Protection Visa Australia: The Definitive Guide to the Subclass 866 Visa

What is a protection visa in Australia?

A protection visa is a permanent visa granted to a person who is already in Australia and to whom Australia owes protection obligations because they are a refugee or because they face a real risk of significant harm if returned to their home country. The visa is the Subclass 866 Protection visa. It is created by the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, and the legal tests that decide who receives it are set out in section 36 of the Act.

The protection visa is Australia's onshore asylum process. A person who arrived lawfully in Australia, for example on a visitor, student or work visa, and who cannot safely go home, applies for protection from inside Australia. The Department of Home Affairs assesses the claim, interviews the applicant, and decides whether Australia owes that person protection. If it does, the person is granted a Subclass 866 visa and becomes a permanent resident on the day of grant.

The protection visa is not a work visa, a hardship visa or a general pathway to stay in Australia. It is available only to a person who meets the refugee criterion in section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). A person who does not fear harm in their home country cannot get a protection visa, whatever their other difficulties. That point is often misunderstood, and misunderstanding it is one of the most common reasons a protection visa application is refused.

There is one further point that is often confused. The Subclass 866 visa is the only permanent protection visa for people already in Australia. The Temporary Protection visa (Subclass 785) and the Safe Haven Enterprise visa (Subclass 790) were for people who arrived by boat without a visa, and both are closed to new applicants. Offshore refugee and humanitarian visas (Subclasses 200 to 204) are for people outside Australia and are not protection visas in the sense used in this article.

Who is eligible for a protection visa?

A person is eligible for a protection visa if they are in Australia, they arrived holding a visa that was in effect and were immigration cleared, they are not barred from applying, and Australia owes them protection obligations under section 36(2) of the Migration Act. Every one of those elements must be satisfied. Meeting three out of four is a refusal.

The first element is presence in Australia. A protection visa application can only be made by a person who is physically in Australia, and clause 866.411 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations requires the applicant to be in Australia when the visa is granted. A person outside Australia cannot apply for this visa. They may be able to apply for an offshore humanitarian visa, which is a different process with different criteria.

The second element is lawful arrival. Item 1401 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations provides that a person who arrived as an unauthorised maritime arrival, or who was not immigration cleared on their last entry to Australia, cannot make a valid application for a Subclass 866 visa. Immigration clearance is defined in section 172 of the Act. In practice, a person who entered Australia through an airport or seaport, presented a passport and a visa that was in effect, and was allowed to leave the port by a Border Force officer, has been immigration cleared. A person whose visa was cancelled at the airport, or who was detained on arrival, has not.

The third element is the absence of an application bar. The most important bars are section 46A, which applies to unauthorised maritime arrivals, and section 48A, which applies to a person who has already had a protection visa application refused or a protection visa cancelled while in Australia. Both bars are discussed below. A person caught by either bar cannot lodge a valid application unless the Minister personally lifts the bar, which the Minister has no duty to consider doing.

The fourth element is the substance of the claim. The applicant must satisfy the decision maker either that they are a refugee as defined in section 5H, read with section 5J, or that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm if removed to their home country. These two tests are the heart of the protection visa and each is examined in its own section below.

There are additional requirements at the time of decision. The applicant must satisfy the health criteria in clauses 866.223 to 866.224B, the character requirements in Public Interest Criteria 4001 and 4003A, and, if aged eighteen or over at the time of application, the values statement in Public Interest Criterion 4019. The applicant must also not be excluded by section 36(1B), which concerns an adverse security assessment by ASIO, or section 36(1C), which concerns danger to Australia's security or conviction for a particularly serious crime.

Eligibility is not affected by the type of visa the person holds when they apply. A person on a visitor visa, a student visa, a working holiday visa or a bridging visa can apply. A person whose visa has expired and who is unlawful in Australia can also apply, although their situation is more urgent and their bridging visa options are narrower. What matters is how the person arrived and whether they have a genuine claim, not what visa they hold on the day they lodge.

What is the refugee test in section 36(2)(a)?

The refugee test asks whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations because they are a refugee, and a person is a refugee under section 5H(1) of the Migration Act if they are outside their country of nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. A stateless person is a refugee if they are outside their country of former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to it.

The definition has three working parts. The applicant must fear persecution. The fear must be well-founded. The persecution must be for one of five reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Each of those parts has a statutory meaning in section 5J, and a decision maker must apply the statutory meaning, not a general idea of what a refugee is.

Section 5J(1) provides that a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if three conditions are met. First, the person fears being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons. Second, there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons. Third, the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the receiving country. The third condition is the internal relocation element, and it is examined separately below.

The real chance standard is a low threshold. It does not require the applicant to show that persecution is more likely than not. A real chance is one that is not remote, insubstantial or far-fetched. A chance well below fifty per cent can still be a real chance. However, the chance must be real, and it must be assessed on the evidence about the applicant and the evidence about conditions in the receiving country, not on speculation.

Section 5J(4) then defines persecution. For the purposes of the refugee definition, persecution requires three things. The reason in section 5J(1)(a) must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution. The persecution must involve serious harm to the person. The persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct. Random violence that could happen to anyone is not persecution, even if it is serious. Harm inflicted for a reason unconnected with the five grounds is not persecution, even if it is severe.

Section 5J(5) gives a non-exhaustive list of what counts as serious harm. It includes a threat to the person's life or liberty, significant physical harassment, significant physical ill-treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens the person's capacity to subsist, denial of access to basic services where that denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist, and denial of the capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind where that denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist. Discrimination that falls short of these things, however unpleasant, will generally not amount to serious harm.

Section 5H(2) excludes certain people from the definition of refugee regardless of the harm they fear. A person is not a refugee if there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, that they committed a serious non-political crime before entering Australia, or that they have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What is complementary protection in section 36(2)(aa)?

Complementary protection is the second ground for a protection visa, and it applies where the applicant is not a refugee but there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. It is set out in section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act. It exists because Australia's obligations not to return people to serious harm extend beyond the five refugee grounds.

