Refugee Visa for Indonesians in Australia: The Subclass 866 Protection Visa

Can Indonesians in Australia apply for a refugee visa?

No. There is no Australian visa called a refugee visa that an Indonesian already in Australia can apply for. If you are in Australia and you fear returning to Indonesia, the visa you apply for is the Subclass 866 Protection visa.

This matters more than it sounds. Indonesians in Australia search for a refugee visa, find pages about Australia's refugee programme, and conclude either that they qualify or that they do not. Both conclusions are usually wrong, because those pages describe a programme they cannot access from inside Australia.

The Subclass 866 Protection visa is a permanent visa. If it is granted, you can live, work and study in Australia permanently, access Medicare, sponsor eligible family members, and eventually apply for citizenship if you meet the citizenship requirements. There is no temporary version of it for a person who entered Australia lawfully on an Indonesian passport. Our Subclass 866 Protection visa guide covers the visa itself in full.

Why is there no refugee visa for people already in Australia?

Australia runs two entirely separate systems, and the word refugee sits in only one of them.

The offshore Refugee category visas are the Subclass 200 Refugee, the Subclass 201 In-country Special Humanitarian, the Subclass 203 Emergency Rescue and the Subclass 204 Woman at Risk. They sit inside the Refugee and Humanitarian Program. To be granted one you must be outside Australia, and the Subclass 200, 203 and 204 visas also require a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Places are allocated by the Department within an annual programme.

The onshore system is different. It is not capped in the same way, it requires no referral, and it is available to a person who is physically in Australia and who says Australia owes them protection obligations. It produces one visa, the Subclass 866 Protection visa, applied for by making a Protection (Class XA) visa application.

So an Indonesian in Sydney on a visitor visa, a student visa, a Subclass 482 or a working holiday visa cannot apply for a Subclass 200. Being in Australia disqualifies them. The same person can apply for a Subclass 866. Being in Australia is what makes it possible. Reading about the offshore programme, its quotas and its waiting periods tells you nothing about your own position.

Who can lodge a Subclass 866 Protection visa as an Indonesian national?

Any Indonesian national who is physically in Australia and who claims Australia owes them protection obligations can lodge a valid Subclass 866 Protection visa application, unless one of a small number of bars applies.

That is a deliberately wide statement, and it is accurate. The Subclass 866 Protection visa does not require you to hold a current visa. It does not require you to have entered Australia in any particular way, provided you did not arrive unlawfully by sea. It does not require a sponsor, a nominator, an employer, English test results or a skills assessment.

Indonesians lodge from every kind of status: Subclass 600 visitor, Subclass 500 student, Subclass 462 Work and Holiday, Subclass 482 Skills in Demand, a bridging visa attached to a partner visa application that is not going well, and unlawful. None of these positions is a barrier to lodging. The visitor visa position is set out in our article on applying for a Subclass 866 on a tourist visa.

What does change with status is the bridging visa you receive, whether you get work rights, and how closely the Department looks at the timing of your claim. Those are consequences of when and how you lodge, not conditions of eligibility.

What actually stops an Indonesian from making a valid application?

Three things stop a valid Subclass 866 Protection visa application, and none of them is the thing people usually worry about.

The section 48A bar. If you have already made a protection visa application in Australia and it was refused, section 48A of the Migration Act 1958 prevents you from making another one while you remain in Australia. There is no ordinary exception. Only the Minister can lift the bar, using a personal and non-compellable power under section 48B. A weak first application is not a practice run.

The section 46A bar. People who arrived in Australia as unauthorised maritime arrivals cannot make a valid protection visa application unless the Minister personally lifts the bar. Very few Indonesian nationals are in this category, because most Indonesians arrive with a passport and a visa, but it is a hard bar where it applies.

Identity and bogus documents. Sections 91W and 91WA deal with documents going to identity, nationality or citizenship. If you are asked for evidence of identity and you refuse, or you provide a bogus document without a reasonable explanation, the visa cannot be granted. This rarely bites for Indonesians, because most hold a genuine passport and a KTP. Where it does arise, it is usually because a document in an earlier visa application was not genuine, and that needs to be on the table from the first consultation.

Notice what is not on that list. Condition 8503, 8534 and 8535 do not stop a protection visa application, because Schedule 8 carves protection visas out of each of them. The section 48 bar does not stop one either, because protection visas remain available after a refusal or cancellation of another visa. Being unlawful does not stop one. Having a pending partner visa does not stop one. If someone has told you that one of these blocks you, they are wrong.

