LGBTI Protection Visa Conversion Therapy

An LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is a claim for a Subclass 866 protection visa by a person who fears being forced into practices designed to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices go by many names, including therapy, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation, healing and spiritual cleansing. Whatever they are called, the law asks the same questions: what would happen to the person, who would do it, why, and whether the state would protect them.

Conversion practices are often misunderstood as a matter of family disapproval or private religious belief. In an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, that framing is usually wrong. Forced practices can involve confinement, violence, sexual assault, forced medication, starvation and threats, all directed at a person because of who they are. This article explains how conversion practices fit the refugee and complementary protection tests, how the source of the practice affects the claim, and what evidence answers the Department's questions.

What does LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy mean?

In the context of an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, conversion therapy means any practice imposed on a person with the aim of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, or forcing them to suppress it. It is not a medical treatment for any condition. Being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex is not an illness. The claim is not a separate visa. It is made within an application for a Subclass 866 protection visa.

The Department's guidelines recognise the attitude that drives these practices. They state that in some societies diverse sexual orientation or sexual identity is viewed as a disease or mental illness, and that the agents of harm may believe they are attempting to "treat" or "cure" the person of their "illness". They also note that diverse sexual orientation or gender identity may be perceived as sacrilegious, immoral or a psychiatric illness.

Conversion practices commonly take four forms:

• Family practices. Confinement at home, removal of phones and money, beatings, forced marriage, being sent away to relatives or to a religious institution, and constant surveillance.
• Religious practices. Prayer sessions, exorcism rituals, fasting, beatings, forced attendance at religious schools or camps, and public shaming by religious leaders.
• Medical or psychiatric practices. Forced admission to hospital, medication given to "correct" sexuality or gender identity, and so-called counselling aimed at change.
• State programs. Detention or "rehabilitation" run or funded by the state, including programs linked to the idea that being LGBTIQ+ is a disorder requiring correction.

Each form raises different legal questions, which are dealt with below. What they share is coercion. A practice the person cannot refuse without further harm is not a choice.

Can conversion therapy be persecution under the refugee test?

Yes. Forced conversion practices can amount to persecution under section 5J of the Migration Act where they involve serious harm and systematic and discriminatory conduct, and where the person's membership of a particular social group is the essential and significant reason for the harm. LGBTI people are generally assessed as members of a particular social group.

Section 5J(4) sets three requirements. The Convention reason must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution. The persecution must involve serious harm. It must also involve systematic and discriminatory conduct. Conversion practices will often meet the first and third requirements, because they are directed at the person precisely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and are applied deliberately and repeatedly rather than by chance. The real contest in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is usually whether the practice feared amounts to serious harm, and whether it would actually happen.

The overview of what an LGBTI protection claim must prove explains the refugee elements in the LGBTI context, and the definitive guide to the Subclass 866 visa explains what persecution does and does not mean.

Serious harm under section 5J(5) and conversion practices

Section 5J(5) gives a non-exhaustive list of serious harm. It includes a threat to the person's life or liberty, significant physical harassment, significant physical ill-treatment, and significant economic hardship, denial of access to basic services or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where it threatens the person's capacity to subsist.

Conversion practices can fit several of these categories at once:

• Threat to liberty. Confinement at home, in a religious institution, in a hospital or in a state facility is a deprivation of liberty.
• Significant physical ill-treatment or harassment. Beatings, forced fasting, sexual assault said to "correct" the person, and physically abusive rituals.
• Threat to capacity to subsist. Being cut off from money, work or family support unless the person submits.

Because the list is non-exhaustive, the Department must also consider forms of harm that do not fit a listed category neatly, such as forced medication or severe psychological coercion. The guidelines also confirm that multiple harmful acts may cumulatively amount to serious harm. An LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim should therefore describe the whole pattern the applicant faces, not a single ritual or session in isolation.

Can conversion therapy be significant harm under complementary protection?

Yes, it can. If the refugee test is not met, the Department must consider whether there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. Under section 36(2A), significant harm includes arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment.

Conversion practices involving severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, may fall within torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. Practices designed to humiliate may fall within degrading treatment. These terms are defined in section 5(1) of the Migration Act, and the definitions contain requirements, including about intention, that must be addressed on the evidence. The published guide to complementary protection for LGBTI applicants discusses conversion practices and the intention requirement, and the complementary protection page explains the wider test.

For an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, complementary protection is an important second pathway. It must not be treated as the main argument, because the refugee test offers the protection of section 5J(3), discussed below, which complementary protection does not provide in the same way.

Family conversion practices

Family conversion practices arise in many LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claims, and often come before any other form. The Department's guidelines note that many LGBTIQ+ claims relate to fear of family, particularly where an LGBTIQ+ family member is seen as bringing shame on the whole family. Family disapproval alone is not persecution, but the guidelines accept that it can lead to violence, forced marriage or ostracism that threatens the person's capacity to subsist.

