Abuse of Protection Visas Government Speeds Up Review Process to Benefit Genuine Refugees

As a signatory to human rights conventions, Australia has a protection visa system that allows people who are persecuted around the world to apply for asylum after arriving in Australia legally. However, this system is currently being abused, with the number of protection visa applications increasing significantly, resulting in applicants often having to wait for years. Whether the Australian government’s reforms to the protection visa application process will be successful remains to be seen.

Who is eligible?

Following the 2019 anti-extradition movement, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents have left their homes in search of a freer and more stable future. As one of the countries operating under a democratic system, Australia boasts a robust social welfare system and a high standard of living, attracting many young people to come to Australia through student, working holiday, or short-term work visas. However, as their original visas approach expiration, many individuals, lacking sufficient information or driven by emotional anxiety, are misguided toward another “immigration shortcut”—the Protection Visa (Protection Visa, Category 866).

As of 2024, over 580 people from Hong Kong have applied for this Protection Visa, with only 5 successful approvals. This indicates that many applicants lack understanding of the visa requirements and relevant legal standards. Under Australian law, only those who can prove they face clear and specific risks of persecution—such as threats to personal safety, imprisonment, or torture—qualify for asylum under the Refugee Convention. What constitutes such risks varies from person to person. The Australian Department of Immigration advises those considering this option to seek professional immigration lawyer assistance rather than making unilateral assumptions or being influenced by unlicensed immigration advisors.

Many young people who participated in the 2019 protests have considered applying for this visa. They may currently be in Australia on various visas, but they fear political retaliation upon returning to Hong Kong, even if they have not faced explicit threats to their personal safety. They are experiencing a form of “psychological persecution” that is difficult to quantify—a long-term fear of the future and restrictions on freedom of speech, as well as concerns about potential reprisals upon returning to Hong Kong. However, these subjective feelings, without concrete evidence to support them, often fail to meet official approval standards.

The “persecution” criteria for protection visas are clearly defined in the system, but some applicants conflate personal psychological stress with systemic persecution, leading to a gap between expectations and actual outcomes. This misunderstanding sometimes stems from misinformation within the community and is also influenced by certain intermediary agencies that package and promote it as a “strategic maneuver” to replace immigration.

The “business” of immigration

The situations in China and Malaysia are different. In recent years, the number of protection visa applications in these two places has significantly increased. Some applicants from China were originally students or tourists, and due to their limited English proficiency, they often view this pathway as “low-threshold immigration option.” This is because applying for this visa does not require an English proficiency test or any technical skills; it only requires a fee of $45, making it a low-cost option. This has led many Chinese students to apply for the 866 protection visa when their student visas are about to expire, as they lack other immigration options. Meanwhile, some Malaysians use this visa as a stepping stone for legal employment. They typically submit protection applications before their student or tourist visas expire, not to seek asylum, but to extend their stay and work in Australia through a bridge visa. Although most of these applications are ultimately rejected during the approval process, the process is often time-consuming, tying up review resources and sparking concerns about the abuse of the protection system.

From Hong Kong residents’ ignorance and misunderstanding of protection visas to Chinese and Malaysian applicants disregarding the visa’s original purpose and using it to extend their stay and work legally, the credibility and legitimacy of the protection visa system have been gradually eroded. What was intended as a humanitarian aid system has gradually evolved into what some view as an “immigration backdoor.”

The Original Intent and Degeneration of the Asylum System

The Protection Visa (Protection Visa, Category 866) is intended to provide asylum and permanent residency opportunities for those who face the risk of persecution in their home countries due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As long as these individuals are already in Australia, they may apply for asylum. If they provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that returning to their home country would expose them to life-threatening risks, torture, imprisonment, or other severe human rights violations, they may be granted asylum and permanent residency in Australia.

Such a system was originally intended to safeguard human dignity. However, over time, it has begun to be viewed by some as a “tool for extending stay.” . The approval process is already cumbersome, with each case requiring individual investigation, document verification, and interviews, often taking years to process. During this period, applicants are issued a Bridging Visa, allowing them to legally reside, work, and live with the same freedoms as ordinary residents.

This “waiting period,” from a certain perspective, has become a form of “alternative residency period” that does not require eligibility review.

What is even more concerning is that even if the application is ultimately rejected, the applicant may appeal, and the case will then enter the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) process. If dissatisfied, the applicant may further appeal to the Federal Court, extending the process by several years and once again prolonging the residency period. While the openness of this legal pathway is intended to be a safeguard of democratic institutions, it has, in practice, become an abused “delay tactic.”

