When a bridging visa a decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 22 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the bridging visa held while a substantive visa application is decided. Here is what actually happened in them, straight from the published record.
These figures describe decisions that have already been made. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, so they are a picture of the past, not a prediction. This is general information, not migration advice.
How to read these decisions
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Until 14 October 2024 it was called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). When someone is refused a visa or has one cancelled, they can often ask the tribunal to look at the decision again.
- Upheld / Affirmed
- The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stands (the applicant lost).
- Set aside
- The tribunal disagreed with the original decision and replaced it (the applicant won).
- Remitted
- The case was sent back to Home Affairs to decide again, with directions (a fresh chance for the applicant).
- Overturned
- The original decision was reversed. On these pages we group overturned decisions under "Set aside" above.
Citations follow a simple pattern: [2026] ARTA 315 means decision number 315 of the tribunal in 2026. Older decisions use AAT in place of ARTA.
What the tribunal decided
Across these 22 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 73% of the time, set it aside 27% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 0% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 14 | 63.6% |
| Set aside | 6 | 27.3% |
| Affirmed | 2 | 9.1% |
Counts from 22 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 2 | 0% |
| 2025 | 6 | 33% |
| 2024 | 14 | 29% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 2 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 22 most recent decisions on this topic. Select a decision to read the full stored case story: the situation, the question before the tribunal, and what the tribunal established, straight from the record.
[2026] ARTA 10092026-06-04AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Chinese citizen on a Bridging (Class WA) Subclass 010 visa, has lived in Australia for about 11 years, has a 9‑year‑old son, and was convicted of drug offences resulting in a 10‑year sentence.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her visa.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) may only be revoked if the person passes the character test or another reason exists under s 501CA(4), and the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community outweighs any counter‑vailing factors.
[2026] ARTA 10222026-05-15AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied clause 010.211(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations by having a court‑granted extension of time for his judicial review application.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging Visa A while judicial review of a student visa refusal was pending, but the delegate refused on the basis that he had not applied for judicial review within the statutory time limit.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied clause 010.211(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations by having a court‑granted extension of time for his judicial review application.
What the tribunal established
A court‑granted extension of time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act makes a judicial review application ‘made within time’, and a decision-maker must give effect to that extension when assessing eligibility for a Bridging Visa A.
[2025] ARTA 16642025-09-03Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given she did not…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of China and permanent resident of Hong Kong, had her Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa cancelled after being convicted of a drug offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given she did not pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia and the impact on their family, as per Direction 110.
[2025] ARTA 30652025-08-04UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110 and the applicant's…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Libya, had his Bridging A (Class WA) (Subclass 010) visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test, following convictions for aggravated home burglary and aggravated robbery.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110 and the applicant's character.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Direction No. 110, to determine whether there are compelling reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 11722025-07-31UpheldThe central issue was whether the cancellation of the visa should be revoked under the character test in s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Ministerial…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa after previous student visas, and had been convicted of dangerous driving causing serious injury and had family violence allegations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the cancellation of the visa should be revoked under the character test in s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
When a visa cancellation is reviewed under s501CA(4), the Tribunal may affirm the decision if the Ministerial Direction emphasises community protection and the applicant’s criminal conduct outweighs other considerations.
[2025] ARTA 11462025-07-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the cancellation of the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, as applied via s 501CA(4) and Direction No 110, could be revoked on…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa after a visitor visa, with minor children in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the cancellation of the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, as applied via s 501CA(4) and Direction No 110, could be revoked on character grounds.
What the tribunal established
When community safety considerations outweigh personal ties and family interests, a visa cancellation under s 501 is unlikely to be revoked.
[2025] ARTA 7672025-06-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa, which had been cancelled due to convictions for family violence offences. The Tribunal considered whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation should be affirmed.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test and relevant factors under Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation due to character concerns, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia and other relevant factors.
[2025] ARTA 4192025-03-06Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, holding a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa, faced cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal conviction. He also had an outstanding application for a Student visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's rehabilitation efforts and potential hardship.
[2024] ARTA 102024-12-20UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant's Bridging (Class WA)(Subclass 010) visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his substantial criminal record and serving a sentence of imprisonment of over 12 months.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his criminal record and family violence.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the protection of the Australian community and the seriousness of family violence are primary considerations that may outweigh other countervailing factors.
[2024] AATA 42722024-10-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's criminal convictions.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Albanian national, was onshore holding a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa and was married with an Australian citizen child, facing mental health and financial difficulties.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose Bridging A visas are cancelled under s116(1)(g) must demonstrate compelling compassionate or humanitarian circumstances to override the cancellation ground.