Complementary protection does not require a reason. Under the refugee test, the harm must be connected to race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. Under complementary protection, the reason for the harm is irrelevant. What matters is whether the harm will happen and whether it is significant harm as defined. A person who faces death at the hands of a criminal gang for a purely personal reason may fail the refugee test and still succeed on complementary protection.

Section 36(2A) defines significant harm as a closed list. A person will suffer significant harm if they will be arbitrarily deprived of their life, the death penalty will be carried out on them, they will be subjected to torture, they will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or they will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. Torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment are each defined in section 5(1) of the Act. Harm that does not fall within one of the five categories is not significant harm, however serious it may be in ordinary language.

The risk threshold is a real risk. The decision maker must have substantial grounds for believing that the risk exists. In practice, the real risk standard for complementary protection is treated as equivalent to the real chance standard for the refugee test. Both are lower than the balance of probabilities.

Section 36(2B) sets out three circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm. The first is where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk of significant harm. The second is where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk of significant harm. The third is where the risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. These are not afterthoughts. They are part of the assessment of whether the risk is real, and a claim that does not deal with them is incomplete.

The third circumstance is the one that defeats most weak complementary protection claims. A country may be dangerous, poor, violent or unstable. None of that is enough. The applicant must show that they personally face a real risk of significant harm because of their particular circumstances. Generalised violence, economic hardship and poor governance affect everyone in the country and do not, by themselves, engage complementary protection.

Section 36(2C) contains ineligibility provisions that mirror the exclusions in the refugee test. A person is ineligible for complementary protection if there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political crime before entering Australia, or that they have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, or if there are reasonable grounds for considering that they are a danger to Australia's security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, are a danger to the Australian community.

The Department assesses complementary protection only after it has found that the applicant is not a refugee. Every protection visa applicant is assessed against both grounds, and a well-prepared application puts both grounds clearly, because a claim that is weak on the refugee test may be strong on complementary protection. My Migration Lawyers explains how the two tests interact on its page on complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa).

What does persecution actually mean, and what does it not mean?

Persecution under the Migration Act means serious harm inflicted through systematic and discriminatory conduct for which one of the five refugee reasons is the essential and significant reason, and it does not mean hardship, discrimination, poverty, unemployment, family conflict or general insecurity. The distinction decides cases. Many applicants describe their situation in terms that are true and painful but do not meet the statutory meaning, and the application fails for that reason alone.

Discrimination is the most common example. A person may be denied promotion, refused housing, treated badly by neighbours or excluded from social life because of their religion or ethnicity. That is discrimination. It becomes persecution only if it involves serious harm as described in section 5J(5). Discrimination that threatens the person's capacity to subsist, for example a complete denial of the ability to earn any livelihood, can cross the line. Discrimination that makes life harder but not unsustainable generally does not.

Prosecution is not persecution. A person who faces prosecution for an ordinary criminal offence under a law of general application is not being persecuted, even if the penalty is harsh. Prosecution becomes persecution where the law itself targets a protected characteristic, where the law is applied selectively against people with that characteristic, or where the punishment is disproportionate for a reason connected to the five grounds. A law criminalising same-sex conduct, or a law punishing religious conversion, is the clearest example of a law that targets a protected characteristic.

Economic hardship is not persecution unless it is imposed for a refugee reason and threatens the person's capacity to subsist. Wanting a better life, better wages or better opportunities for children is a legitimate human aspiration and it is not a protection claim. A decision maker who hears an applicant describe economic motives will treat the claim with scepticism, and rightly so, because the Act does not protect against poverty.

Personal disputes are not persecution. A land dispute, a debt, a business rivalry or a family quarrel may lead to genuine threats of violence. Unless the threat is connected to one of the five reasons, it does not engage the refugee test. It may engage complementary protection if the threatened harm is significant harm and the risk is real and personal, and that is why both grounds must always be considered. But an applicant who frames a personal dispute as persecution will fail on the refugee ground.

Fear of return alone is not persecution. An applicant may fear returning because they have been away for years, because they have lost contact with family, because they have no work to return to, or because they have built a life in Australia. None of those fears is a fear of persecution. The Department sees this pattern frequently in applications lodged after a long period in Australia on other visas, and it is a pattern that leads to refusal.

How does the particular social group ground work?

Membership of a particular social group is one of the five refugee reasons, and section 5L of the Migration Act provides that a person is a member of a particular social group if a characteristic is shared by each member of the group, the person shares or is perceived as sharing that characteristic, the characteristic is innate or immutable, or is so fundamental to a member's identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or distinguishes the group from society, and the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

This ground is the one most often relied on by applicants whose claims do not fit neatly into race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Sexual orientation and gender identity are the clearest examples of a characteristic that is innate or immutable, and claims by LGBTI applicants are ordinarily assessed under this ground. My Migration Lawyers acts in many of these matters and explains the approach on its page on LGBTI protection visa claims.

Other groups recognised in Australian decisions, depending on the country and the evidence, include women in particular circumstances, such as women who have left an abusive marriage in a society where that carries serious consequences, people with a disability, people perceived as having been westernised after a long period abroad, and people who have left a particular religious or social community. Whether a group exists is a question of fact about the receiving country, and country information is decisive.

Section 5K deals with family as a particular social group. A person may be persecuted because of who their relative is, for example the child of a political dissident. Section 5K provides that family membership can found a claim, but only where a family member has been persecuted, or there is a real chance they would be, for one of the other four reasons. Family cannot be used to convert a purely private dispute into a refugee claim.

The most common error in particular social group claims is to define the group by the persecution itself. A group of people who are targeted by a criminal gang is not a particular social group, because the only thing its members share is the fear of persecution, and section 5L(1)(d) excludes that. The group must be defined by a characteristic that exists independently of the harm. Getting this right at the drafting stage is one of the tasks a protection lawyer performs on every claim of this type.

What are internal relocation and effective state protection?