What are the two grounds a Subclass 866 Protection visa can be granted on?

There are two, and both are assessed in the one application. You only need to satisfy one.

The refugee criterion, section 36(2)(a). You are a refugee as defined in section 5H, which means you have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and you are unable or unwilling to avail yourself of the protection of Indonesia because of that fear.

The complementary protection criterion, section 36(2)(aa). There are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of your removal from Australia to Indonesia, there is a real risk you will suffer significant harm. This ground does not require the harm to be for any particular reason. It only requires the risk and the type of harm.

The visa granted is the same permanent Subclass 866 either way. There is no lesser version for complementary protection.

In Indonesian matters both grounds should usually be argued, because they fail for different reasons. A refugee claim can be defeated by a finding that the harm is not for one of the five reasons. A complementary protection claim is unaffected by that finding, but is defeated by a finding that the harm does not fall within the closed statutory list. Arguing only one leaves the other unanswered. Our article on complementary protection for LGBTI applicants works through the second ground in detail.

What do sections 5H and 5J actually require you to prove?

Section 5J sets out three elements, and each is a separate hurdle.

First, you must fear persecution for at least one of the five reasons in section 5J(1)(a): race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Sections 5K and 5L govern what counts as a particular social group.

Second, there must be a real chance of that persecution occurring. Real chance is a low threshold. It is not more likely than not. It is a chance that is not remote or far-fetched.

Third, and this is the one that decides Indonesian cases, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of Indonesia. That is section 5J(1)(c). It is discussed in detail below, because Indonesia is a very large country and the Department knows it.

Sections 5J(2) and 5J(3) then take claims away. Under section 5J(2), read with section 5LA, you do not have a well-founded fear if effective protection measures are available to you in Indonesia. Under section 5J(3), you do not have one if you could take reasonable steps to modify your behaviour to avoid the risk, subject to important exceptions where the modification would conflict with something fundamental to your identity or conscience, or would conceal an innate or immutable characteristic.

Section 5J(4) then defines persecution. One of the five reasons must be the essential and significant reason for it, the persecution must involve serious harm, and it must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct. Section 5J(5) gives a non-exhaustive list of serious harm: a threat to life or liberty, significant physical harassment, significant physical ill-treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens your capacity to subsist, and denial of basic services or of the capacity to earn a livelihood where that threatens your capacity to subsist.

What counts as significant harm under section 36(2A)?

Significant harm is a closed list of five things, and nothing outside it qualifies however serious it is.

Under section 36(2A) you suffer significant harm if you will be arbitrarily deprived of your life, if the death penalty will be carried out on you, if you will be subjected to torture, if you will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or if you will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. The last three terms are defined in section 5(1) of the Act.

The closed list defeats a great many honest claims. Losing your job, your housing, your family and your standing in your community is devastating. On its own it is not significant harm. Neither is a poor health system, a weak economy, or general lawlessness.

Three of the five categories carry an intention requirement. Torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment all require the harm to be intentionally inflicted, and degrading treatment requires that the extreme humiliation was intended. Arbitrary deprivation of life and the death penalty do not.

Section 36(2B) then removes the risk from consideration in three situations: where you could reasonably relocate within Indonesia to an area where there would be no real risk, where you could obtain protection from an Indonesian authority such that there would be no real risk, or where the risk is one faced by the Indonesian population generally rather than by you personally. All three come up constantly in Indonesian matters.

Which protection claims do Indonesians actually bring?

Indonesian claims cluster into a small number of recognisable categories, and each one runs into a different part of the statutory test.

Sexual orientation and gender identity. Same-sex sexual activity is not a criminal offence under Indonesian national law, but it is criminalised in Aceh, where caning is imposed as a judicial punishment. Outside Aceh the harm is societal and, in places, official. The Department's own country information records police raids on private gatherings, charges laid under anti-pornography laws, dismissals from the police force, and prosecution of same-sex activity in the military. It also records that most LGBTI Indonesians avoid police because of the threat of arrest or extortion. See our LGBTI protection visa page.

