Protection Visa Interview Questions: How to Prepare Your Case

What questions are asked at a protection visa interview?

Protection visa interview questions test the legal elements of your claim: your identity, your fear, the reason for it, and whether protection is available to you at home. The delegate is not making conversation and is not collecting your life story for its own sake. Every question is directed at a provision of the Migration Act 1958, and the answer is recorded so that it can be measured against that provision later.

The questions fall into four groups.

The first group is about identity, nationality and travel. The delegate asks where you were born, which documents you have held, how you entered Australia and what you told the Department when you arrived. These questions go to whether you are who you say you are, and to which country your claim is measured against.

The second group is about events. The delegate asks what happened to you, when it happened, who did it, who else was present, what you did next and whether you reported it. These questions build the factual account the decision will rest on.

The third group is about reasons. The delegate asks why you believe you were targeted, what the person who harmed you said, and what they knew about you. These questions go to section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires the fear to be for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The fourth group is about return and protection. The delegate asks whether you went to the police, what the police did, whether you could live somewhere else in the country, and whether you have a right to enter and reside anywhere other than Australia. These questions go to sections 5J(1)(c), 5J(2), 36(2B) and 36(3).

Understanding which group a question belongs to is the single most useful thing an applicant can do before the day. A question that sounds intrusive, or that sounds as though the delegate does not believe you, is usually a question directed at a statutory element that has not yet been answered on the file. The Subclass 866 protection visa is decided on those elements and nothing else. What happens on the day, from the invitation letter to the close of the recording, is set out on our page about the protection visa interview.

Why does the Department interview a protection visa applicant?

The Department interviews a protection visa applicant because the written application alone does not allow the delegate to decide whether the claims are credible. Departmental policy states that an interview may be appropriate where interviewing is the most efficient or effective way to obtain the information needed, where the claims could support a positive assessment but credibility cannot be verified from a written response, or where the delegate has concerns about credibility and wishes to observe the applicant's manner of responding to questions, including spontaneity.

There is no legal requirement for the Department to interview a protection visa applicant before deciding the application. The invitation is issued under the code of procedure in Subdivision AB of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958. Section 58(1) requires an invitation to give additional information under section 56, or to comment on relevant information under section 57, to specify whether the information or comment may be given in writing, at an interview, or by telephone. An applicant or their representative may ask for an interview, and the delegate should consider that request, but the decision on whether to hold one remains with the delegate.

The interview may be held in person, by video conference or by telephone. Departmental policy directs officers to choose the method having regard to health and safety, the applicant's personal circumstances and whether the applicant is likely to be able to speak freely about sensitive matters, operational considerations, the nature of the information to be discussed, and whether a physical disability or psychological vulnerability would make an interview difficult. An applicant who has a reason to prefer one method over another should say so in writing, in advance, and give the reason.

Two further points matter and are frequently misunderstood. The first is that a decision may be made at any time after the interview on the information then held, including the information given at the interview, and the officer who decides the application may not be the officer who conducted the interview. The second is that the interview is not the last opportunity to put material before the Department. Further information and evidence may be provided at any time before the decision is made, and a considered written submission after the interview is often where the real work is done.

The absence of an interview is not by itself a sign of trouble. The presence of one is not by itself a sign of trouble either. What matters is what is asked, and whether the file answers it.

Questions about identity, nationality and travel history

Questions about identity, nationality and travel history are asked first because the whole claim is measured against one country, and that country is fixed by your nationality. Departmental policy assesses identity across three pillars: biometrics, documentation, and biography. The biography pillar is your life story and travel history, and policy states that an applicant should usually be able to give spontaneous and detailed explanations of where they lived, why and how they travelled, and the other relevant elements of their account.

Expect questions in this form. Where were you born, and where did you live at each stage of your life. Who are your parents and what is their nationality. What identity documents have you ever held, and where are they now. How did you obtain your passport, and who arranged it. What visa did you use to enter Australia, and what did you say on that application. Where have you travelled, and on what documents.

Documents carry a specific statutory risk here. Section 91W(1) of the Migration Act 1958 allows an officer to request documentary evidence of identity, nationality or citizenship. If the applicant refuses or fails to comply with that request, or produces a bogus document in response to it, and does not have a reasonable explanation, section 91W(2) prevents the grant of the visa. Section 91WA operates in a similar way where a bogus document is given as part of, or in connection with, the protection visa application itself, or where identity documents are destroyed or disposed of after the application is made.

The important qualification is that these provisions are not intended to be applied punitively. Departmental policy sets out examples of a reasonable explanation, including statelessness, refusal by the government of the country of origin to issue documents because of discrimination or persecution, collapse of the government, poor record keeping, living unlawfully in a country where the person was not entitled to documents, theft of belongings including travel documents, and a third party removing or destroying documents. An applicant who has no documents is not without an answer. An applicant who has no explanation is.