Internal relocation and effective state protection are two statutory limits on the refugee definition which provide, respectively, that a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the real chance of persecution does not relate to all areas of the receiving country, and that a person does not have a well-founded fear if effective protection measures are available to them in that country. They are found in section 5J(1)(c) and section 5J(2) of the Migration Act, and section 5LA defines effective protection measures.

The relocation element under section 5J(1)(c) is strict. The applicant must show that there is a real chance of persecution in all areas of the receiving country. If there is an area where the applicant would not face a real chance of persecution, the refugee test is not met, and the question of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to move there does not arise in the same way as it once did. The decision maker must, however, consider whether the applicant could access the proposed area safely and lawfully.

The relocation element under complementary protection is different. Section 36(2B)(a) provides that there is no real risk of significant harm if it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area where there would not be a real risk. The test is reasonableness in the sense of practicability, having regard to the applicant's personal circumstances. Findings made under section 5J(1)(c) cannot be carried across to the complementary protection assessment. The two tests are separate and must each be addressed.

Where the agent of harm is the state, relocation is rarely an answer. A government that wishes to persecute a person can generally reach them anywhere in the country. Where the agent of harm is a non-state actor, such as a family, a gang, a religious group or a former partner, the decision maker will consider the actor's motivation and ability to find the applicant elsewhere, and the availability of protection in another part of the country.

Effective protection measures under section 5LA are taken to be available if protection against persecution could be provided by the state, or by a party or organisation including an international organisation that controls the relevant state or a substantial part of its territory, and the state, party or organisation is willing and able to offer such protection. The question is not whether the country has laws or police. It is whether the protection actually works for a person in the applicant's position.

Under complementary protection, section 36(2B)(b) asks whether the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk of significant harm. Again, the question is practical. The existence of a police force does not answer it. A country where the police are complicit in the harm, indifferent to it, or unable to act against the people inflicting it, does not provide effective protection.

An applicant who does not address relocation and state protection in their statement will find the Department addressing it for them, usually with the conclusion that the applicant could have moved or could have sought help. The applicant's own account of why they could not relocate and why the authorities would not protect them, supported by country information, is essential.

Who cannot apply for a protection visa?

A person cannot make a valid protection visa application if they are an unauthorised maritime arrival barred by section 46A, if they have previously been refused a protection visa or had one cancelled in Australia and are barred by section 48A, if they are caught by section 91K as a former Temporary Safe Haven visa holder, or if they were not immigration cleared on their last arrival. Each bar prevents the application from being valid at all. The Department does not assess the claim. It returns the application as invalid.

Section 46A(1) bars an unauthorised maritime arrival who is in Australia and is an unlawful non-citizen or the holder of a bridging visa or certain temporary visas from making a valid application for any visa, including any class of protection visa. The Minister may lift the bar under section 46A(2) for a specific class of visa if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest, but the Minister has no duty to consider doing so. This bar does not affect people who arrived by air with a visa.

Section 48A(1) bars a person who has applied for a protection visa in Australia and been refused, or who held a protection visa that was cancelled, from making a further protection visa application while in the migration zone. The bar applies to every class of protection visa. It applies whether the refusal was by the Department or affirmed by a tribunal. Only the Minister can lift it, under section 48B, and the Minister has no duty to consider a request. This is why a first protection visa application must be prepared properly. It is, for most people, the only one they will ever be able to make.

Section 91K bars a person who has held a Temporary Safe Haven visa (Subclass 449) from making a valid application for another visa unless the Minister lifts the bar under section 91L, unless the person has left Australia since holding that visa. This affects a small number of people and is mentioned for completeness.

Sections 91W and 91WA do not bar an application but they can require its refusal. Section 91W allows the Department to request evidence of identity, nationality or citizenship. If the applicant refuses or fails to comply, or produces a bogus document, without a reasonable explanation, the visa must be refused. Section 91WA operates where the applicant destroys or disposes of identity documents or provides a bogus document with the application. A reasonable explanation, for example that documents were lost in flight, were never issued because of discrimination, or were taken by a third party, will answer the provision, but the explanation must be put on the record early and clearly.

Three things do not bar a protection visa application and are frequently said to. Condition 8503, the no further stay condition, does not bar a protection visa application, because Schedule 8 expressly carves out protection visas from that condition. Conditions 8534 and 8535 carry the same carve-out. The section 48 bar, which prevents a person whose visa has been refused or cancelled from applying for most other visas onshore, does not bar a protection visa, because protection visas are among the classes that remain available. And leaving Australia does not bar an application, although it has serious consequences after lodgement, which are explained below.

Can you apply for a protection visa on a tourist, student or bridging visa?

Yes. A person who arrived in Australia lawfully and holds a visitor visa, a student visa, a working holiday visa, a temporary work visa or a bridging visa can apply for a protection visa, and the type of visa held on the day of lodgement has no bearing on whether the claim succeeds. The Migration Act asks how the person arrived and whether Australia owes them protection. It does not ask what they came for.

The practical differences between these situations lie in the bridging visa that follows lodgement and in how the Department views the timing of the claim. A person who holds a substantive visa when they lodge is ordinarily granted a Bridging visa A, which comes into effect when the substantive visa expires and allows them to remain lawfully while the application is decided. A person whose visa has already expired must apply for a Bridging visa E, which is granted on more restrictive terms and may carry conditions about work and reporting.

A person who applies for a protection visa while holding a visitor visa is in a common position. Many genuine claims arise this way, because a person who fears harm at home and has a means of leaving lawfully will often leave on a visitor visa. The Department does not treat the visitor visa itself as suspicious. What it will examine is whether the account of events at home is consistent with the decision to travel, the timing of the travel, and any statements made in the visitor visa application about the person's intention to return.

A student who applies for a protection visa should understand that the protection visa application does not affect the student visa while it remains in effect, but that the student visa will not be renewed on the basis of the pending protection claim. Once the student visa expires, the Bridging visa A takes effect, and the person's right to study continues only if the bridging visa permits it. A student whose claim arises from events after they left home, for example a change of circumstances that has made return dangerous, has what is called a sur place claim, and such claims are assessed in the ordinary way.

