Subclass 866 for LGBTI Indonesian Students: Proving Your Protection Claim

Can an LGBTI Indonesian student get a Subclass 866 Protection Visa?

Yes, an Indonesian student in Australia can be granted a Subclass 866 Protection Visa on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Being on a Subclass 500 Student visa does not prevent it, and Indonesia's lack of a national criminal law against same-sex relations does not defeat it.

What decides these applications is not whether you are LGBTI. It is whether you can establish that you are, and then establish that there is a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, when you return to Indonesia because of it.

That is a very specific evidentiary problem, and it is harder in Indonesian claims than in claims from countries with harsh criminal laws. Indonesia has no national prohibition. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade rates most of the risk as moderate rather than high. The country is enormous and relocation is legally available. None of that makes the claim hopeless. It makes the claim a matter of evidence and argument, built carefully, before you lodge.

This article deals with how those claims are proved. For the general framework, read our page on the LGBTI protection visa, and for how the visa itself works, our page on the Subclass 866 Protection Visa.

What exactly do you have to establish?

You have to establish four things, and the fourth is the one Indonesian claims turn on.

That you are LGBTI. This is a finding of fact about you, made on the evidence. It does not depend on whether anyone in Indonesia knew, and it does not depend on whether you have ever had a relationship.

That there is a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, on return. The refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) and section 5J of the Migration Act 1958 requires a real chance of persecution. The complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) requires a real risk of significant harm as defined in section 36(2A). Both are well below fifty per cent.

That the harm is for reasons of your membership of a particular social group. LGBTI people can constitute a particular social group. Departmental policy records the position in UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 9, which notes broad acknowledgement that LGBTI people are members of a particular social group within the meaning of the refugee definition. That is rarely contested in Indonesian claims. Policy also notes these claims may intersect with other section 5J(1)(a) reasons, including imputed political opinion or religion, which matters in a country where sharia regulations apply in Aceh.

That the harm relates to all areas of Indonesia, and that Indonesian authorities cannot or will not protect you. This is where Indonesian LGBTI claims are usually lost. It is dealt with in detail below.

Only the first of those is about identity. The other three are about Indonesia. A file full of Australian material and almost nothing about Indonesia has done a quarter of the work.

What does the Department's own guidance say about these claims?

The Department has a detailed internal instruction on assessing LGBTI claims, and knowing what it says changes how you prepare.

The Protection Visa Processing Guidelines contain an annexure dealing specifically with gender and sexual orientation. It is the framework the officer deciding your application is instructed to work within, and much of it is favourable to applicants who understand it.

The annexure states that claims relating to sexual orientation or gender identity are complex to assess because of their personal nature, and because other than the applicant's own claims there is often little or no supporting objective evidence available. It records that such claims will often rely largely on the applicant's own account, because there may be no corroborating evidence, because the applicant may have deliberately hidden their identity, because harm may have occurred in the private sphere and be unverifiable, and because official records may hide or deny the mistreatment of LGBTI people.

It instructs officers that credibility findings must not be based on stereotypical assumptions, because there is no uniform way in which LGBTI people manifest their sexual orientation or gender identity. It instructs them that demeanour is generally an unreliable indicator of credibility. It instructs them that what may look implausible from a Western perspective may be reasonable in a different cultural context, and that officers should be careful about drawing adverse inferences on that basis.

It also states, flatly, that officers should not be surprised if an applicant raises sexual orientation or gender identity late in the process, and that where this happens the officer should explore why the information was raised when it was.

None of that guarantees anything. But a submission that engages with the Department's own instruction, in the Department's own language, is a different document from one that does not.

What harm do LGBTI Indonesians actually face?

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Indonesia, dated 24 July 2023, is the country information the decision maker is required to take into account under Ministerial Direction No. 84. You should read what it says before you build a claim on assumptions about it.

On the law, DFAT records that there is no national law against same-sex sexual relations, but that it is illegal in Aceh, where people are caned as a judicial punishment for same-sex acts. Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in the military. In June 2022 two soldiers were sentenced to eight and nine months of prison for male-male sex.