A separate and very common problem is the earlier visa application. Many protection visa applicants entered Australia on a visitor or student visa, and said things on that application which do not sit comfortably beside the protection claim. That inconsistency will be found, because the Department holds the earlier file. It is far better to explain it in the written statement, before the interview, than to be asked about it cold.

Questions about what happened, when, and to whom

Questions about events ask you to place each incident in time, in sequence, and in relation to the people involved. The delegate is building a chronology. Where the chronology in the interview does not match the chronology in the written statement, that difference becomes a credibility issue, and a credibility issue is what refusals are made of.

Expect the delegate to work through each claimed incident and ask when it happened, where it happened, who was present, what was said, what injuries or damage resulted, whether medical treatment was sought, whether anyone else witnessed it, what you did immediately afterwards, and whether you moved, hid, changed work or changed your routine as a result. Expect the delegate to come back to the same incident later from a different angle.

Departmental policy on credibility is more favourable to applicants than most people expect, and it is worth knowing. Officers are directed not to require an unrealistic degree of precision and detail where that knowledge would not ordinarily be expected of a person in a similar position. A finding that a claim is implausible, vague or incoherent is not sufficient on its own, and the officer must explain the reasons for it by reference to evidence, including country information. Where the officer cannot make a finding either way and the applicant's account is coherent, plausible and consistent with generally known facts, the officer may give the benefit of the doubt, provided the officer is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility.

Policy also directs that demeanour must not be the sole basis for an adverse credibility finding, and that at best it should only be a minor factor. Findings on demeanour must rest on objective considerations, such as frankness and spontaneity in answering, or hesitation and evasiveness, and not on physical appearance or general mannerisms.

If you do not remember something, the correct answer is that you do not remember it. An honest gap is a normal feature of a truthful account, and policy expects officers to allow for the effect of trauma, shame, fear and mistrust of authority on a person's capacity to recall and to disclose. An invented detail, by contrast, creates a fixed point that can be tested against country information and against the rest of the file.

Questions about why you were targeted

Questions about why you were targeted go to the reason for the harm, and the reason is what separates a refugee claim from a claim of general misfortune. Under section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, the fear must be of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Under section 5J(4)(a), that reason must be the essential and significant reason for the persecution, and under section 5J(4) the persecution must involve serious harm and systematic and discriminatory conduct.

This is where applicants lose cases they should win. A person who was beaten by a neighbour, robbed by a gang or threatened over a debt has suffered real harm, but the harm has no protection reason attached to it. A person who was beaten by the same neighbour because of their faith, their ethnicity or their political activity has a claim. The facts may be identical. The reason is the difference, and the delegate will ask about the reason directly.

Expect questions such as these. Why do you say this person targeted you. What did they say to you at the time. How did they know about your religion, your politics or your relationship. Who else in your position has been treated in the same way. What would happen to you now if you returned.

Where the claim rests on religion, the delegate will usually ask about practice and belief, including how you came to the faith, what you do in observance, where you worship in Australia and who can speak to it. Questions of that kind are routine in religious persecution claims and are directed at whether the claimed identity is genuinely held, not at testing scripture.

Where the claim rests on sexual orientation or gender identity, Departmental policy directs officers to explore experiences rather than stereotypes, including self-realisation, a sense of difference or shame, concealment, disclosure, and opposition or exclusion from family or community. Policy states that applicants must never be asked to bring documentary or photographic evidence of intimate acts, that it is extremely inappropriate to expect couples to be physically demonstrative at an interview, and that being or having been married, or having children, does not mean an applicant is not LGBTIQ+. Applicants with sexuality based protection claims should know what policy does and does not permit before they sit down.

Where the claim rests on membership of a family, sections 5K and 5L of the Migration Act 1958 apply, and the delegate will ask what happened to the other members of that family.

Questions about police, relocation and return

Questions about police, relocation and return decide whether a fear that is otherwise well founded still supports a visa. They are the questions applicants prepare for least and lose on most.

Under section 5J(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the receiving country. So the delegate will ask whether you could live in another city or region, whether you have relatives or contacts there, whether you have ever lived there, and what would prevent you from doing so. An answer that amounts to nothing more than a preference will not hold. An answer that explains reach, such as a network with a national presence, an official record that follows you, or a community that would identify you anywhere, is an answer to the provision.

Under section 5J(2), a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available in the receiving country. Section 5LA explains that such measures are taken to be available where protection against persecution could be provided by the State, or by a party or organisation including an international organisation, and that State, party or organisation is willing and able to offer it. So the delegate will ask whether you went to the police, what the police said, whether you made a written report, whether you have a copy, and if you did not go, why not. Fear of the police, previous experience of the police, and country information showing that the authorities turn a blind eye are all answers to the provision. Silence is not.