A person on a bridging visa, including a person whose earlier visa application for something else has been refused, can apply for a protection visa provided they are not caught by section 48A. The section 48 bar, which follows a refusal or cancellation of another visa, does not prevent a protection visa application. A person in this position should act quickly, because the bridging visa attached to the earlier application will cease once that matter is finally determined, and a gap in lawful status creates real difficulties.

Does delay hurt a protection visa claim?

Delay does not legally disqualify a protection visa claim, but an unexplained delay in applying after arrival is a matter the Department will take into account when assessing whether the applicant genuinely fears harm, and a long delay without a credible explanation weakens the claim. There is no statutory time limit for lodging a protection visa application. A person can lodge one year or five years after arrival. The question the decision maker asks is why a person who feared for their safety did not seek protection sooner.

There are good explanations for delay and they should be given. A person may not have known that protection was available. A person may have hoped that the situation at home would improve. A person may have been advised, wrongly, that another visa was a better option. A person may have been afraid that applying would expose them or their family. A person may have been in a relationship or a job that gave them lawful status and only sought protection when that status ended. A person's circumstances at home may have changed while they were in Australia, so that the fear arose only recently.

The Department will look particularly closely at an application lodged shortly before or after another visa expires, or shortly after another visa application is refused. It will consider whether the protection claim is a response to fear or a response to losing the right to stay. That does not mean such claims fail. Many genuine claims are lodged at exactly that point, because the person had no need to seek protection while they held another visa. It does mean the explanation must be honest and detailed.

Section 5J(6) is relevant to one type of delayed claim. It provides that, in determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the decision maker that the conduct was engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their claim. A person who converts to a new religion, joins a political group or begins living openly in a way that would be dangerous at home, after arriving in Australia, will need to show that they did so for genuine reasons and not to manufacture a claim.

The safest course is to apply as soon as the person understands that they cannot safely return. Waiting until the last day of another visa, or until a refusal letter arrives, is understandable but it costs credibility. My Migration Lawyers assesses the timing question at the first consultation, and where there is a delay it works with the client to put the explanation on the record clearly.

How do you apply for a protection visa?

A protection visa application is made by lodging Form 866, Application for a Protection visa, online through ImmiAccount while the applicant is in Australia, together with evidence of identity, the applicant's written statement of claims, supporting documents, and payment of the visa application charge. Item 1401 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations and the legislative instrument made under it set the requirements for a valid application. An application that does not meet them is invalid and the Department will not assess the claim.

The application must be lodged online unless the Department has given written authorisation for a paper application to be sent by post. Applicants who cannot use the online system, for example because of literacy, language or disability, should seek that authorisation before lodging rather than attempting to lodge in a way the Department will not accept.

Form 866 asks for the applicant's personal details, travel and immigration history, family details, and the reasons for claiming protection. The section on the reasons for claiming protection is the core of the application. Most applicants and their representatives provide a separate written statement of claims, attached to the form, which sets out the applicant's account in full. The form itself has limited space and the statement is where the case is made.

Identity evidence is required. The Department expects a passport or, if the applicant has none, an explanation of why not and whatever other evidence of identity, nationality or citizenship exists. Sections 91W and 91WA, discussed above, make identity a matter that can decide the application. A person who fled without documents or with false documents has usually done so for a reason that the Department will accept, but the reason must be stated at lodgement.

The applicant may include members of the same family unit who are in Australia in the one application. A spouse or de facto partner and dependent children can be added after lodgement using Form 1436, provided they are in Australia, are eligible, and the application has not yet been decided. A child born in Australia after lodgement is taken to be included in the application unless the child is an Australian citizen at birth, and the Department must be told of the birth.

A visa application charge is payable. It is a single charge for the application and it covers every person included in it. The current amount is published by the Department of Home Affairs and should be checked at the time of lodgement. It is modest compared with most other visa charges, but the application is not valid until it is paid.

Once a valid application is lodged, the Department acknowledges it and, where the applicant holds a substantive visa, grants a bridging visa. The applicant is then required to attend for biometrics if requested, undergo health examinations, and attend an interview. The applicant's obligations while the application is pending include telling the Department of any change of address or circumstances and responding to any request for information within the time given. My Migration Lawyers sets out the practical steps in its guide to preparing a Form 866 protection visa application.

What is the statement of claims?

The statement of claims is the applicant's own written account of who they are, what happened to them, what they fear will happen if they return, and why, and it is the single most important document in a protection visa application because the Department assesses the claim against it and tests the applicant on it at interview. Everything else in the application supports the statement. If the statement is thin, inconsistent or vague, no volume of supporting documents will rescue it.

A good statement is written in the first person, in the applicant's own voice, and in chronological order. It explains the applicant's background, family, education, work, religion, ethnicity and political involvement to the extent they matter. It describes the events that caused the fear, with dates, places and names where the applicant knows them. It explains what the applicant did in response, including any attempt to seek protection from the authorities or to move elsewhere in the country. It explains how the applicant left and why they came to Australia. It then explains, specifically, what the applicant believes will happen if they return and who will do it.

The statement must engage with the statutory tests. It is not enough to describe suffering. The statement must make clear which of the five refugee reasons is engaged, why the harm feared amounts to serious harm, why the risk exists throughout the country, why the authorities will not protect the applicant, and, in the alternative, why the harm feared is significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection. A statement that leaves the decision maker to work out the legal basis for the claim invites the decision maker to conclude that there is none.

The statement must be the applicant's evidence, not the lawyer's argument. The role of a protection lawyer is to take the applicant's own account, ask the questions that draw out the detail the law requires, and present that account in the structure the law expects. The applicant reads the statement, corrects anything that is wrong, and signs it. The applicant decides which claims are advanced. A statement that is not truly the applicant's own will fall apart at interview, because the applicant will not be able to speak to it.

Consistency is everything. The statement will be compared with the visitor or student visa application the applicant made before arrival, with any earlier statements to the Department, with the applicant's interview answers, and with country information. Inconsistencies are not fatal, and human memory is imperfect, but each inconsistency must be capable of explanation. A lawyer preparing a statement checks it against every earlier document on the applicant's file for exactly this reason. My Migration Lawyers explains the structure it uses in its guide to the protection visa statement of claims.