Religion. Ahmadiyah Muslims, Shia Muslims and converts away from Islam form the bulk of Indonesian religious claims. Proselytising by Ahmadis is banned by government decree and carries a prison sentence. Blasphemy provisions in the Criminal Code and the Electronic Information and Transaction Law have produced lengthy sentences. Apostasy itself is not a crime in Indonesia, a point that has to be addressed rather than avoided. See our religious persecution page.

Political opinion, including Papuan claims. There is a long-running armed conflict in the Papua provinces connected to secessionist aspirations, with a heavy police and military presence. Activists have been charged with treason and imprisoned for protests, including for raising the Morning Star flag, which is illegal in Indonesia. Arrests at Papuan secession protests have also occurred outside the Papua provinces. Separately, non-violent speech offences including defamation, hate speech and insulting the president attract prison terms, and activists report being targeted under the Electronic Information and Transaction Law for social media commentary.

Gender-based and family violence. Domestic violence and rape, including spousal rape, are against the law in Indonesia. The question in a protection claim is never what the statute says. It is whether the state will in fact protect this applicant. Shelters exist but are concentrated in larger cities and cannot meet demand. Divorce is difficult and single and divorced women face stigma and harassment.

Ethnicity. Ethnic Papuans face documented racism outside the Papua provinces, including exclusion from goods and services and prominent incidents at university dormitories.

Student visa holders make up a large share of Indonesian applicants, and their position has its own features, set out in our article on Indonesian students and the Subclass 866 Protection visa.

What does the Department's country information say about Indonesia?

The Department relies principally on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information report on Indonesia, currently the report dated 24 July 2023. It will be applied to your claim whether you refer to it or not.

You should read it before you write anything. It is a public document, it is the document the decision maker will open, and the wording it uses is the wording that will appear in your decision record.

The report grades risk using three defined terms. High risk means DFAT is aware of a strong pattern of incidents. Moderate risk means DFAT is aware of sufficient incidents to suggest a pattern of behaviour. Low risk means DFAT is aware of incidents but has insufficient evidence to conclude they form a pattern. It also distinguishes official discrimination, meaning state measures or conduct that impede access to protection or services, from societal discrimination, meaning behaviour by members of society.

Those definitions are not decorative. A submission that asserts persecution in general terms, without engaging with how DFAT has characterised the specific group and region, is easy to answer. One that takes DFAT's own finding and shows why it does not dispose of this applicant's situation is much harder. Country information other than DFAT can also be put before the decision maker, including United States Department of State reports and expert evidence. What does not work is a claim supported by nothing.

Why does a finding of moderate risk not decide an Indonesian claim?

A moderate risk finding is a statement about a group in general. It is not a finding about you.

This is the most common misreading of Indonesian country information, in both directions. Applicants read moderate risk and assume their claim is made out. Decision makers can read it as a ceiling. Neither reading follows.

The statutory question under section 5J(1)(b) is whether there is a real chance of persecution for you, on your facts, in the place you would actually return to. A finding that a group in general faces a moderate risk of societal discrimination is entirely consistent with a finding that a particular member of that group, with a particular history, in a particular town, faces a real chance of serious harm. It is equally consistent with the opposite conclusion.

What bridges the gap is your individual evidence. Who has threatened you. What has already happened to you or to people close to you. Whether you are known, and to whom. Whether the people who would harm you have the motivation and the reach to find you. That is the space in which Indonesian claims are actually decided, and it is worked through in our article on proving an Indonesian LGBTI protection claim.

Why is internal relocation the biggest obstacle in Indonesian claims?

Because Indonesia is enormous, and section 5J(1)(c) requires the real chance of persecution to relate to all areas of the country.

Indonesia has thousands of inhabited islands and hundreds of millions of people. DFAT records that Indonesian citizens are legally able to move and reside freely throughout the country, that Indonesians can and do relocate, and that ethnic Papuans move in and out of the Papua provinces. That single set of statements defeats more Indonesian claims than any other issue.

The analysis has a defined order. The decision maker first asks whether there is a real chance of persecution in your home region, meaning the place you would actually return to given your circumstances. If there is no real chance there, section 5J(1)(c) generally does not need to be considered. If there is a real chance there, the decision maker must then consider whether the real chance relates to all areas of Indonesia.

There is a trap here specific to the refugee ground. When making the assessment under section 5J(1)(c), the decision maker does not consider whether relocation would be reasonable. Reasonableness is not part of that test. Arguments about whether you could realistically build a life in Surabaya belong to the complementary protection analysis instead.