Where the claim is not a refugee claim, the same ground is covered by complementary protection. Section 36(2)(aa) requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to a receiving country, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm, which section 36(2A) defines to include arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Section 36(2B) removes that risk where the applicant could relocate safely, could obtain protection from an authority, or where the risk is faced by the population generally and not personally. The questions in a complementary protection case therefore look similar but point at a different provision, and the answers have to be framed for the provision that is actually in play.

Finally, under section 36(3), Australia is taken not to have protection obligations to a person who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in any country other than Australia. So the delegate will ask about dual nationality, residence rights, long stays in third countries and family entitlements abroad. These questions are not idle. They can end an application on their own.

How to prepare your case for a protection visa interview

Preparing your case means making sure the file already answers the questions, and that you can explain what is in it consistently. It does not mean rehearsing answers. A rehearsed account is usually obvious to an experienced delegate, and an applicant who has memorised a version of events has no way to respond when the question comes from an unexpected direction.

Start with the written statement. Read it again, in your own language if you have a translation, and read it more than once. Section 5AAA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 provides that it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish it. Section 5AAA(4) provides that officers have no responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying, any particulars of the claim, or to establish it. The delegate is not required to work out what you meant. If something in the statement is wrong, incomplete or out of order, correct it in writing before the interview rather than at it.

Build a chronology. Set out every claimed event by date, with the place, the people involved and any document that supports it. Cross check it against your visa history, your travel movements and anything you said in an earlier visa application. Where a date is uncertain, record that it is uncertain and say why, rather than choosing a date that looks tidy.

Deal with the weak points before the delegate does. Delay in applying is the most common one. Departmental policy recognises many legitimate reasons for delay, including changes in country conditions or personal circumstances after arrival, being unaware of the right to seek protection, fear, stress or anxiety, and receiving inadequate or incorrect immigration advice. Policy also states that delay should not be the only reason for rejecting a claim. None of that helps if the reason for the delay is never given.

Sort out the practical arrangements in advance and in writing. If you need an interpreter in a particular language or dialect, say so. Departmental policy states that where gender related claims have been made, every effort should be made to ensure the interviewing officer and the interpreter are the same sex as the applicant, or the same gender with which the applicant identifies. If you have a concern about a particular interpreter, raise it before the day, not during the interview.

Know how the interview is run. Departmental policy requires all interviews to be audio recorded where the applicant consents, and requires the officer to explain why. If consent is not given, the officer takes comprehensive written notes instead. Documents may be handed up at the interview, and a document without an English translation may be accepted with a translation by a NAATI certified translator to follow within a set time. Joint applicants, migration agents, interpreters, support persons and observers may attend.

Know what procedural fairness gives you. If the delegate holds information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for refusing the application, section 57 of the Migration Act 1958 requires that the particulars be given to you and that you be invited to comment. Section 56 allows the delegate to seek further information at any time. If an inconsistency is put to you at the interview and you cannot resolve it on the spot, say that you wish to respond in writing. That is a proper answer, not an evasion.

Understand what is at stake at this stage. A protection visa refusal carries a short and strictly applied deadline to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal, and the Administrative Review Tribunal process after a protection visa refusal is longer, more formal and far harder than the interview it follows. The interview is the cheapest opportunity in the whole process to put the claim properly.

How My Migration Lawyers prepares a protection visa interview

My Migration Lawyers prepares a protection visa interview by working on the file rather than on the applicant. The firm does not tell a client what to say, and does not construct a claim. What it does is make sure the client's own account and the client's own evidence are before the Department in the form the law requires, and that the client understands which provision each part of that account answers.

The work runs in a set order. The firm reviews the statement of claims already lodged, together with the application form, the earlier visa applications the Department holds, the travel history and every document on the file. It identifies which statutory element each claim is directed at, and which elements are not yet answered. It checks the account against current country of origin information, because an account that no country report supports is the account most likely to be rejected. It then prepares a written submission that sets out the claim provision by provision, and lodges any further evidence before the interview rather than after it.

Every statement remains the client's own evidence. The client reads it, corrects it and approves it, and the client decides which claims are advanced. Where the firm considers that a claim is unlikely to succeed, the client is told that plainly and in advance, because an applicant who learns at the interview that part of their case is weak is an applicant who has been failed.

Before the day, the firm explains what the delegate is likely to ask and why, so that the client is not surprised by a question that goes to relocation, to state protection or to a third country right of residence. Interpreter and method requests are made in writing. Where the client's claims are gender based or involve sexual orientation, the requests policy allows for are made in advance. Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer at My Migration Lawyers, attends the interview where the firm is acting, and the firm prepares the written response to any adverse information put under section 57.

Protection work is one of the two areas this firm practises in. If a Subclass 866 interview has been scheduled, or a notice has arrived and the date is close, you can request a consultation with a protection visa lawyer online, and read more about how the firm acts in protection visa matters.