What evidence supports a protection visa claim?

The evidence that supports a protection visa claim falls into three categories: the applicant's own account, documents and witnesses that corroborate specific events or facts, and independent country information that shows the conditions in the receiving country are as the applicant describes. The applicant's account is always the foundation. The other two categories test and reinforce it.

Corroborating documents include anything that proves a fact in the applicant's account. Identity documents prove who the applicant is. Membership cards, photographs, letters and social media records can prove religious, political or community involvement. Police reports, medical records, court documents and threatening messages can prove that specific events happened. Statements from family members, friends, community leaders or people who witnessed events can corroborate the applicant's account, provided the statement maker is identified and explains how they know what they say.

The absence of documents is not fatal and the Department does not expect a person who fled persecution to have collected evidence of it. A person who was beaten by police is unlikely to have a police report. A person who hid their sexuality for years is unlikely to have photographs of a relationship. What matters is that the absence of documents is explained, and that the applicant's own account is detailed and consistent enough to be believed on its own.

Country information is independent evidence about conditions in the receiving country. The Department relies heavily on the country information reports prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, together with reports from the United Nations, foreign governments, human rights organisations and reputable media. A protection lawyer identifies the country information that supports the applicant's claim, addresses the country information that does not, and explains why the applicant's particular circumstances place them at risk even where the general picture is mixed.

Medical and psychological evidence can be important where the applicant has physical injuries consistent with their account, or where a psychological condition affects their memory, their presentation at interview or their ability to give a coherent account. Such evidence should come from a qualified practitioner and should address the specific question that matters to the claim.

Evidence should be lodged with the application or as soon as possible after it, and certainly before the interview. Evidence produced for the first time at the tribunal stage will be examined for why it was not produced earlier. My Migration Lawyers sets out the categories in detail in its guide to evidence in a protection visa application and its protection visa documents checklist.

What bridging visa do you get while a protection visa is processed?

A person who lodges a valid protection visa application while holding a substantive visa is ordinarily granted a Bridging visa A, which comes into effect when the substantive visa ends and allows the person to remain lawfully in Australia until the protection visa application is finally determined, while a person who is already unlawful must apply for a Bridging visa E. The bridging visa is what keeps the applicant lawful during a process that can take a long time, and understanding its conditions is essential.

The Bridging visa A is granted without a separate application in most cases under regulation 2.21A of the Migration Regulations. It does not permit travel outside Australia. If the holder leaves Australia, the bridging visa ceases and the person has no visa to return on. Since clause 866.411 requires the applicant to be in Australia when the protection visa is granted, a person who leaves has, in practical terms, abandoned their application unless they can lawfully return before a decision is made.

Work rights on a bridging visa depend on the conditions imposed. The Department's approach to work rights for protection visa applicants has changed over time and should be checked at the time of grant. Where a bridging visa is granted without work rights, an application can be made for a further bridging visa with work rights, and the Department will consider the applicant's circumstances. A person who works in breach of a no work condition risks cancellation of the bridging visa and damage to their credibility.

Access to Medicare for protection visa applicants depends on the type of bridging visa held and its conditions. Eligibility is determined by Services Australia and should be confirmed directly with that agency at the time.

A person whose substantive visa has already expired when they lodge is unlawful and must apply for a Bridging visa E. The Bridging visa E is granted on conditions that may include no work, reporting requirements and a requirement to make arrangements to depart if the application fails. A person in this position should seek advice before lodging, because the sequence in which the protection visa application and the bridging visa application are made can affect the outcome.

The bridging visa remains in effect while the application is being decided by the Department and, if the application is refused and the applicant applies for review within time, while the review is pending. If the application is refused and no review application is made within time, or the review is unsuccessful, the bridging visa will cease after a short period and the person will become unlawful. My Migration Lawyers explains the classes in its guide to bridging visas A, B, C and E.

What happens at the protection visa interview?

The protection visa interview is a recorded interview conducted by a Department of Home Affairs officer at which the applicant is questioned in detail about their identity, their history, the events described in their statement of claims and their fear of return, and it is the point at which the Department tests whether the applicant's account is credible. Almost every protection visa applicant is interviewed. The interview commonly lasts several hours and may be conducted in person or by video.

The officer will begin with identity and background. The applicant will be asked about their family, their education, their employment, their travel history and how they came to Australia. The officer is establishing who the applicant is and checking the answers against the application form, the visa application made before arrival and any other records the Department holds. Inconsistencies at this stage colour the rest of the interview.

The officer will then move to the claims. The applicant will be asked to describe, in their own words, why they left and what they fear. The officer will ask for detail: when, where, who, how many times, what was said, what the applicant did next. The officer is testing whether the account has the texture of lived experience. A person who experienced the events described can usually answer unexpected questions about them. A person reciting a story cannot.

The officer will put adverse information to the applicant. If country information contradicts the account, the officer will say so and ask the applicant to respond. If the applicant's earlier visa application said something different, the officer will ask why. If the officer doubts a particular event, the officer will say so. This is required by the procedural fairness provisions of the Migration Act and it is the applicant's opportunity to answer. An applicant who is not prepared for this part of the interview can be thrown by it.

An interpreter is provided where the applicant needs one. The applicant is entitled to have their representative present, and the representative may make submissions at the end of the interview but does not answer questions for the applicant. The interview is recorded and the applicant can request a copy of the recording.

Preparation for the interview does not mean rehearsing answers. It means the applicant knowing their own statement thoroughly, understanding what the legal tests require and why the officer is asking what they ask, being ready to explain any inconsistency, and being ready to give detail. My Migration Lawyers prepares every client for interview and describes the process on its page on the protection visa interview and its guide to protection visa interview questions.

How long does a protection visa take to process?

