Top 5 Protection Visa 866 Mistakes

The top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes are most often made in a single room, on a single day. The protection visa interview is where the Department meets the applicant, asks about their claims, tests their account and forms a view of their credibility. Most applicants attend only one interview at the primary stage. Mistakes made there are very hard to undo.

This article explains the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes at interview, why each one matters, and how each can be avoided. It is written for applicants who have received an invitation to interview, who are preparing for one, or who have attended one and are worried about how it went. The firm's guide to the protection visa interview explains the interview itself. This article focuses on what goes wrong.

Why the interview matters so much

The interview matters because it is the Department's main opportunity to assess credibility in person. That is why the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes are concentrated there.

The Department's Protection Visa Processing Guidelines explain that an interview gives the applicant an opportunity to provide further information and evidence, and enables the officer to question the applicant about their claims and explore any concerns. The guidelines also state that all interviews must be audio-recorded, provided the officer obtains prior consent from the applicant.

There is a further reason the interview matters. Section 57 of the Migration Act requires the Department, in general terms, to invite comment on adverse information before relying on it to refuse. The guidelines explain that adverse information provided by the applicant during the interview is not "relevant information" for that purpose. The Department can rely on what the applicant says at interview without a further invitation to comment. A mistake at interview can therefore become part of the reasons for refusal without any warning.

The top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes at interview

The top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes at interview are:

• Arriving unprepared. Not re-reading the statement, the application and earlier visa applications before the interview.
• Guessing or changing the account. Giving details the applicant does not genuinely remember, or giving a version that differs from the statement.
• Not raising interpreter problems. Continuing when the applicant cannot fully understand the interpreter, or not asking for the interpreter they need.
• Holding back sensitive claims. Avoiding matters that are painful or embarrassing, or that the applicant fears will be disbelieved.
• Treating the interview as the end. Not following up on errors, missing documents or issues raised at the interview.

Each of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is explained below.

Mistake one: arriving unprepared

The first of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is arriving at the interview without preparation. Many applicants lodge their application and then wait, sometimes for a long time, before being invited to interview. By the time the interview comes, they may not remember exactly what their statement said, or what they wrote in an earlier visa application.

The officer will have read everything on the file. The officer may ask about details in the statement, dates in the application form, the purpose of travel given in a visitor visa application, or information from country reports. An applicant who has not reviewed these documents may give answers that appear inconsistent, simply because they have forgotten what they said before.

How to avoid it. Before the interview, the applicant should:

• re-read their statement of claims carefully, in their own language if necessary;
• review the application form and any earlier visa applications;
• review any documents they have provided, and know how each was obtained;
• think about the questions a decision maker is likely to ask about state protection, relocation and what would happen on return; and
• identify anything in their earlier accounts that was wrong or incomplete, so that it can be corrected at or before the interview.

Preparation is not rehearsal. The aim is not to memorise answers, but to be familiar with the applicant's own account so that it can be given clearly and accurately. Of all the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes, arriving unprepared is the one that most often leads to the others, because an applicant who has not reviewed their own account is more likely to guess, to contradict themselves and to panic. The firm's article on preparing for the protection visa interview explains this in more detail.

Who is most at risk of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes?

Any applicant can make the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes, but some are at greater risk.

• Applicants who wrote their statement quickly. A statement prepared in a hurry, or with informal help, is more likely to contain errors that surface at interview.
• Applicants who have waited a long time. The longer the gap between lodgement and interview, the more likely it is that the applicant has forgotten details of their own account.
• Applicants who have experienced serious trauma. Trauma can affect memory, concentration and the ability to speak about events, particularly under questioning.
• Applicants with complex travel or visa histories. Several earlier visa applications mean more opportunities for inconsistency.
• Applicants with sensitive claims. Claims involving sexuality, gender or family violence are the most likely to be held back.

An applicant in any of these groups should allow more time to prepare. The firm's guide to the protection visa statement of claims explains why the statement is the foundation for the interview. Recognising the risk early is the best protection against the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes.

Mistake two: guessing or changing the account

The second of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is guessing. Under pressure, many applicants feel they must answer every question with certainty. They give a date, a name or a number they are not sure of, because saying "I do not know" feels like failure.

A guessed detail that turns out to be wrong creates an inconsistency. So does a detail that differs from the statement. An inconsistency that goes to the heart of the claim can lead the officer to doubt the whole account.