On policing, DFAT records that LGBTI people are sometimes targeted by police despite the absence of a national prohibition. It gives the example of a private gay party raided in August 2020, with charges laid against nine people for obscene acts under anti-pornography laws, and raids on private homes of suspected LGBTI people ordered by the mayor of Depok in West Java in January 2020. It records that LGBTI people have been dismissed from the police force because of their sexual orientation, and that because of the threat of arrest or extortion most LGBTI people avoid police.

On society, DFAT records that a 2020 Pew Research Centre survey found public acceptance of homosexuality at 9 per cent among Indonesians, up from 3 per cent in 2013, but still among the lowest of the 34 countries surveyed. It records that terms like LGBT are broadly taboo or used as an insult, and that in-country sources told DFAT it is very difficult to be openly LGBTI in Indonesia.

On family, DFAT records that the experience of LGBTI Indonesians depends a lot on their families, that family networks are crucial, and that those whose families reject them are at a high risk of poverty, may be forced into sham marriages, or may simply be required on a day-to-day basis to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity. It records that many LGBTI people will submit to sham marriages or attempts to cure them, and that LGBTI women are vulnerable to violence and forced marriage.

On transgender Indonesians, DFAT records that waria, a traditional male-to-female transgender identity, are often marginalised or stereotyped as sex workers or criminals and are vulnerable to violence including assault and sexual assault. It records that transgender people are sometimes harassed by local authorities who force them to dress and act in accordance with their biological sex, that they may not be issued identity cards or may be issued cards that misgender them, and that many work in sex work, beauty or entertainment because of discrimination rather than choice.

On exposure, DFAT records cases where social media was used to out an LGBTI person in order to facilitate online bullying and harassment, which can lead to threats of violence including death threats.

DFAT's overall assessments are that LGBTI people face a moderate risk of societal discrimination and a moderate risk of official discrimination, and that LGBTI people living in Aceh face a high risk of official and societal discrimination and violence.

Why "moderate risk" is not the end of the analysis

A DFAT risk rating is not a legal test, and treating it as one is the single most common error in Indonesian LGBTI claims.

In that report, moderate risk means DFAT is aware of sufficient incidents to suggest a pattern of behaviour. It is a descriptive label about DFAT's evidence base. It says nothing about whether, on your particular facts, there is a real chance of persecution involving serious harm under section 5J, or a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2A).

Two features of the statutory test do a great deal of work here.

The first is cumulative harm. Departmental policy states expressly that an applicant may have suffered a lifetime of discrimination that cumulatively amounts to serious or significant harm without having experienced any single event that meets the threshold on its own, and that claims must be considered as a whole rather than by focusing on a particular event. For a young Indonesian this is often the shape of the real case: not one attack, but exclusion from family, forced marriage pressure, constant concealment, loss of housing, and the foreclosure of any future.

The second is that laws of general application can still persecute. Departmental policy records that laws which appear to have general application may have a disproportionately discriminatory effect on LGBTI people, and gives extramarital sex laws as the example. It also states that criminalisation may amount to serious or significant harm depending on the likelihood of enforcement, the severity of punishment, or whether the law means the applicant would not have effective state protection from private harm. And it states that even if not enforced, the existence of criminal laws can promote and reinforce mistreatment within society, and that if the state outlaws same-sex activities it is very unlikely an LGBTI person could seek state protection from community mistreatment.

That last set of propositions is why the Indonesian Criminal Code that commenced on 2 January 2026 matters so much, and it is dealt with below.

How do you prove you are LGBTI?

You prove it with a detailed personal account, supported by whatever corroboration honestly exists. You do not prove it with photographs or films of sexual activity, and you are never required to provide them.

Departmental policy is unusually clear on this. It states that applicants should never be requested to bring in documentary or photographic evidence of intimate acts. It states that it is extremely inappropriate to expect couples to be physically demonstrative at an interview in order to establish sexual orientation. It states that officers must not request explicit photographs or films of sexual acts, that to do so would be unethical and would infringe the applicant's human dignity, and that officers should where necessary inform applicants that they do not need to provide such material and that not providing it will have no bearing on the decision.

If anyone has told you that you need that kind of material, they are wrong, and the advice you are getting should be checked.

What the Department is instructed to ask, and what it must not ask

Knowing the permitted lines of enquiry tells you exactly what your written statement should cover, because your statement should answer the questions before they are asked.

