Enquiry Form

Level 7, 530 Little Collins Street

Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Level 3, 21 Taepyung-Ro

Jung-Gu, Daegu, South Korea​​

©2019 by Visaplan.com.au. All Rights Reserved

James Bae - Solicitor

Andrew Topalovic - Solicitor

Fernando Seo - Lawyer Consultant, Korea

Jang Eun Lee - Lawyer Consultant, Korea

  • Visa Plan Australia

Protection visa to prolong your stay in Australia

Updated: Feb 4

I have often encountered people who deliberate on applying for protection visas as their last resort to remain in Australia. However, this option should never be considered so lightly as there is a real need to prove well-founded fear of being persecuted should you be returned to your home country. One recent decision of the Tribunal clearly demonstrates the strict threshold requirements.

1604403 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 2489

- For the full case extract,


The applicants refer to all four members of a family with two parents and two children. The parents arrived in Australia separately on temporary visas, met and commenced a relationship that produced two children. After their arrival, the parents remained in Australia on a series of temporary and bridging visas (or unlawfully). The parents claimed the family would be at risk of harm if they were returned to China because of their Christian beliefs, and because they were members of the ‘Local Church’. At the hearing, the applicants claimed that they had been refused Chinese passports and their household registration were cancelled in China because of adverse effects by China’s family planning regulations. The applicants applied for protection visas.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence along with available country information, and concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the applicants’ claims in respect of China’s family planning regulations. The Tribunal also found that applicants had not practiced their religion for many years and the country information indicated that household registration would be unlikely to be withheld or passports denied.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and affirmed the decision of the Department of Home Affairs for all four applicants. An application for Ministerial intervention was unsuccessful.