can. The Permanent Protection Visa can only be lodged whilst you are in Australia.

How would I be eligible for a Protection Visa to Permanent Residency ?
  1. You must be in Australia and have arrived here legally, on a valid visa. Such as a student visa or tourist visa.
  2. You must have a fear to return to your home country.
  3. Must establish that your fear is because you will be persecuted due to one or more grounds under the UN Convention (see above).
  4. Otherwise, must demonstrate that there is a real risk that you will suffer some specific sort of harm (see Complementary Protection Requirements discussed above)
Do I need to have an interview with the Department of Home Affairs?

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.

Can I travel back to my home country after a Permanent Protection Visa is granted?

A permanent protection visa holder with Condition 8559 must apply to the DHA for permission to travel to their home country before they depart.

I am scared to go back to my home country because I will be persecuted. What are the different reasons that the DHA accepts this?

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).

Is subclass 866 Protection Visa a Protection Visa to Permanent Residency?

Yes. This visa entitles holders to permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship and the ability to apply to sponsor their family.

What are the Non-refoulement obligations for Australia?

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:

  • the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol (non-refoulement obligation expressed in Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention)
  • the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (non-refoulement obligation expressed in Article 3)
  • the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (non-refoulement obligation implied in relation to Articles 6 and 7).
Will I get a Bridging Visa if I apply for the Protection Visa to Permanent Residency?

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 permanent protection visa to permanent residency 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.

My student visa expired some time ago and I have lodged another student visa and still waiting for a decision. Can I apply for a protection visa to permanent residency?

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, people can apply for multiple visa applications at the same time.

What does political opinion mean?

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:

  • political opinion is not limited to party politics
  • political opinion extends to views contrary to the views of the State or opposition party
  • political opinion may encompass opposition to corruption or whistle blowing
  • political opinion may include knowledge of a fact
  • a relevant opinion may be one expressly voiced by the person, or one which is merely imputed to them
  • a political profile is relevant, but not necessary, to a political opinion claim
  • a political opinion may be directly expressed or imputed from dress, music or behaviour, or the adoption of particular values or customs
  • opinion that is yet to be expressed may be relevant to a claim under this ground
  • as a general rule, prosecution under a law of general application will not amount to persecution for reason of political opinion
  • a standard of reasonableness is expected in how and when a person chooses to express their political opinion.