Departmental policy sets out the appropriate lines of enquiry under headings. Family: your past and current relationships with family members, your last contact with them, your experience of disclosing your identity and to whom, the responses of family members including any threats or actual harm, experiences of loss or exclusion, how you hid your identity from your family, and your sense of responsibility to family including expectations of marriage and children. Self-awareness: feelings of being different and when you became aware of them, what that sense of difference means and how it affects your life, pressure to conform, when you developed self-awareness, reconciling personal identity with religious views, and feelings of shame or self-hatred. Relationships: seeking out or avoiding other LGBTI people, close bonds, history of previous and current relationships including heterosexual relationships, and how you meet partners. Perception of others: how others perceived you as different, your experience of coming out, and if you have not come out, why not. Claims: treatment by family, community and authorities, bullying and exclusion, treatment at school, methods used to avoid mistreatment, forced marriage or pressure to marry, interaction with authorities, the nature of the harm you fear, knowledge of others in a similar situation, and employment, housing and medical access in Indonesia. Community: knowledge of or interaction with other LGBTI people, use of social media, participation in organisations, and any connections with LGBTI communities in Australia and how they were established.

Policy also sets out what officers must not ask. They should not ask whether something happened to make you LGBTI, why you chose to be LGBTI, whether you can change your behaviour to avoid harm, whether you can prove you are LGBTI, any questions about the details of sexual activity, or detailed information about traumatic events. Policy states that asking about sexual activity is not a useful line of enquiry because it is easy to invent and difficult to verify.

Policy goes further on cultural assumptions. It states that officers should not ask questions that assume familiarity with Western gay cultural icons or with gay and lesbian communities in Australia, and that lack of knowledge of such topics should never be used to justify a denial of an applicant's claims. It warns that a legal error may arise if an officer finds an applicant is not LGBTI because they do not conform to the officer's expectations of how an LGBTI person should appear or behave, in dress, mannerisms or style of speech.

If a decision on your application reasons in any of those prohibited ways, that is worth examining closely on review.

What actually counts as evidence

Your own statement is the spine of the case. Everything else supports it.

Departmental policy identifies the categories of evidence officers may find useful for past or current relationships: emails, texts, videos, chat transcripts, phone records, social media, photographs, and statements from past or present partners. For Indonesian applicants there are some particular sources worth thinking about. DFAT records that LGBTI Indonesians may connect using social media or dating applications, naming Grindr as the most commonly used, along with Growlr, Scruff and 9Monsters, and records that their use is hidden and that users commonly use virtual private networks to disguise access. Account histories, message archives and the fact of VPN use can all be evidence, both of identity and of the concealment that Indonesian conditions require.

On corroborating witnesses, policy says something applicants should know. It notes that a witness who can corroborate claims is a useful way for officers to assess credibility, and it records that historically applicants with corroborating witnesses have tended to be granted more often than those without. It then makes the fairness point: the ability to provide a witness is only available to applicants who are out about their identity, so applicants who are not out can experience bias in this regard. If you are not out, that is a point to make in submissions rather than a gap to leave unexplained.

One warning attaches to witnesses. If a witness provides evidence that undermines your claims, the officer must put that to you under section 57 of the Act. That cuts both ways, and it is a reason to know what a witness will actually say before their name goes in.

Then there is the Indonesian half of the file, which is the half students neglect. Country information specific to your region, your ethnicity and your religion. Evidence of harm already suffered, including medical records, police reports, messages and threats. Evidence of the family situation you would return to. Evidence about the city you would be expected to relocate to.

What will be held against you, and what cannot be

Four credibility issues recur in these claims, and the Department's own guidance limits how far each can be taken.

Late disclosure. Many Indonesian students do not raise a sexual orientation claim on arrival, at their first legal appointment, or even in their first application. Policy accepts this. It records that delays may occur because the applicant wants to avoid making sensitive claims until they have to, that many applicants have never spoken to anyone about their identity, and that some have experienced harm from authorities or family as a result of acknowledging it. Critically, policy states that a delay should not be the sole reason for rejecting claims and that there must be other reasons supporting a finding that the claims are not credible. It also states applicants must be given the opportunity to explain any delay. The answer is not to hide the delay. It is to explain it in the statement, in detail, before anyone asks.