The Department of Home Affairs does not publish a standard processing time for the Subclass 866 Protection visa, and the time taken varies widely depending on the complexity of the claim, the country concerned, the completeness of the application, the time taken to complete health, character and security checks, and the Department's own caseload. The Department has stated publicly that most new protection visa applications are now being decided many times faster than in recent years. That statement does not translate into a figure that an applicant can rely on.

Several factors are within the applicant's control. A complete application, with a full statement of claims, identity evidence and supporting documents lodged at the outset, moves faster than one that requires the Department to request information. Prompt attendance at biometrics, health examinations and interview avoids delay. Prompt responses to any request for information under section 56 of the Act keep the file moving. An application that raises complex identity questions, or that requires the Department to make inquiries overseas, will take longer.

Several factors are outside the applicant's control. Security checks are conducted by other agencies and their timing cannot be predicted. Country information may be under review where conditions in a country are changing. The Department prioritises some caseloads over others for policy reasons that it does not always publish.

An applicant cannot compel the Department to decide within a particular time. Where an application has been outstanding for an unreasonable period, a representative can write to the Department seeking an update or an indication of the timeframe, and in extreme cases legal remedies may exist, but those are rare. The practical advice is to lodge a complete application, respond promptly to everything, and use the waiting time to ensure that the bridging visa remains in effect and that any change of circumstances is reported.

How much does a protection visa cost?

The government charge for a protection visa is a single visa application charge, set by the Migration Regulations and published by the Department of Home Affairs, which covers every person included in the one application, and it is low compared with the charges for most other Australian visas. The charge must be paid for the application to be valid. The current amount should be checked on the Department's website at the time of lodgement, because visa application charges change from time to time.

There is no second instalment of the visa application charge for a protection visa, unlike some other visa classes. There is no additional charge for including a spouse, partner or child in the application. Health examinations are arranged through the Department's panel and the cost of those examinations is separate.

If the application is refused and the applicant applies to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review, a tribunal application fee is payable at that stage, and the Tribunal publishes the current fee and the circumstances in which it may be reduced or refunded.

Professional fees for legal representation are separate from government charges and depend on the firm, the complexity of the matter and the stages at which the representative is engaged. A person considering representation should ask for a written costs agreement that sets out what is covered before agreeing to anything.

What health, character and security requirements apply?

A protection visa applicant must satisfy the health criteria in clauses 866.223 to 866.224B of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, the character requirements in Public Interest Criteria 4001 and 4003A, the values statement requirement in Public Interest Criterion 4019 if aged eighteen or over at the time of application, and must not be excluded by section 36(1B) or section 36(1C) of the Migration Act. These are assessed at the time of decision and a failure on any of them results in refusal even where the protection claim itself is accepted.

The health criteria require the applicant to undergo the medical examinations specified for protection visa applicants. The health requirement for protection visas is applied differently from the standard requirement for other permanent visas, in recognition of the fact that a person owed protection cannot simply be sent home because of a health condition. The applicant must nonetheless undergo the examinations and comply with any treatment or public health requirements that follow.

Public Interest Criterion 4001 is the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act. An applicant who has a substantial criminal record, who has been convicted of certain offences, or whose past and present conduct shows they are not of good character, may fail the criterion. Where the criterion is not met, the decision maker has a discretion, and the applicant's protection claim and the consequences of refusal are relevant to how that discretion is exercised. Public Interest Criterion 4003A concerns people subject to certain determinations by the Foreign Minister.

Section 36(1B) provides that a protection visa cannot be granted to a person who has been assessed by ASIO to be directly or indirectly a risk to security. Section 36(1C) provides that a protection visa cannot be granted to a person who the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds, is a danger to Australia's security or, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community. These provisions apply regardless of the strength of the protection claim.

Public Interest Criterion 4019 requires an applicant aged eighteen or over to have signed the Australian Values Statement, which is part of the application form. It is a formal requirement and it is rarely a problem in practice, but an application lodged without the statement signed will be asked to remedy it.

Can family members be included in a protection visa application?

Yes. Members of the same family unit who are in Australia can be included in the one protection visa application, and a family member who is included and who does not have their own protection claim can be granted a Subclass 866 visa under clause 866.221(3) on the basis that they are a member of the same family unit of a person who satisfies the protection criteria. This is the family unit provision and it is how a spouse and children who are not themselves at risk obtain permanent residence with the primary applicant.

Member of the same family unit is defined in regulation 1.12 of the Migration Regulations. It includes a spouse or de facto partner and a dependent child. A child aged eighteen or over may be included if they are dependent on the applicant, and evidence of that dependency is required. Other relatives, such as parents or siblings, are not members of the family unit for this purpose and cannot be included, even if they are in Australia and even if they depend on the applicant.

Each family member included in the application is assessed against the health, character and security requirements individually. A family member may also have their own protection claim, and where they do it should be put, because a family member with their own claim is not dependent on the primary applicant's claim succeeding.

A spouse, de facto partner or dependent child can be added after lodgement, provided they are in Australia, are eligible to apply, and the application has not yet been decided. The Department requires Form 1436 and evidence of the relationship. A person who marries or forms a de facto relationship after lodgement can add their new partner in this way.

Family members who are outside Australia cannot be included. Once the primary applicant is granted a Subclass 866 visa, they may be able to propose family members outside Australia for a visa under the offshore Humanitarian Program, which is a separate process with its own criteria and its own waiting times. Whether a Subclass 866 visa holder can also sponsor a partner or child through the ordinary family visa program depends on the family member's circumstances and the priority the Department gives to such applications, and advice should be taken on the current position.

A child born in Australia after the application is lodged and before it is decided is taken to be included in the application unless the child is an Australian citizen at birth. The Department must be notified of the birth and provided with the birth certificate.

What does a Subclass 866 protection visa give you?

A Subclass 866 Protection visa is a permanent visa, and the holder becomes an Australian permanent resident on the day it is granted, with the right to live, work and study in Australia indefinitely, access to Medicare and Centrelink, a five year travel facility, the ability to propose eligible family members under the offshore Humanitarian Program, and a pathway to Australian citizenship once the residence requirements are met. It is the same permanent residence that any other permanent visa confers, with a small number of conditions specific to protection.