The opposite mistake is changing the account to fit what the applicant thinks the officer wants to hear. An applicant who senses doubt may add details, strengthen their description, or shift the reason for their fear. Each change creates a new inconsistency with the statement.

How to avoid it. The applicant should answer what they know and say clearly what they do not know or cannot remember. The Department's guidelines recognise that applicants may have difficulty recalling details and dates because of fear, trauma or torture, or because of the time since the events. An honest "I am not sure, but I think it was around that time" is far safer than a confident guess. If the applicant realises during the interview that they have made a mistake, they should say so immediately. Correcting an error on the spot is one of the simplest ways to prevent it becoming one of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes on the record.

Representatives and support persons at the interview

Who attends with the applicant can affect how the interview goes, and getting this wrong can contribute to the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes.

The Department's guidelines refer to migration agents, support persons and observers attending interviews, and require officers to take their health and safety into account in choosing the interview method. A representative who knows the file can help ensure that the interview is conducted fairly, that interpreting problems are noticed, and that any concerns raised are recorded so they can be addressed afterwards.

A representative must be properly appointed for the Department to deal with them. The firm's guide to Form 956 and 956A explains how appointments work.

A support person can help an applicant who is anxious or distressed. However, the applicant should think carefully about who that person is. A family member or community member whose presence would make it harder for the applicant to speak openly about sensitive matters should not attend. An applicant who is uncomfortable with a proposed attendee should say so before the interview.

Mistake three: not raising interpreter problems

The third of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is continuing with an interpreter the applicant cannot fully understand. Interpreting errors are among the most unfair causes of inconsistency, because the applicant may not even know they have occurred.

Problems commonly arise where the interpreter speaks a different dialect, uses unfamiliar terms, or summarises rather than interpreting word for word. They also arise where the applicant is uncomfortable speaking through an interpreter of a particular gender about sensitive matters.

How to avoid it. Before the interview, the applicant should tell the Department which language and dialect they speak best, and whether they need an interpreter of a particular gender. At the start of the interview, the applicant should confirm that they understand the interpreter. If at any point they do not understand, or think their answer has been interpreted wrongly, they should say so immediately so that it is recorded.

The Department's guidelines state that, in choosing the interview method, officers consider the method in which the applicant would most likely be able to speak freely on sensitive topics, such as gender-based claims. An applicant who needs a particular arrangement should ask for it.

Mistake four: holding back sensitive claims

The fourth of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is holding back. Some applicants avoid matters that are painful, embarrassing or frightening to discuss, such as sexual violence, sexual orientation, gender identity or harm within the family. Others hold back because they fear they will not be believed, or because a family member is present.

Holding back at interview can harm a claim in two ways. The officer may not have the information needed to assess the claim properly. And if the matter is raised later, it may be treated as a late claim. At the Administrative Review Tribunal, section 423A of the Migration Act requires an unfavourable inference to be drawn about the credibility of a claim raised for the first time at review, where there is no reasonable explanation for not raising it earlier.

How to avoid it. Where a claim is sensitive, the applicant should raise it in the statement before the interview, so that the officer is aware of it. The applicant can ask for an interviewer or interpreter of a particular gender, and can ask for family members not to be present. If the applicant finds it difficult to speak about a matter, they should say so, rather than denying it. The firm's article on LGBTI protection visas in Australia discusses disclosure in claims involving sexual orientation and gender identity.

Demeanour, oaths and how the officer assesses you

Demeanour is not one of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes on its own, but it affects how every answer is received. Applicants often worry that nervousness, silence or emotion will be held against them.

Section 91V of the Migration Act allows an officer to ask an applicant to verify information by oath or affirmation. The Department's guidelines explain that an officer may draw a reasonable inference unfavourable to credibility from a refusal to take the oath or affirmation, or from the applicant's manner in doing so. The guidelines also state that the choice of an affirmation rather than an oath should not lead to any inference.

Importantly, the guidelines caution officers to consider other factors that may affect demeanour, including trauma, cultural background and gender. They state that a protection visa application may not be refused solely on the basis of such an inference. Applicants should answer as truthfully and clearly as they can, and should not try to present themselves in a way that is not natural to them.

Mistake five: treating the interview as the end

The fifth of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes is assuming that nothing more can be done once the interview is over. In fact, the period after the interview is often an important opportunity.