Two things do remain relevant on the refugee ground. The first is whether you would have safe and lawful access to the alternative area. The second is whether the risk follows you. A risk from the state, or from a national law, does not stop at a provincial boundary.

Can you be told to move to Jakarta or Bali instead of leaving Indonesia?

Yes, and you should assume the Department will consider it, which is why the point has to be answered before it is raised.

Under the complementary protection ground, section 36(2B)(a) provides that there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm if it would be reasonable for you to relocate to an area of Indonesia where there would be no real risk. Here reasonableness is the test. The High Court in SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship established that reasonableness means reasonable in the sense of practicable, taking into account your individual circumstances. Departmental guidance lists education, employment background and ability to obtain work, language barriers and access to family networks as relevant considerations.

That is the material an Indonesian relocation argument has to engage with. A person from a village in Nusa Tenggara who has never lived in a city, has no relatives in Java and relies on family for housing is not in the same position as a Jakarta professional. DFAT also records that Indonesians who relocate internally must register with the local authority, and that registration information passes to higher authorities. That is directly relevant where the feared harm comes from someone with official connections.

There is one limit that is often overlooked. A decision maker cannot find that you can relocate if your safety in the new area would depend on other people not knowing about your sexual orientation or gender identity, or would otherwise require you to modify your behaviour. That would be inconsistent with section 5J(3), and departmental guidance says so expressly. The common finding that an LGBTI applicant could live quietly in a large Indonesian city is therefore not a safe finding, and it can be attacked.

Departmental guidance also warns officers that relocation should not be relied on where you would be safe from the original harm in the new area but would face harm there on a different ground. In a country with regional religious and ethnic tension, that should be raised.

Does the existence of Indonesian police and courts defeat your claim?

No. What matters is whether effective protection measures are actually available to you, not whether Indonesia has a police force.

Section 5J(2) and section 5LA govern this on the refugee ground, and section 36(2B)(b) does the equivalent work on complementary protection. The test looks at what protection would in fact be available in your case, and the country information gives you material to work with. DFAT records that Indonesian police are generally effective at detecting and investigating crime, which is the finding that will be cited against you. It also records that bribes can be demanded in relation to criminal investigations, including to commence an investigation or to produce a particular finding, and that bribes can change police outcomes in favour of the person paying. It records that police record keeping is unreliable and not nationwide. It records allegations of torture in police custody. It records corruption and outside influence weakening judicial independence, and instances where bribes to court staff or judicial officers changed case outcomes.

Where the person you fear has money or connections and you do not, that material is directly on point. Where the conduct you would have to report is itself treated as an offence or as immoral, the argument usually answers itself, because seeking protection means disclosing the very thing that puts you at risk.

What does the January 2026 Criminal Code change, and what does it not?

Indonesia's revised Criminal Code, passed in December 2022, took effect three years after promulgation, in January 2026. It changes the legal landscape, but not in the way it is usually described.

The Code criminalises extra-marital sexual relations and unmarried cohabitation. Because same-sex marriage is not available in Indonesia, same-sex intimacy can fall within provisions no same-sex couple can lawfully avoid. The Code also contains provisions against insulting the President.

Two qualifications matter, and leaving them out damages a submission. First, the cohabitation and adultery provisions are complaint-based, and the right to lodge a complaint is limited to direct family members. That limitation cuts both ways. It means the provisions are not enforced by general policing, which is the point a decision maker will make. It also means an applicant whose own family is hostile is precisely the person the provisions can reach, which is the point an applicant should make. Second, the penalties are short terms of imprisonment rather than severe punishment, which matters when the claim is put as significant harm under section 36(2A).

The honest position is that the Code is a serious development whose practical enforcement is still being established, and that it supports a claim where the applicant can show a real prospect of a complaint being made against them by a family member. It does not, on its own, make every LGBTI Indonesian a refugee.

Does a fear that arose after you arrived in Australia still count?

Yes. A claim that arises from events after you left Indonesia is called a sur place claim, and it is a recognised and properly arguable basis for a Subclass 866 Protection visa.

This describes a large share of Indonesian applicants. People come out in Australia. People convert, or leave a faith, in Australia. People join Papuan advocacy or post political content from Australia. None of that is a defect in the claim.