The visa does not expire. The travel facility attached to it lasts five years from grant, which means the holder may leave and re-enter Australia during that period. After five years, a holder who wishes to travel must obtain a Resident Return visa or become an Australian citizen. Permanent residence itself is not lost by the expiry of the travel facility; only the right to re-enter is affected.

Condition 8559 attaches to the Subclass 866 visa. It provides that the holder must not enter the country from which Australia granted them protection unless the Department has approved the travel in writing before it happens. The Department will approve such travel only where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances. A holder who enters that country without written approval, even briefly, breaches the condition and the visa may be cancelled, together with the visas of family members granted on the basis of the holder's claim.

The Department also recommends that a Subclass 866 holder not use a passport issued by the country from which they were granted protection. Using that passport, or renewing it, can be taken as evidence that the person has re-availed themselves of that country's protection and no longer needs Australia's, and that too can lead to cancellation. A holder who needs to travel should obtain an Australian Convention Travel Document, which is issued to refugees and protection visa holders by the Australian Passport Office.

A Subclass 866 holder may apply for Australian citizenship by conferral once they meet the general residence requirement and the other requirements of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Time spent in Australia on a bridging visa before the protection visa was granted may count towards the lawful residence component of that requirement but not towards the permanent residence component, and the position should be checked at the time of application.

Can you get permanent residency after a protection visa?

The Subclass 866 Protection visa is itself a permanent visa, so a person granted it is already a permanent resident and does not need to apply for permanent residency separately. This question is asked often because many people assume that protection is temporary and must be converted into something permanent. For a person who arrived lawfully and was granted a Subclass 866 visa, that is not the case.

The confusion arises from the two temporary protection visas that existed for people who arrived by boat without a visa. Holders of a Temporary Protection visa (Subclass 785) or a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (Subclass 790) did need a further step to reach permanent residence, and from early 2023 a pathway to the permanent Resolution of Status visa (Subclass 851) was opened for that group. That pathway is specific to those visa holders and has no application to Subclass 866 applicants.

A Subclass 866 holder's permanent residence continues indefinitely unless the visa is cancelled. The grounds on which a permanent visa can be cancelled include providing false information in the application, breaching a condition such as condition 8559, and the character grounds in section 501 of the Migration Act. A protection visa holder should treat these risks seriously, because cancellation of a protection visa raises the prospect of removal to the very country from which protection was granted, and the law around removal in those circumstances is complex.

Can you travel to your home country after a protection visa is granted?

No, not without the Department's written approval in advance. Condition 8559, which attaches to every Subclass 866 Protection visa, prohibits the holder from entering the country from which Australia granted them protection unless the Department has approved the entry in writing before the travel takes place, and approval is given only where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances. Travel without approval, for any length of time, is a breach of the condition and exposes the visa to cancellation.

The reasoning is straightforward. A person was granted protection because they could not safely return. A person who then returns, voluntarily and without difficulty, invites the conclusion that the fear on which the visa was granted was not well-founded, or is no longer well-founded. The Department may consider cancellation on that basis, and the visas of family members who were granted protection as members of the same family unit are exposed as well.

Compassionate or compelling circumstances that may justify approval include the serious illness or death of a close family member. An applicant for approval should provide evidence of the circumstances, an explanation of how they intend to keep themselves safe during the visit, and the proposed dates. Approval is not automatic and should not be assumed.

Travel to third countries is permitted during the five year travel facility, subject to the ordinary requirement to hold a valid travel document. A protection visa holder travelling on a Convention Travel Document should check the entry requirements of the destination country, as not every country accepts that document.

What happens if a protection visa is refused?

If the Department refuses a protection visa application, the applicant may apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for merits review of the decision, and the application must be lodged within a short, strict period that runs from the date the applicant is taken to have received the decision, with no power in the Tribunal to extend it. Missing that period ends the right to review. The bridging visa then ceases after a short period and the person becomes unlawful.

The refusal decision is set out in a written decision record. The record explains which parts of the applicant's account the Department accepted, which it rejected and why, what country information it relied on, and how it applied the refugee and complementary protection tests. Reading the decision record carefully is the first step in deciding whether to seek review and on what basis. Refusals commonly turn on credibility, on a finding that the harm feared is not persecution or significant harm, on relocation or state protection, or on a finding that the risk is not personal to the applicant.

The Administrative Review Tribunal conducts a fresh hearing. The Tribunal is not limited to reviewing the Department's reasoning. It considers the application again, on all the material before it including new evidence, and it can hear from the applicant and witnesses. The Tribunal can affirm the refusal, set it aside and substitute a decision that the applicant meets the protection criteria, or remit the matter to the Department with directions. The Tribunal hearing is the applicant's best opportunity to answer the concerns in the decision record with better evidence and a clearer account.

The period for lodging a review application runs from deemed receipt, not actual receipt. The Migration Act sets out when a person is taken to have received a document sent by post or electronically, and those periods are short. An applicant who has moved and not updated their address, or who does not check email, can lose the right to review without ever seeing the decision. Keeping contact details current with the Department is essential for exactly this reason.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, section 48A prevents any further protection visa application while the person remains in Australia. The remaining avenues are limited. A request may be made to the Minister to intervene personally under section 417 of the Migration Act, but the Minister has no duty to consider such a request and intervention is rare. A Tribunal decision affected by legal error may in some cases be challenged in the courts, within strict time limits. Neither avenue is a second chance at the merits. My Migration Lawyers acts in protection visa refusals at the Tribunal and explains the process on its page on protection visa refusals and ART review and its guide to appealing a protection visa refusal to the ART.

What was fast track assessment and does it still apply?

Fast track assessment was a separate, limited review process that applied to protection visa applicants who arrived in Australia by boat between August 2012 and January 2014, under which refusals were reviewed on the papers by the Immigration Assessment Authority rather than at a full hearing, and it was abolished when the Administrative Review Tribunal replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. New protection visa applicants are not fast track applicants and their refusals are reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal in the ordinary way.