Marriage, children and heterosexual relationships. Policy states that the fact an applicant is married, was married, or has children is not necessarily inconsistent with an LGBTI claim, and that applicants may marry due to societal norms or family expectations. It states that if an applicant can give a consistent and reasonable explanation for why they married or had a heterosexual relationship, that aspect of their testimony should be found credible. Given that DFAT records sham marriage as a common pressure on LGBTI Indonesians, this is directly relevant, and it should be addressed rather than avoided.

Never having had a relationship. Policy states that a person may identify as LGBTI without ever having been in an LGBTI relationship, and that the absence of relationships does not mean the claim is false but may indicate the applicant was avoiding harm or has not met someone. It also states that applicants who grew up in oppressive environments may come to a realisation later in life than is common in Western countries.

Inconsistency. Policy states that an inability to give a precisely accurate or consistent account of past events should not lead to automatic non-acceptance, that applicants may forget dates, locations and events because of trauma or lapse of time, and that an officer must take care not to join a series of minor inconsistencies together in order to avoid accepting claims. Where significant inconsistencies do arise, you must be invited to comment under section 57.

That is the protective half. The other half is blunt. Section 5AAA of the Act makes it your responsibility to specify all particulars of your claims and to provide sufficient evidence to establish them, and states that officers have no obligation to specify or assist in specifying your claims. There is no legislative right to an interview. The written application may be the only thing the Department ever considers. Policy allows an officer to give you the benefit of the doubt where your statements are coherent and plausible and do not conflict with generally known facts, but only where the officer is satisfied as to your general credibility, and officers are not required to accept claims uncritically.

What about exaggeration?

Do not do it, and if you already have, get advice rather than compounding it.

Departmental policy acknowledges the trap applicants are in. It notes that applicants may feel that if they exaggerate their identity their authenticity will be questioned, but that if they do not present in a stereotypical manner their need for protection will be doubted. It also records something more surprising: that even where an applicant provides a false element because they think it is what the officer expects to hear, they may still have genuine claims and be at real risk, and that the applicant must be given the opportunity to explain information the officer does not find credible.

That is not permission. A fabricated element will usually poison the credibility of the whole account, and the consequences of a refusal are severe. But it does mean that a claim which has an invented detail in it is better fixed with advice than abandoned or repeated.

Interpreters, and why this matters more in Indonesian claims

Ask about the interpreter before the interview, not on the day.

Departmental policy recognises the problem directly. It records that applicants may feel increased anxiety about disclosing private information in front of a person from their own community or religious background, and may fear judgement or that the information will be passed on. It states that applicants should be told the interpreter is bound by a code of ethics covering confidentiality and impartiality, and that where an applicant makes a request about the gender of the interpreter, every effort should be made to meet it.

Policy also records practical steps officers can take: providing non-identifying information in the interpreter booking that LGBTI claims will be discussed, requesting a pre-briefing with the interpreter, providing relevant terminology in advance, and considering a telephone interpreter because that can reduce stress for applicants.

Terminology is a real issue in Indonesian claims. Policy notes that some applicants may only have derogatory words available in their own language, and that using such words says nothing about whether the applicant is LGBTI. DFAT records that terms like LGBT are broadly taboo in Indonesia or used as an insult, and that waria carries its own cultural meaning. An interpreter who is not briefed can turn a careful answer into an incoherent one.

Our page on the protection visa interview covers the process generally.

Can you be told to move to Bali or Jakarta instead?

No, not where your safety there would depend on other people not knowing you are LGBTI. This is the most important single proposition in an Indonesian LGBTI claim, and it comes from the Department's own instruction.

Departmental policy states that officers cannot find that an applicant can move to another area if their safety is contingent on other people not being aware of their sexual orientation or gender identity, or if they would be required to modify their behaviour in any way, because that would be contrary to section 5J(3) of the Act.

That matters because the relocation argument in Indonesian claims is almost always Bali, or a large city, or international hotel and tourism work. DFAT records that the situation for LGBTI people in heavily touristed Bali is somewhat better than in most other parts of Indonesia because international visitors may be more tolerant or be LGBTI themselves, and that working in international hotels or tourism in other places including Jakarta may be safer for the same reasons. Those sentences appear in relocation findings constantly.