[2024] AATA 37112024-09-23Set asideThe Minister sought to cancel her Bridging Visa A under s109(1) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had provided an incorrect answer in a previous Subclass 482…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Ms Lea Chairesa, an Indonesian national, was holding a Subclass 010 Bridging Visa A onshore in association with a partner visa application and worked as a pastry cook while establishing a business.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister sought to cancel her Bridging Visa A under s109(1) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had provided an incorrect answer in a previous Subclass 482 Temporary Skill Shortage visa application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visa cancellation relies on alleged incorrect information must have the Minister first establish non‑compliance under s108 and that the regulatory conditions for mandatory cancellation are met.
[2024] AATA 35662024-09-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act for breaching condition 8115 by working without authorisation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ms Yi Wang, was onshore holding a Subclass 010 Bridging A visa linked to a student visa application and later held Bridging E visas after the student visa was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act for breaching condition 8115 by working without authorisation.
What the tribunal established
Unauthorised work that breaches condition 8115 is a valid ground for cancelling a Bridging A visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 40932024-07-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's criminal convictions.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian citizen, was holding a Subclass 010 Bridging A visa onshore while awaiting the outcome of a protection visa application and had been convicted of offences in New South Wales.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
Applicants convicted of offences against state law satisfy the s116(1)(g) ground for cancellation of a bridging visa.
[2024] AATA 12882024-05-23Set asideThe central issue was whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act should be exercised, given the character…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, was holding a Bridging A (Class WA) Subclass 010 visa when his visa was mandatorily cancelled after a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act should be exercised, given the character test failure under section 501(3A).
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visas are mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) may have the cancellation revoked under s 501CA(4) where significant personal ties and hardship are demonstrated.
[2024] AATA 22892024-05-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's extensive criminal record.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian national onshore, held a Subclass 010 Bridging A visa that was cancelled and was subsequently on a Bridging E visa, and had accumulated over 30 criminal convictions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's extensive criminal record.
What the tribunal established
Applicants with multiple serious criminal convictions are subject to visa cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 10712024-05-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 because of his criminal convictions.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was an onshore Indian national holding a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa while awaiting a student visa, and was employed as a shift supervisor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 because of his criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who hold a Bridging A visa and have been convicted of serious offences are subject to cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act, even if they have a pending substantive visa application.
[2024] AATA 8072024-04-19Set asideThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's character and the circumstances of the case.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, held a Bridging A Visa (subclass 010). The Minister cancelled the visa due to the applicant failing the character test because of a criminal record involving drug offenses.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's character and the circumstances of the case.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under the character test, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Directions, to determine if there are other reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2024] AATA 22902024-04-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal could uphold the cancellation of his Subclass 010 visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal convictions.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a Kenyan citizen onshore in Australia holding a Subclass 010 Bridging A visa while his protection visa application is pending, and he is also employed and living with family in Adelaide.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal could uphold the cancellation of his Subclass 010 visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who have been convicted of offences that trigger s 116 of the Migration Act will have their bridging visas cancelled regardless of other visas held or personal circumstances.
[2024] AATA 9842024-03-13UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister’s cancellation of the Bridging A visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 and reg 2.43(1)(oa) was legally justified.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa while a protection visa application was pending, and had a spent conviction for unlawful and indecent assault in Western Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister’s cancellation of the Bridging A visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 and reg 2.43(1)(oa) was legally justified.
What the tribunal established
When a visa holder is convicted of a serious offence that satisfies s 116(1)(g), the cancellation can be upheld if the Tribunal’s discretionary assessment finds the negative factors outweigh any positive contributions.
[2024] AATA 4252024-02-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should affirm the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian national, held a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa after applying for a protection visa, which was refused. The applicant had a criminal conviction and was subject to a community corrections order.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should affirm the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging A visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal conviction.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations for and against cancellation, including the impact on the applicant and their family.
[2024] AATA 4072024-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a conviction under regulation 2.43(1)(oa) of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa, granted on the basis of an application for a student visa. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs cancelled the visa due to a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a conviction under regulation 2.43(1)(oa) of the Migration Regulations, was made out and if the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may cancel a visa if satisfied that a prescribed ground for cancellation exists, considering the circumstances of the offence and the applicant's conduct.
[2024] AATA 8512024-02-26Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa and faced cancellation due to a conviction resulting in a Conditional Release Order.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the factors for and against cancellation, including the circumstances of the offence and the hardship faced by the applicant.
Track visa decisions as they land
Our pipeline reads new tribunal decisions from the official record every week and folds them into the numbers on these pages. Subscribers get the important rule and outcome shifts in plain English. Free, unsubscribe anytime.
Where do you actually stand?
Tribunal outcomes show how the rules are applied, but your own position depends on your visa, your points and your evidence.