The fast track process is mentioned here because it still appears in older material, in decisions that are cited as precedent, and in the histories of people who were subject to it. A person who was a fast track applicant and whose refusal was affirmed by the Immigration Assessment Authority remains subject to the section 48A bar. The abolition of the fast track process did not reopen those decisions.

The distinction matters for one practical reason. A person reading about protection visas online will encounter descriptions of a review process with no hearing, no right to present new evidence and a very high refusal rate. That description belonged to fast track. It does not describe the review available to a Subclass 866 applicant who arrived lawfully, who has a full merits hearing before the Tribunal.

How does section 501 affect protection visa applicants?

Section 501 of the Migration Act, the character test, applies to protection visa applicants through Public Interest Criterion 4001, and an applicant who does not pass the character test may be refused even where the Department accepts that Australia owes them protection, although the decision maker must weigh the consequences of refusal for a person owed protection when deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse. Character is assessed at the time of decision and the Department conducts police checks in Australia and, where possible, in other countries where the applicant has lived.

A person fails the character test if, among other things, they have a substantial criminal record, which includes a sentence of imprisonment of twelve months or more, or they have been convicted of certain offences, or the decision maker reasonably suspects they are a member of or associated with a group involved in criminal conduct, or their past and present criminal or general conduct shows they are not of good character. Failing the test does not automatically result in refusal. The decision maker then decides whether to refuse, having regard to the applicant's circumstances and the relevant Ministerial Direction.

For protection visa applicants, the decision has an additional dimension. Refusing a protection visa to a person owed protection does not make them removable to their home country, because Australia's non-refoulement obligations still apply. Section 36(1C) separately provides that a protection visa cannot be granted to a person convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the Australian community. The interaction between these provisions is complex and a protection visa applicant with any criminal history in any country should disclose it fully and seek advice before lodging.

A protection visa holder is also subject to cancellation under section 501 after grant. A conviction and sentence of imprisonment after the visa is granted can result in mandatory or discretionary cancellation, and the consequences for a person who cannot be returned to their home country are severe and prolonged.

What are the most common mistakes in protection visa applications?

The most common mistakes in protection visa applications are describing hardship rather than persecution or significant harm, lodging a vague or inconsistent statement of claims, failing to address relocation and state protection, failing to explain delay, failing to explain missing or false identity documents, and treating the interview as a formality. Each of these mistakes is avoidable and each leads directly to refusal.

The first mistake is the most fundamental. An applicant describes a life that was hard, unfair or frightening in general terms and expects the decision maker to infer a protection claim. The decision maker will not. The claim must identify the harm, the reason for it, the person or group who will inflict it, and why the state will not prevent it. An account that does not do this is not a protection claim, however sympathetic the circumstances.

The second mistake is a poor statement. A statement that is short, that omits dates and names the applicant knows, that contradicts the visa application made before arrival, or that has been written by someone else in language the applicant would not use, will be tested at interview and will fail the test. The statement is the applicant's evidence and it must be theirs.

The third mistake is silence on relocation and state protection. The Department will always ask why the applicant could not move to another part of the country and why the authorities would not help. An applicant who has not thought about those questions before the interview will give a weak answer and the decision record will rely on it.

The fourth mistake is unexplained delay. An applicant who has been in Australia for years on other visas and lodges a protection claim when those visas run out must explain why. The explanation is often perfectly good. Not giving it is the error.

The fifth mistake is identity. An applicant who arrived on a passport in another name, or who has no documents, must say so at the outset and explain why. An identity problem discovered by the Department rather than disclosed by the applicant is treated very differently under sections 91W and 91WA.

The sixth mistake is the interview. An applicant who has not reread their statement, who does not understand what the officer is testing, and who is unprepared for adverse information being put to them, will perform badly regardless of the merits of their claim. Credibility is decided at the interview more than anywhere else.

The seventh mistake is representation. A person who is not a registered migration agent or an Australian legal practitioner cannot lawfully give immigration assistance for a fee, and the Department warns applicants directly about people who promote protection visas as a way to obtain work rights or to extend a stay. An application prepared on that basis is a false application, and section 5J(6), the credibility provisions and the criminal law all apply to it. It also uses up the one protection visa application the person will ever be able to make.

How My Migration Lawyers acts in protection visa matters

My Migration Lawyers is an Australian immigration law firm led by Principal Lawyer Weiwei Zhang, and it acts in Subclass 866 Protection visa applications, protection visa interviews and protection visa refusals before the Administrative Review Tribunal for clients across Australia, by video consultation. Protection visas are one of the two areas of practice on which the firm concentrates, and it acts in many matters of exactly this type, including complex claims involving credibility disputes, identity issues, delayed applications, sur place claims, particular social group claims and complementary protection.

The firm's work on a protection visa application begins with an assessment. Before anything is lodged, the lawyer takes the client's account in detail, identifies which statutory ground or grounds the account engages, identifies the barriers under sections 46A, 48A, 91W and 91WA, and gives the client a written opinion on whether the claim has a proper legal basis. A client who does not have a protection claim is told so. The section 48A bar means that a weak application is not a harmless attempt, and the firm does not lodge applications it does not believe engage the law.

The firm assembles the supporting evidence and the country information, lodges the application and manages the file through to decision. It responds to requests for information under section 56, deals with identity requests under section 91W, prepares the client for the interview and attends it, and makes written submissions after the interview where adverse information has been raised. Where a decision is delayed, the firm follows it up.

Where a protection visa has been refused, the firm reviews the decision record, advises on the prospects of review, lodges the Tribunal application within time, prepares the client and any witnesses for the hearing, obtains further evidence directed at the concerns in the decision record, and appears at the hearing. The firm also advises clients who have been refused by another representative, and clients who prepared their own application and now face an interview or a refusal.

The firm charges fixed fees agreed in writing before work begins. Weiwei Zhang is the lawyer responsible for the firm's protection visa practice and her background is set out on her profile page. A person who wishes to discuss a protection visa matter can request a consultation online, and the firm's protection visa services are described on its protection visa lawyers page and its page on the Subclass 866 Protection visa.