DFAT itself qualifies them heavily. It records that the experience of visitors and tourists in Bali is very different from that of locals, that LGBTI locals experience day-to-day discrimination even while serving LGBTI tourists, and that even in those safer locations LGBTI people would potentially be subject to violence or discrimination. It also records that an American woman who described Bali as a safe place for the black and queer community was deported after local outrage, with authorities accusing her of disseminating information disturbing to the public.

Departmental policy adds two more limits. It states that where an applicant would be safe from harm on the basis of sexual orientation in another part of the country but could face harm on different grounds, relocation should not be relied upon. And it states that where acceptance or legal protection has changed recently, officers should consider whether that may swing back in the reasonably foreseeable future, because reforms may take time to affect day-to-day treatment.

Finally, policy warns against a specific evidentiary shortcut. It states that officers should not use travel or tourist information promoting gay travel as evidence that a country is safe, because such information is unlikely to be an accurate representation of life for citizens of that country. If a decision cites tourism material about Bali, that is worth raising.

Why the January 2026 Criminal Code changes the Indonesian analysis

Indonesia's new Criminal Code, Law No. 1 of 2023, commenced on 2 January 2026. The current DFAT report describes its relevant provisions as not yet in force, because the report was written in July 2023, two and a half years before commencement.

DFAT's own analysis of those provisions is directly relevant to LGBTI claims and is worth reading closely. It records that the revised Code criminalises cohabitation and adultery, that the law limits who can lodge a complaint to direct family members, and that because same-sex marriage is illegal in Indonesia the law could in effect criminalise same-sex sex. Penalties include a maximum one-year prison term. The report then says DFAT understands the provisions will become law three years after promulgation, and that DFAT awaits clarity on how the law will be interpreted once implementing regulations are finalised.

Read that against the family situation DFAT describes elsewhere in the same report, where family rejection is the central risk for LGBTI Indonesians, and the significance is obvious. A law whose complaint mechanism is reserved to direct family members, applied to a person whose direct family is the source of the danger, is not a theoretical problem.

Ministerial Direction No. 84 requires the decision maker to take the DFAT report into account, and expressly does not preclude consideration of other relevant information about the country. Departmental policy on country of origin information says the same, and departmental policy on LGBTI claims adds that recent societal and legal changes must be weighed against evidence of ongoing discrimination, violence and impunity, and that information which does not directly target LGBTI people but which can be enforced in a discriminatory manner is relevant.

Putting current material on the commenced Code before the decision maker, rather than letting the case be decided on a 2023 description of a law that had not yet started, is the highest value work available in these claims.

What if you only came out after you arrived in Australia?

This is the ordinary Indonesian student story, and section 5J(6) is the provision that decides it.

Many Indonesian students arrive at eighteen or nineteen, having never told anyone, and understand themselves properly for the first time in Australia. Departmental policy expressly contemplates this. It records that sur place LGBTI claims may arise because of changes relating to the applicant's identity after departure, because the agent of harm discovered the applicant is LGBTI after departure, or because of changes to legislation or societal attitudes since departure. It records that claims may arise where an applicant engages in political activism, uses social media, or is exposed by someone else.

The statutory obstacle is section 5J(6). In determining whether you have a well-founded fear of persecution, conduct you engaged in in Australia is disregarded unless you satisfy the Minister that you engaged in it otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening your claim to be a refugee. The burden sits on you.

Two points make this workable.

First, departmental policy phrases the test as conduct engaged in for the sole purpose of strengthening the claim, which is a narrower reading than the words of the section. Either way, the evidence that answers it is the same: a documented history that predates any thought of a protection application. Dates matter more than volume. A relationship, a community connection, a counselling record or a medical record from two years before lodgement does more work than a stack of recent material.

Second, and this is the point almost nobody knows, section 5J(6) does not apply to complementary protection. Departmental policy states that section 5J(6) is not relevant to complementary protection, and that the reaction in the home country to activities the applicant undertakes in Australia, for any reason, cannot be disregarded and must be considered on complementary protection grounds. So even where conduct in Australia is excluded from the refugee assessment, the decision maker must still consider whether that same conduct exposes you to a real risk of significant harm on return. Policy also records that a person whose conduct is disregarded under section 5J(6) may still engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations and should not be removed until all the consequences of their conduct have been assessed.