At the interview, the officer may raise concerns, mention documents that are missing, or put country information to the applicant. The officer may give the applicant time to provide further information. The applicant may realise afterwards that an answer was wrong or misunderstood.

How to avoid it. After the interview, the applicant should:

• write down, as soon as possible, what they were asked and any concerns the officer raised;
• identify any answer that was wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted, and correct it in writing promptly with an explanation;
• provide any further documents or information the officer requested, within the time given;
• respond carefully to any later invitation to comment under section 57; and
• keep reading their email and ImmiAccount, because further requests may follow.

A clear written submission after the interview, addressing the concerns raised, can make a real difference. Of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes, this is the one applicants most often do not realise they are making. The firm's guide to responding to a section 56 request for more information explains how those responses work.

Practical mistakes before the interview day

Some of the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes happen before the interview even begins. They are practical, but they cause real problems.

• Missing the invitation. The Department's guidelines explain that an invitation to an interview must state the date, time and location. An applicant who does not check their email may miss it.
• Not asking to reschedule. Under sections 58(4) and 58(5), an interview can be rescheduled. An applicant who is unwell, or whose representative or interpreter cannot attend, should ask before the day, with reasons.
• Not preparing for the format. The guidelines explain that interviews may be held by video conference, by telephone or in person. An applicant attending by video should test the technology and find a private, quiet place.
• Bringing the wrong people. A family member whose presence would make it harder for the applicant to speak freely should not attend.

These are simple steps, but each one reduces the risk of a difficult interview.

A pre-interview checklist to avoid the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes

The following checklist helps an applicant avoid the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes in the days before an interview.

• I have re-read my statement of claims and I am comfortable with every part of it.
• I have reviewed my application form and every earlier visa application, and I know where they differ.
• I have identified any error in my earlier accounts and know how I will explain it.
• I know how and when I obtained each document I have provided.
• I have told the Department which language and dialect I speak best, and any interpreter or interviewer preference.
• I have raised any sensitive claim in writing before the interview.
• I know the date, time, place and format of the interview, and I have tested any technology.
• I know who will attend with me, and I am comfortable speaking openly in front of them.
• I understand that it is better to say I do not know than to guess.

An applicant who can tick every item is well placed to avoid the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes. The firm's protection visa documents checklist helps confirm the documents are in order.

What to do if you think your interview went badly

Many applicants leave the interview feeling that it went badly. Sometimes that feeling is mistaken. Sometimes it is accurate. Either way, the right response is action, not worry.

The applicant should record what happened while it is fresh, identify the specific problems, and take advice promptly on whether a written submission should be made. Where the interview revealed an inconsistency, the submission should explain it honestly. Where it revealed a gap in the evidence, the submission should fill it where possible.

If the visa is refused, the Administrative Review Tribunal will reconsider the claim afresh, and the applicant can give evidence again. A review hearing is an opportunity to address the findings the Department made, but it is not an opportunity to present a different account. The firm's articles on the protection visa ART hearing and on appealing a protection visa refusal to the ART explain the review process. The time to apply for review is short and strictly applied.

How My Migration Lawyers helps you avoid the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes

My Migration Lawyers prepares clients for the protection visa interview as a central part of every protection matter. The firm acts in many protection visa matters, including complex cases involving trauma, sensitive claims, interpreter difficulties and inconsistent earlier accounts, and it is capable of handling those matters from the interview through to review.

In preparing a client for interview, the firm's work typically includes:

• reviewing the statement, the application and every earlier visa application with the client before the interview;
• explaining the kinds of questions the officer is likely to ask, including on state protection, relocation and future risk;
• identifying and correcting any error in the earlier material before the interview;
• arranging the right interpreter and, where appropriate, requesting an interviewer or interpreter of a particular gender;
• attending the interview with the client where appropriate; and
• preparing a written submission after the interview to address any concerns raised.

The firm never tells a client what to say. It helps the client give their own account clearly, accurately and completely. The client decides which claims are advanced, and the statement remains their own evidence, reviewed and corrected by them.

The firm's protection work is led by Principal Lawyer Weiwei Zhang. More about the practice is on the protection visa lawyers page, and the full framework is in the Subclass 866 Protection Visa complete guide.

If you have been invited to an interview and want to avoid the top 5 Protection Visa 866 mistakes, book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers online, or call 1300 040 300.