When a partner visa (offshore, permanent) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 49 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the permanent stage of the offshore partner visa. 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 49 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 49% of the time, set it aside 31% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 20% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 22 | 44.9% |
| Set aside | 15 | 30.6% |
| Remitted | 10 | 20.4% |
| Affirmed | 2 | 4.1% |
Counts from 49 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 | 7 | 14% |
| 2025 | 17 | 41% |
| 2024 | 25 | 28% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 4 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 40 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 11222026-06-22AffirmedThe applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, including convictions for domestic violence offences.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant's Class BC subclass 100 visa was mandatorily cancelled under s.501(3A) of the Migration Act due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, including convictions for domestic violence offences.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, as defined in s.501(7) of the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 8502026-05-20AffirmedThe Applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation of his 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 Kenyan national, had his Spouse visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa.
What the tribunal established
The character test is defined in subsection 501(6) of the Act, and a person does not pass if they have a substantial criminal record.
[2026] ARTA 8242026-04-23Set asideThe Applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 due to his failure to pass the character test.
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 51-year-old UK citizen, had his visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record for supplying commercial quantities of cocaine and MDMA.
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 due to his failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 8982026-04-13RemittedThe Department refused the visa due to lack of evidence that the applicant met the requirements for a Subclass 100 visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a Lebanese national, applied for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa based on his marriage to an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The Department refused the visa due to lack of evidence that the applicant met the requirements for a Subclass 100 visa.
What the tribunal established
A person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship, with a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple.
[2026] ARTA 2962026-02-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa, particularly concerning the requirements of cl.100.221(4AA)(c) of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa, specifically a Subclass 100 (Partner) visa, based on their relationship with their sponsor. The delegate initially refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa, particularly concerning the requirements of cl.100.221(4AA)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant may be eligible for a Subclass 100 visa even if the relationship with the sponsoring partner has ceased, if specific circumstances such as family violence or child custody arrangements are met.
[2026] ARTA 492026-01-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether there was another reason to revoke the…
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 China, had his Class BC Subclass 100 Partner visa mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's character, the protection of the Australian community is generally given greater weight than other primary considerations.
[2026] ARTA 592026-01-19UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his criminal history and the…
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 Nigeria, had his Class BC Subclass 100 Spouse visa subject to mandatory cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act due to serious repeat drug offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his criminal history and the requirements of s 501 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501, the Tribunal must weigh the primary considerations, such as the protection of the Australian community, against other considerations, such as the applicant's ties to Australia, as guided by relevant Ministerial Directions.
[2025] ARTA 25732025-12-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, considering his criminal conduct in Australia, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
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 sought review of a decision to cancel his Partner (Class BC) (Subclass 100) visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 due to criminal offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, considering his criminal conduct in Australia, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's character under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations in Ministerial Direction 110 to determine whether the available discretion should be exercised.
[2025] ARTA 24132025-11-13Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a character assessment, was…
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 Afghanistan, had his Class BC, Subclass 100 Partner Visa cancelled under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958. He arrived in Australia in 2017 and was 28 years old at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a character assessment, was correct.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors and exercise its discretion appropriately.
[2025] ARTA 24582025-11-04Set asideThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should revoke the decision to cancel Mr. Pham's visa, considering his failure to pass the character test under s 501 of the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Mr. Pham, a Vietnamese citizen, had his Class BC Subclass 100 Partner visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958. He sought review of the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should revoke the decision to cancel Mr. Pham's visa, considering his failure to pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must balance the primary and other relevant considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, ties to Australia, and the legal consequences of the decision.
[2025] ARTA 24362025-10-23Set asideThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 501CA(4)(ii) of the Migration Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the…
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 Afghanistan, had his Partner (subclass 100) visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act due to a drug-related offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 501CA(4)(ii) of the Migration Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations for and against revocation, including the strength of ties to Australia, family support, and the risk of re-offending.
[2025] ARTA 15472025-08-25Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa due to the applicant's wife's…
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's wife, a Turkish citizen, applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa and a Partner (Migrant) (Subclass 100) visa. The delegate refused the provisional visa due to a spent conviction in Turkey for making propaganda for a terrorist organization.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa due to the applicant's wife's character.
What the tribunal established
When considering a visa refusal under s 501, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against the applicant's ties to Australia and other relevant factors.
[2025] ARTA 15042025-08-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant failed the character test under the Migration Act 1958, leading to the mandatory cancellation of their 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 citizen of the Republic of South Sudan, held a Class BC Partner (Migrant) (subclass 100) visa. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant failed the character test under the Migration Act 1958, leading to the mandatory cancellation of their visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering mandatory visa cancellation due to a criminal record, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Directions, to determine if there are compelling reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 15112025-07-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements for a Partner (Migrant) visa, specifically whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) Subclass 100 visa. The delegate refused the visa, and the applicants sought review of that decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements for a Partner (Migrant) visa, specifically whether the relationship was genuine and continuing, and whether claims of family violence were substantiated under cl 100.221(4)(b).