Section 5J(6) is the qualification. It deals with conduct engaged in within Australia in bad faith for the purpose of creating or strengthening a protection claim. It exists for people who manufacture a claim, not for a person whose circumstances genuinely changed. You answer it with chronology and corroboration: who knew, when they knew, what changed and what independent material shows it.

Delay is the related issue, because a long gap between arrival and lodgement will be put to you. We deal with that in our article on whether delay affects a Subclass 866 claim.

What evidence does an Indonesian protection claim actually need?

Your own account is the evidence. Everything else supports it.

Most Indonesian applicants have no police reports, no court documents and no medical records, because the harm they fear has not yet happened or was never reported. That is normal and it is not fatal. What is fatal is a thin account.

A well-built Indonesian file usually contains a detailed written statement covering your background, your religion and ethnicity, where you are from, what happened, who is involved and why you cannot go elsewhere in Indonesia. It contains identity documents, which for most Indonesians means a passport and a KTP. It contains country information addressed to your specific group and province. It contains material from people in Australia who know your situation, which for a sur place claim is often the strongest corroboration available. It contains anything contemporaneous, with the caveat that anything you put in can be tested.

It should also expressly address the three section 36(2B) exclusions, and the section 5J(1)(c) relocation question, before the Department raises them. A claim that says nothing about relocation invites a finding on relocation.

One point is specific to Indonesian matters. You are entitled to an interpreter, and the interview should be conducted in the language you are most comfortable in. Many Indonesians have workable English, decline an interpreter, then give the most important evidence of their life in a second language. Regional language speakers should raise this early, because Bahasa Indonesia is not everyone's first language.

What happens to your current visa when you lodge a Subclass 866 application?

Nothing immediately. Your existing visa keeps running on its own terms until it expires or is cancelled.

Lodging a Subclass 866 Protection visa application does not cancel, shorten or surrender the visa you hold. An Indonesian on a Subclass 500 student visa remains a student visa holder with the same conditions. An Indonesian on a Subclass 600 visitor visa remains a visitor.

What lodging does is generate a bridging visa. That bridging visa sits dormant while your substantive visa is still in effect and comes into effect only when the substantive visa ends. If you hold a valid visa when you lodge, you will generally be granted a Bridging visa A, which keeps you lawful while the Subclass 866 application is decided.

If you are already unlawful when you lodge, the position is different. You will generally be granted a Bridging visa E, and Bridging visa E conditions are less generous. People in this position should get advice before lodging rather than after.

Conditions 8503, 8534 and 8535 are not an obstacle. Schedule 8 carves protection visas out of each of them, so a no further stay condition on an Indonesian visitor or student visa does not prevent a Subclass 866 application and no waiver is required.

Can you work while your protection application is being decided?

It depends on which bridging visa you receive and on your circumstances when you lodged.

If you lodged while you still held a substantive visa, your Bridging visa A will usually carry work rights. That covers most Indonesians who lodge while a student, visitor or work visa is still on foot.

If you lodged after your visa had already ended, work rights on a Bridging visa E are not automatic. Whether you get them depends in part on whether you have an acceptable reason for not applying earlier, and on financial hardship. That is a practical reason not to let a visa lapse before lodging, separate from the credibility consequences of delay.

If your student visa remains in effect, its conditions still apply, including the work limitation. The bridging visa does not override a substantive visa that is still running.

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

No. The Department does not tell the Indonesian government that you have applied, and it does not contact your family or your employer to verify your claim.

This is the question Indonesians ask before any other, and the answer is the same every time. A protection visa application is confidential. The Department does not approach the authorities of the country you fear, for the obvious reason that doing so could create the very risk you have described. Your application is not published and is not searchable.

There are limits worth stating plainly. If you name a person in Australia as a witness, that person will know what you have claimed. If you include family members in the application, they are part of it. If you later need a new Indonesian passport from the consulate, that contact is your own.

The related worry is a university, a scholarship body or an employer finding out. The Department does not tell them. A change in your visa status may eventually become visible to an organisation that checks your entitlements, which is a different thing and one to plan for rather than guess about.

What happens at the protection visa interview?

Most applicants are interviewed, and the interview is where a Subclass 866 application is usually decided.

The interview is not a formality. It is a detailed examination of your claims, conducted by the officer who will decide the application. You will be asked about your background, your account, dates, places, people and inconsistencies. You will be asked why you did not apply earlier, why you did not move elsewhere in Indonesia, and why you cannot obtain protection there. Those three questions are close to guaranteed in an Indonesian matter.