Family practices often escalate. A family may begin with pressure and prayer, then move to confinement, beatings, taking the person's passport and phone, arranging a marriage or sending them to a religious institution. The evidence should describe that pattern, including what the family has already done, what they have said they will do, and what happened to others in the family or community who were suspected of being LGBTI.

Where the harm comes from family, two further questions follow. The first is whether the police would protect the applicant from their family. The second is whether the applicant could live safely elsewhere in the country. Both questions are dealt with in separate articles in this series. For present purposes, it is enough to note that a family's reach, connections and determination are central evidence in any LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim.

Religious conversion practices

Religious conversion practices are imposed by religious leaders, religious institutions or religious communities, often with the family's support. They may involve exorcism, beatings said to drive out spirits, forced fasting, prolonged confinement for prayer, and public condemnation. In an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim based on religious practices, the evidence should identify the institution or leader involved and describe what was done.

The Department's guidelines recognise that claims relating to sexual orientation or gender identity may intersect with other Convention reasons, including religion. A person who refuses a religious "cure" may be seen as an apostate or as rejecting the faith, which can add a religious ground to the particular social group ground. The religious persecution page explains how religion-based claims are assessed.

Religious practices also raise a credibility point. Many LGBTI applicants are themselves religious, and some once sought religious help to change. The guidelines list reconciling personal identity with religious views, and a desire to change oneself or responses to pressure to conform, as appropriate lines of enquiry. An applicant who once took part in religious practices under pressure is not, for that reason, less likely to be LGBTI. In an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, that history should be explained, not hidden.

Medical and psychiatric "treatment"

Some conversion practices are imposed through doctors, psychiatrists, hospitals or counsellors. They may involve forced admission, medication intended to suppress sexual desire or change gender expression, or repeated "therapy" sessions the person cannot refuse.

Medical settings can make these practices look legitimate. In an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, the evidence should explain who arranged the treatment, whether the applicant consented or could have refused, what was done, and what happened when the applicant did not change. Medical records, prescriptions or hospital documents can be powerful evidence, but applicants should obtain them only if it is safe to do so.

For transgender applicants, an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim may involve forced detransition, denial of gender affirming treatment, or treatment aimed at making the person conform to the sex they were assigned at birth. A separate article in this series deals with transgender applicants in detail.

State rehabilitation and "corrective" programs

In some countries, conversion practices are run, funded or encouraged by the state. These may include detention in "rehabilitation" centres, compulsory counselling after arrest, or state-funded programs framed as support. The Department's guidelines direct officers, where state-funded support for transgender people exists, to consider whether that support is linked to the notion of "corrective" action, meaning a psychological or sexual disorder said to require treatment.

Where the state is the source of the conversion practice, the LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is significantly stronger on two points. State protection is not available from the state itself. The guidelines also accept that where the agent of harm is the state, relocation within the country will usually not be available. The evidence should therefore identify the state body involved, the legal power it uses, and how people come to its attention.

Why section 5J(3) matters in LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claims

Section 5J(3) of the Migration Act prevents the Department from finding that an applicant could avoid persecution by agreeing to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Section 5J(3) says a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid it. That rule does not apply where the modification would conflict with a characteristic fundamental to the person's identity, conceal an innate or immutable characteristic, or require any of the things listed in section 5J(3)(c).

The Department's guidelines state that LGBTIQ+ claims are likely to fall within these exceptions where a modification would require the person to alter their sexual orientation or gender identity, or conceal their true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Conversion practices are, by definition, an attempt to make the person alter or conceal those things. An argument that the applicant could avoid harm by cooperating with conversion practices, or by pretending the practice had worked, is exactly what section 5J(3) excludes.

The guidelines also state that officers should not ask whether the applicant can change their behaviour to conform or avoid harm, or whether something happened to make them LGBTIQ+. The guidelines recognise that sexual orientation and gender identity can evolve over time, but that recognition is about the individual's own experience. It is not a basis for expecting anyone to be changed by force. For that reason, section 5J(3) is often the decisive provision in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim under the refugee test. The 30 LGBT protection visa FAQs explain the wider rule that LGBTI applicants cannot be expected to hide who they are.

Assessing the risk of forced conversion practices on return

The central question in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is whether there is a real chance, or for complementary protection a real risk, that the applicant would be subjected to forced conversion practices if returned. Past practices are strong evidence, but they are not required. The assessment looks at the reasonably foreseeable future.

Relevant factors include:

• whether the applicant's sexual orientation or gender identity is already known to family, community, religious leaders or authorities;
• whether the family or community has already imposed, arranged or threatened conversion practices;
• whether the applicant's life in Australia, such as a relationship, social media or transition steps, has become known at home;
• whether the applicant would be dependent on family for housing, money or protection on return;
• country information on conversion practices, religious "healing", psychiatric treatment of LGBTI people and state rehabilitation programs; and
• what has happened to others in a similar position.

