上诉人已申请保护签证在澳大利亚,他来自孟加拉国和表达他的兴趣转换成基督教寻求保护。尽管几次被上诉人说服法官,他是不成功的。法院听说这种情况下。完整的联邦法院在一起发现,年代。48的迁移行为坚持认为,一个人不能禁止应用进一步保护签证申请等具体准则的补充保护如果没有找到这一标准的基础应用在过去的失败。
情况显然已经强调,任何的人一直否认保护签证申请在2012年3月24日之前可以进一步尝试的理由下互补的保护。完整的联邦法院已经分析了基于某些标准。这些包括难民公约,家庭成员和互补的保护(Gu,2013)。在这种情况下,上诉人可以有机会申请如果落在这些条件。因此,完整的联邦法院已同意,SZGIZ申请保护签证可以被认为有效的2012年10月10日(Gu,2013)。
The appellant has applied for protection visa in Australia while he is originally from Bangladesh and expresses his interest to convert into Christianity to seek protection. Despite the several attempts taken by the appellant to convince the Judge, he was unsuccessful. The Full Court had heard this case. The Full Federal Court had found together that s.48A of Migration Act insists that a person cannot be prohibited from applying a further Protection visa application on a specific criterion such as complementary protection if this criterion is not found to be the base of failure of application in the past.
The case has clearly highlighted that any person who has been denied a Protection visa application before 24th March 2012 can make a further attempts under the grounds of complementary protection. The Full Federal Court has now analysed the subject based on certain criteria. These include Refugee Convention, member of family unit and the complementary protection (Gu, 2013). In that case, the appellant can be given a chance to apply if the criterion falls under these. Thus, the Full Federal Court has agreed the point that SZGIZ’s application for Protection Visa can be regarded valid on 10th October 2012 (Gu, 2013).