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner visa, applicants must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship, and claims of family violence must be substantiated with sufficient evidence.
[2025] ARTA 9672025-07-01Set asideThe central issue was whether the cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act could be set aside despite the applicant failing the character test. The tribunal…
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, Chi Dien Nguyen, was a permanent resident holding a Subclass 100 Partner visa onshore in Australia and had been employed in Melbourne. He faced visa cancellation due to a substantial criminal record involving money laundering.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act could be set aside despite the applicant failing the character test. The tribunal needed to determine if another reason existed under Direction 110 to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
What the tribunal established
A visa cancellation under s501CA can be revoked if the tribunal is satisfied that another reason exists under Direction 110, even when the applicant fails the character test.
[2025] ARTA 8372025-06-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, considering his family violence offences.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass 100 Partner (Migrant) visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant was unrepresented.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, considering his family violence offences.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a person's character under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider Ministerial Direction 110, particularly when family violence is involved.
[2025] ARTA 13342025-06-25Set asideThe Minister’s delegate sought to cancel her visa under s116(1AC) of the Migration Act, alleging she received a benefit for a sponsorship‑related event.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Mrs Kohompola Ralalage held a Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa onshore and was a director and secretary of her husband’s mechanical services business at the time of the alleged sponsorship event.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister’s delegate sought to cancel her visa under s116(1AC) of the Migration Act, alleging she received a benefit for a sponsorship‑related event.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who cannot demonstrate a benefit as defined in s245AQ for a sponsorship‑related event will not meet the s116(1AC) ground for visa cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 6922025-06-06UpheldThe central issue was whether, despite failing the character test, there was another reason under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Direction No. 110, to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, NHRV, held a Class BC Subclass 100 partner visa that was cancelled in October 2021 and was serving a prison sentence for a serious sexual offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether, despite failing the character test, there was another reason under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Direction No. 110, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who fail the character test cannot have a mandatory visa cancellation revoked unless the tribunal is satisfied that another reason exists under s 501CA(4) in accordance with Direction 110.
[2025] ARTA 6402025-05-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the good‑character requirement under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Derick Cole, a 49‑year‑old Sierra Leone national holding a subclass 100 partner visa, applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on 13 January 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the good‑character requirement under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must be positively satisfied as being of good character under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act to be granted citizenship.
[2025] ARTA 4322025-03-04RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl 100.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to the genuine and…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a South Sudanese national, applied for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa (Subclass 100) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl 100.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects.
[2025] ARTA 1162025-02-24UpheldThe 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 Partner (Subclass 100) visa was mandatorily cancelled due to his criminal record and imprisonment. The applicant sought revocation of the cancellation, but the Minister decided not to revoke it.
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 serious criminal conduct.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation, the protection and expectations of the Australian community generally outweigh other considerations, even when the best interests of a child are involved.
[2025] ARTA 12882025-02-24RemittedThe central issue was whether he met the Australian residence requirements for the DSP under subparagraph 94(1)(e)(i) of the Social Security Act 1991, considering his…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Springford, a permanent resident on a subclass 100 visa, applied onshore for a Disability Support Pension citing autism, mild intellectual disability and anxiety that prevent him from working.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether he met the Australian residence requirements for the DSP under subparagraph 94(1)(e)(i) of the Social Security Act 1991, considering his period abroad.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are permanent residents and can demonstrate residence at the time they first satisfy the impairment test meet the DSP residence requirement even if they were temporarily overseas.
[2025] ARTA 1392025-02-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa, specifically under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and cl 100.221(2) of Schedule 2…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian national, applied for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa (Subclass 100) in 2019 based on her relationship with her sponsor. The Tribunal reviewed the Minister's decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa, specifically under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and cl 100.221(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A strong indicator of a genuine and continuing relationship, as required for a Partner visa, is the couple having a child together and living with the sponsor since arriving in Australia.
[2025] ARTA 52025-01-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked, considering the requirements of Direction 110 and…
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 33‑year‑old Papua New Guinean male holding a Class BC Subclass 100 Partner visa onshore, who has a substantial criminal record including multiple DUIs and domestic violence offences.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked, considering the requirements of Direction 110 and the existence of ‘another reason’ to overturn the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
When the primary considerations under Direction 110, such as community protection and family violence, outweigh other factors, a mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) will not be revoked.
[2024] AATA 40362024-10-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221 of the Migration Regulations (family violence requirement) under s65 of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Aiman Jaafouri applied onshore for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) subclass 100 visa based on his relationship with his sponsor and alleged family violence, and was represented by Dr Talat Abouzaid.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221 of the Migration Regulations (family violence requirement) under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet clause 100.221 family‑violence criteria and the Minister must accept an independent expert’s opinion when a non‑judicial family‑violence claim is made.