There is a hard counterweight. The High Court in DQU16 held that the principle in Appellant S395/2002, that a person cannot be expected to conceal a protected characteristic, does not apply to complementary protection. Under section 36(2)(aa) the question is whether harm is a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, and if behaviour modification would avoid the risk, that may not be satisfied. The refugee pathway, where section 5J(3) expressly protects you from being required to alter or conceal your sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, is therefore usually the stronger ground for LGBTI applicants. Our page on complementary protection sets that out further.

Will your family, your university or the Indonesian government find out?

No, not from the Department, and not while your application is being decided.

Departmental policy states that information which could identify a protection visa applicant, their family or their associates must not be released to officials or other nationals of the country against which the claims are being assessed while the application is still being decided. It notes that improper disclosure may itself create new claims by making a person a refugee sur place.

Statutorily, identifying information as defined in section 336A is protected by Division 3 of Part 4A of the Act. Sections 336F(3) and (4) provide that a disclosure is taken not to be authorised where the person is a protection visa applicant and the disclosure is to the country the claim was made against, or where the officer is not reasonably satisfied that the recipient will not pass the information on to that country. Australian Privacy Principle 6 in the Privacy Act 1988 restricts disclosure to third parties generally.

Two limits you should know. Section 336F(5) removes those protections in defined circumstances, including where you have requested or agreed to return to Indonesia and where your application has been refused and finally determined. And none of this constrains your education provider's own reporting obligations about your enrolment.

There is one further protection that matters specifically to students applying with family. Departmental policy allows an applicant who is included in a family member's application and who has sexual orientation or gender related claims to nominate a separate address for correspondence, and directs officers to mark the file accordingly. It also warns officers to explain that a separate interview alone may not be enough, because a refusal or a freedom of information request by another applicant on the same application could expose sensitive information. If you are on a combined application with a sibling, a spouse or a parent, raise this at the very start.

What a strong Indonesian LGBTI file looks like

Six things, in order of weight.

A dated, first-person chronology. Not a summary. Your account of realisation, concealment, family, relationships, what happened, what you feared, why you left, what changed here, and what you believe will happen on return. It should answer the Department's permitted lines of enquiry without being asked.

Proof of timing. Anything that fixes dates and predates your protection application. This is what answers section 5J(6).

Corroboration that honestly exists. Statements from partners, former partners, friends and community organisations. Messages and account records. Medical and psychological reports where there is trauma, or where treatment in Indonesia is itself part of the claim.

The family evidence. Who knows, who does not, what they did or said, and what would happen. DFAT makes family the centre of the Indonesian LGBTI picture, so a file that is silent on family is silent on the main issue.

Current country information, not just the 2023 report. Including material on the commenced Criminal Code, on enforcement, and on the specific region you would return to.

Submissions that address relocation and state protection head on. Bali and Jakarta will be raised. Deal with them first, using the Department's own instruction on concealment and relocation, rather than waiting to see whether the decision maker raises them.

When we will tell you not to apply

Where the claim is not there, we will say so, and that is a real outcome of a first consultation rather than a formality.

Not every difficulty is a protection claim. Not wanting to return, family disapproval on its own, the end of a course, financial pressure and general unhappiness about Indonesian society are not grounds. Departmental policy is explicit that family disapproval will not itself amount to a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, although it may lead to other harm such as violence, forced marriage, or ostracism to the point of threatening a person's capacity to subsist, and that the threshold for that last category is high.

A refusal is expensive. It bars a further protection application under section 48A while you remain in the migration zone, it closes off a further Student visa, and it stays on your record. Our page on protection visa refusals sets out the review pathways and the deadlines, which are short and cannot be extended.

How My Migration Lawyers approaches these claims

We start by working out whether there is a claim, and on which ground, before anything is lodged. That means testing the account against the statutory tests in section 5J and section 36(2)(aa), against the DFAT report and current country information, and against the relocation and state protection arguments that will be run in response.

Where the claim is there, the work is the written case. Because there is no right to an interview and section 5AAA puts the burden on you, the statement, the evidence and the legal submissions are the application. They should be built once, properly, rather than repaired later.

Conversations with a lawyer are confidential and nothing is lodged without your instructions. You do not have to be ready to apply, and you do not have to have told anyone else. You can book a consultation with one of our protection visa lawyers, or contact us with a question first.