The Department's guidelines warn that country information on LGBTIQ+ people may be limited, and that the absence of information should not automatically lead to a finding that a claim is unfounded. This matters in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, because family and religious conversion practices are often hidden and rarely documented.

Evidence in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim

The most important evidence in an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is the applicant's own detailed account. The guidelines accept that an applicant's personal account may be the only source of evidence, and that assessment of non-state harm relies more heavily on credibility because documentary evidence is harder to obtain.

A strong account usually explains:

• who has tried to change the applicant, or has threatened to, and why;
• what was done, where, how often and for how long;
• whether the applicant could refuse, and what happened when they resisted;
• the physical and psychological effects on the applicant; and
• what the applicant believes would happen on return, and why.

Supporting evidence may include messages or recordings of threats, photos of injuries, medical or hospital records, documents from religious institutions, written witness statements from people who saw the practices or experienced them, psychological reports prepared in Australia, and reliable country information. Applicants should never provide sexually explicit material, and officers must not ask for it. The guides to evidence in a protection visa application and the protection visa statement of claims explain how evidence is weighed and how the statement is structured.

Every detail of an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim must be true. Giving false information to the Department is a serious offence, and an exaggerated account can destroy a genuine claim.

Conversion practices and credibility at interview

Applicants who have been through conversion practices often find the interview difficult. The practices may have involved shame, trauma and sexual violence, and the applicant may have been told for years that they were sick or sinful. The Department's guidelines state that officers should be mindful that trauma and the passage of time can affect recollection and consistency, and that officers should not ask for detailed information about traumatic events, particularly sexual violence.

Some applicants once believed the practices might work, or went along with them to survive. The guidelines list feelings of shame or self-hatred, and a desire to change oneself or responses to pressure to conform, as appropriate lines of enquiry. Honest answers about those feelings are consistent with a genuine LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim, not inconsistent with it. The protection visa interview page and the guide to preparing for a protection visa interview explain the interview process.

Tribunal decisions involving conversion practices

Published Tribunal decisions show that the risk of coerced conversion practices is taken seriously on review. Each decision turns on its own facts and does not predict the result in another case.

• In 2113218 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 3193, a transgender Muslim man from Malaysia undergoing transition raised detention, conversion practices and continuity of treatment. The matter was remitted to the Department.
• In 1802771 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4166, a transgender Muslim man from Malaysia pursuing transition feared detention and coerced conversion practices. The matter was remitted to the Department.

A remittal means the Tribunal sent the application back to the Department to be decided again. It is not itself the grant of a visa. These decisions are cited as published examples only. In both, the risk of forced conversion practices was considered together with detention, which reflects how an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim often overlaps with state action.

If an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is refused

If an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim is refused, the refusal can usually be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The time limit is short and strictly applied, and it runs from the date of notification. Missing it can end the right to review.

Common problems in these refusals include:

• treating conversion practices as family disapproval rather than as harm;
• assessing a single ritual or session instead of the whole pattern of coercion;
• finding the applicant could avoid harm by cooperating or pretending to change, contrary to section 5J(3);
• treating past religious or medical "treatment" the applicant accepted under pressure as evidence they are not LGBTI;
• relying on the absence of country information about hidden family or religious practices; and
• assessing only complementary protection, or only the refugee test.

The Tribunal considers the matter afresh and can take new evidence into account. The protection visa refusals page and the guide to a protection visa refusal appeal at the ART explain the review process.

How My Migration Lawyers handles LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claims

My Migration Lawyers acts for LGBTI applicants who fear forced conversion practices if they are returned. The firm deals with complex protection cases, acts in many LGBTI Subclass 866 claims, and is capable of handling an LGBTI Protection Visa conversion therapy claim from the first application through to review at the Administrative Review Tribunal.

On this type of matter, the work usually involves:

• A confidential first consultation. The consultation is held by video, and the applicant can speak about their experiences at their own pace.
• Presenting the applicant's own account. The account of what was done, by whom and why is taken in detail and with care for trauma. The statement is the applicant's own evidence. The applicant reviews and corrects it, and decides which claims are advanced.
• Identifying the source of harm. The firm assesses whether the practice comes from family, religious authorities, medical providers or the state, because this affects state protection and relocation.
• Assessing both pathways. Submissions address serious harm under section 5J(5), the section 5J(3) exceptions, and significant harm under section 36(2A).
• Country information. Current information on conversion practices, religious "healing", psychiatric treatment and state programs is identified and presented.
• Interview preparation and review. The applicant is prepared for the interview, and refusals are analysed and taken to review within time.

My Migration Lawyers is led by Principal Lawyer Weiwei Zhang. The firm's LGBTI protection visa service and its protection visa lawyers act for applicants across Australia.

If you fear being forced to change who you are, that fear deserves to be presented properly and in your own words. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers online, or call 1300 040 300.