Preparation is about knowing your own claim, not rehearsing answers. Inconsistency between your written statement, your earlier visa applications and your oral evidence is the most common reason a claim is disbelieved. If something in an earlier application was wrong, the interview is the worst place for the Department to discover it.

We set out how the interview runs on our protection visa interview page.

What happens if your Subclass 866 Protection visa is refused?

You can apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for merits review, and the time limit is short and strictly applied.

The Tribunal does not review the Department's reasoning. It decides the application again on the material before it, including new evidence and new claims the Department never saw. That is a significant advantage where the first application was underdone, and it is why a refusal is not the end.

The deadline is the danger. The period for applying runs from the day you are taken to have received the decision, not the day you read it, and the Tribunal has no power to extend it. Missing it is not curable. If you have been refused, the date on the letter is the first thing to check.

One consequence of refusal catches people out. A bridging visa does not end on the day of refusal, but the period it runs for afterwards is short. Review has to be lodged inside it.

We explain the process in detail in our guide to ART review of a Subclass 866 refusal, and our protection visa refusals page covers the options that remain.

Why do you usually get only one protection visa application?

Because section 48A bars a second one while you remain in Australia, and the only way around it is a discretionary power you cannot compel.

Once a protection visa application has been refused and review rights are exhausted, section 48A prevents you from making another protection visa application onshore. The Minister has a personal power under section 48B to lift the bar, but it is non-compellable, there is no right to have a request considered, and there is no appeal against a refusal to consider one.

This is why the first application has to carry everything. Every claim you have should be in it. Every ground should be argued. Leaving your strongest claim out because it is difficult to talk about, then trying to introduce it years later, is the most expensive mistake available in this area of law. A protection application is not a form you can refile.

What is said about refugee visas for Indonesians that is simply wrong?

Six things, and each of them costs people their claim or stops them applying at all.

That Indonesians cannot get protection because Indonesia is a democracy. The test is not the character of the government. It is whether there is a real chance of persecution for you, or a real risk of significant harm to you. Nothing in the Act excludes nationals of any country.

That there is a queue or a quota. There is a capped offshore programme. The onshore Subclass 866 Protection visa is not part of it.

That you must be outside Indonesia already, or must have arrived by boat. Neither is true. Arriving lawfully by air on an Indonesian passport is the ordinary route, not a disqualification.

That a no further stay condition blocks you. It does not. Conditions 8503, 8534 and 8535 all carve protection visas out, and no waiver is needed.

That being unlawful blocks you. It does not. Overstaying affects which bridging visa you get and whether you have work rights. It does not prevent a valid application.

That you can apply, see what happens, and try again with a better claim. You cannot. Section 48A means there is generally one application.

When is a protection application the wrong advice for an Indonesian?

When there is no claim, and when there is a better visa available.

We say this because the alternative is worse. Lodging a protection application that has no prospect uses up your one application under section 48A, creates a refusal on your immigration record, and puts you on a bridging visa that may have no work rights. It can also damage a genuine claim made later on different facts, because the earlier account is on the file forever.

Fear of returning to a difficult economic situation is not a protection claim. Generalised worry about crime or instability is not one either, because section 36(2B)(c) removes risks faced by the population generally. A family argument, a debt that carries no threat, and dislike of a government are not claims on their own. International students in this position should read our article on protection claims for international students.

Some Indonesians who come to us with a protection question are better served by a partner visa, by a different skilled or work pathway, or by addressing a refusal or cancellation on the visa they already have. That advice is worth having before you lodge anything, not after.

How does My Migration Lawyers work on Indonesian protection matters?

We start by establishing whether there is a claim, and we say so if there is not.

We take a full account of your history first, then test it against the country information the Department will actually use, then build the written claim around the three points that decide Indonesian cases: whether the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Indonesia, whether effective protection is genuinely available to you, and whether your account will hold together at interview. We argue both the refugee ground and complementary protection where both are open. Our complementary protection page sets out the second ground, and our Subclass 866 Protection visa page explains the visa itself. Our protection visa practice is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer.

Consultations are held online by video, wherever you are in Australia. If you are Indonesian, you are in Australia and you are afraid of going home, request a consultation or contact us and tell us your situation in writing. If you have already been refused, say so in the first line, because the deadline for review is short and it does not stop for advice.