Among various visa categories, the protection visa, which does not require skill, language, or financial thresholds, has become the “easiest to apply for and most likely to be extended” option in the eyes of many students and short-term workers in Australia. Compared to the technical immigration visa, which requires academic qualifications and occupational assessments, or the business investment visa, which demands substantial financial guarantees, the protection visa appears to require only a $45 processing fee, a statement, and some supporting documents to initiate the process. However, this “low-threshold” appearance often masks the high review standards behind it. The actual approval process still relies on the definitions in the Refugee Convention and international law to determine whether the applicant faces genuine and unavoidable persecution risks. The reviews conducted by the immigration department and courts are even more rigorous, often taking years and consuming significant resources.

Many individuals who originally came to Australia for education, when their courses are about to end and their visas are about to expire, may choose to apply for a protection visa to extend their stay and secure legal work rights if they are unable to successfully apply for skilled migration or switch to another visa. Many of them come from countries such as China, India, and Malaysia, with some having been misled by intermediaries into believing this is a viable “residence strategy.” For some students with limited family financial resources, staying in Australia for an additional two or three years, working legally, and sending money back home may be sufficient to recoup their costs, even if they are ultimately denied and neither they nor their families can ever return to Australia. They may still feel it is “worth a try.”

Is there really no cost involved?

For those applying for the 866 protection visa, there are indeed costs involved. First, during the waiting period, they will obtain a bridging visa, but this does not necessarily grant them work rights. For example, individuals who originally held tourist visas without work rights must still cover their own living expenses, have no access to medical insurance, and face significant challenges in daily life.

Additionally, during the waiting period, they cannot leave Australia. Those approved cannot return to their original country of residence (this is understandable, as they claim to be persecuted and cannot simply return). Many are thus separated from their families for an extended period, something they did not initially anticipate.

If the application for a protection visa is unsuccessful and there are no other valid visas available, these individuals may be deported, and some may be required to stay in detention centers. Additionally, they may owe the Australian government certain fees upon departure, which must be settled before they can leave. Many have found that the income earned during this period is significantly reduced as a result.

Furthermore, applicants must pay substantial fees to intermediaries and immigration lawyers to represent them in their applications and appeals. This is precisely the scam employed by unlicensed immigration consultants. There have been unscrupulous intermediaries in Malaysia and other countries openly soliciting “customers” to come to Australia through this route. Ultimately, it is these young people seeking opportunities who bear the costs.

In the long term, those whose protection visa applications are rejected will have a permanent record on file with the immigration authorities, making it extremely difficult for them and their families to apply for other visas and return to Australia in the future. For many, this has a severely detrimental impact.

What are the chances of success?

According to the final approval data for permanent protection visas in the 2023–24 fiscal year, 304 applicants from China were approved, resulting in an approval rate of just 10.16%; Malaysia had 257 approvals, with an approval rate of 22.99%. In contrast, out of 900 applications from Myanmar, the approval rate reached a staggering 99.45%. This significant disparity indicates that the proportion of applicants from certain countries who genuinely meet the definition of the Refugee Convention is extremely low, highlighting the misuse or even abuse of the system.

Moreover, this “delay-based residency” mindset is beginning to influence short-term visitors who originally had no intention of immigrating. They may have simply wanted to earn money in Australia, but found that protection visas have become a low-cost, high-return workaround. Such abuse not only overloads the overall review system but also delays the approval of other cases.

The system was originally well-intentioned, but when loopholes in the system are exploited, that goodwill gradually deteriorates. Protection visas have evolved from a last line of humanitarian defense into a “de facto immigration channel” in the eyes of some. This leaves those who truly need assistance facing even longer and more burdensome waits.

What’s next for the government?

As the number of protection visa applications continues to rise and approval backlogs worsen, the Australian government has gradually recognized the potential misuse of the system and began implementing reforms and tightening measures in 2024 to reduce approval times.

The government has implemented multi-faceted policies to combat the abuse of protection visas. During the Liberal Party’s tenure, the number of applications surged from thousands to tens of thousands, yet the government ignored the situation, resulting in cases taking years to process, allowing abusers to exploit the system. However, starting in 2024, the government significantly increased the staff handling such visas and established the principle of prioritizing new cases, reducing the waiting time for visas to one-eighth of the original duration. Many cases were completed within weeks or months, significantly reducing the waiting time for applicants to remain in Australia.

The Australian government has also launched community outreach campaigns to educate prospective applicants for protection visas about the potential consequences of abuse and to avoid being misled by intermediaries. Additionally, the Australian government offers assistance to applicants who voluntarily withdraw their applications and communicates with their home countries to ensure they will not face punishment upon return.

Conclusion

A protection visa originally designed to assist individuals facing persecution and extreme hardship has been widely abused due to unscrupulous business practices, leaving those who truly need assistance unable to receive it, which is regrettable. However, as economic migration increasingly becomes the mainstream, this is an unavoidable reality. The Australian government must respond more sensitively to effectively implement its original immigration policies.

 Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet