在澳洲申请难民指南

难民签证申请人要满足以下4个要求

1 申请人必须不在所在国。

2 申请人必须受到迫害有恐惧受到迫害。” Life， liberty, pursuit of happiness” 和美国独立宣言的精神惊人的一致。迫害必须是官方认可的。比如法轮功，民运，计划生育，地下基督教会，回族伊斯兰，疆独，藏独。申请人必须有受到迫害的理由。

3 必须是日内瓦公约保护范围内的迫害。race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 比如王立军是不可以申请的，不属于以上范围.

4 的确有受迫害的可能性。

如果难民签证在2014年12月16日之后递交或者在2015年6月15日没有审理结束。移民局对于保护签证的新的规定可能严重影响签证申请人的申请。
原来的移民法规定保护签证申请人必须要满足联合国公约关于难民的定义（ United Nations definition of a refugee ）. 现在的新的规定在移民法 Section 5H 中规定难民 （refugee)
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality- is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have nationality-is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
这个变化 主要造成了2点影响
1 必须要在所在国全境遭受迫害。a person will only have a well founded fear of persecution where the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country: s5J(1)(c).

2 如果难民可以低调做人来避免迫害，那么也不能得到签证。A person will not have a well-founded fear of persecution if they could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution, other than modifications which would conflict with a characteristic fundamental to their identity of conscience, or which would conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person: S5J(3)

S5J(3) 和原来的法庭判例S395 v MIMA (和移民法的判例不同，难民法的法庭判例都会隐藏申请人的真实姓名）有一点细微的差异。

S395 规定， An applicant may avoid persecution by acting discreetly, or otherwise modifying their behaviour, the decision maker must consider why the applicant will act in that way,and what would happen if he did not do so. if the reason for modification is the applicant’s fear of persecution,and the fear is well founded , the the person may be a refugee within the meaning of Act 1A.

under S.5J(3),case officer should take into account what a person could do to avoid persecution, in contrast to Court’s ruling in S395 that assessment under Convention concerns what a person would do.