[2024] AATA 37242024-10-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision, given the requirement in s347(2) and s338(7A) of the Migration Act that the applicant…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, Ms Thi Thu Phan and Ms Nhu Ngoc Phan, were seeking Partner (Migrant) subclass 100 visas while they were offshore and not physically present in the migration zone at the time of the visa refusal and the review application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision, given the requirement in s347(2) and s338(7A) of the Migration Act that the applicant must be in the migration zone when both the primary decision and the review application are made.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are not physically present in the migration zone at the time of both the primary decision and the review application cannot obtain a review under s347(2) and s338(7A) of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 33212024-09-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked.
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 sought review of a decision to not revoke the cancellation of his visa. The applicant held a Class BC Subclass 100 spouse visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the interests of any minor children involved.
[2024] AATA 31542024-08-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not provided a statement from an appropriate authority under Migration Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) regarding her…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mrs Shaden Saad Mohammed Hessin applied onshore for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) Subclass 100 visa after marrying an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not provided a statement from an appropriate authority under Migration Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) regarding her criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may accept a police certificate submitted after the original deadline to satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and remit the decision for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 36982024-08-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (and s 65 Migration Act) by proving the marriage was…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Muhammad Saleem applied onshore for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) subclass 100 visa based on his relationship with his sponsor, but failed to attend the scheduled Tribunal hearing and did not provide requested information.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (and s 65 Migration Act) by proving the marriage was solemnised by an authorised celebrant and that he was the spouse or de facto partner.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Partner (Migrant) visa must satisfy clause 100.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations by proving the marriage was solemnised by an authorised celebrant and that they are the spouse or de facto partner.
[2024] AATA 36892024-08-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which was the basis for the delegate’s…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Atul Wadhwa applied onshore for a Partner (Migrant) Class BC (Subclass 100) visa after his marriage broke down due to family violence perpetrated by his sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which was the basis for the delegate’s refusal under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can prove that a relationship breakdown was caused by family violence by the sponsor satisfy clause 100.221(2) and the decision must be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 27012024-08-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under the character test provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (section 501) should be revoked.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Samoan national, held a Class BC (Subclass 100) Partner visa onshore and had multiple convictions for violence and family violence, leading to immigration detention.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under the character test provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (section 501) should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who fail the character test and have mandatory cancellation under section 501 will not have that cancellation revoked where serious family‑violence offences are proven.
[2024] AATA 24072024-07-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had satisfied the citizenship test requirement under s 21(2)(d)–(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, which she had not…
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 Partner (subclass 100) visa and lodged an onshore application for Australian citizenship by conferral, but did not attend any scheduled citizenship test appointments.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had satisfied the citizenship test requirement under s 21(2)(d)–(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, which she had not attended.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who do not sit and pass the citizenship test have not met the requirements of s 21(2)(d)–(f) and the Minister may lawfully refuse citizenship by conferral.
[2024] AATA 24092024-07-05Set asideThe central issue was the mandatory cancellation of the visa under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
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 Class BC Subclass 100 Partner visa onshore and was married to an Australian citizen, with strong family ties in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the mandatory cancellation of the visa under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
Mandatory visa cancellations under s 501 may be revoked where the Tribunal finds the applicant’s familial ties and the best interests of children outweigh community protection concerns.
[2024] AATA 21312024-06-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 502(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 could be revoked despite 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, Mr Dang, held a Class BC Subclass 100 Partner (Permanent) visa and was onshore in Australia when his visa was cancelled after failing the character test due to convictions for cultivating cannabis and electricity theft.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 502(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 could be revoked despite the applicant’s criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
Mandatory visa cancellations under s 502(3A) are only revoked if a specific statutory reason exists that outweighs the community protection consideration.
[2024] AATA 22312024-06-20Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the visa under Migration Act 1958 s 501 (and s 501CA) should be upheld despite the applicant’s criminal…
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 Class BC Subclass 100 Partner visa (permanent residency) onshore, was a father of five Australian‑resident children, and had been convicted of multiple offences between 2016 and 2020.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the visa under Migration Act 1958 s 501 (and s 501CA) should be upheld despite the applicant’s criminal record.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visa cancellation under s 501 can be revoked where the best interests of their Australian citizen children and strong ties to the community outweigh the risk to the community.
[2024] AATA 12092024-05-27UpheldThe central issue was whether she met the exemption criteria under section 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, requiring proof of permanent or enduring…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Kalali, an Iraqi citizen holding a Partner (subclass 100) permanent visa, applied onshore for Australian citizenship and was self‑represented with assistance from her daughter.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she met the exemption criteria under section 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, requiring proof of permanent or enduring mental incapacity as defined in Citizenship Procedural Instruction 2.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a permanent or enduring mental incapacity and a causal link to the matters listed in paragraph 21(3)(d) to qualify for an exemption from the citizenship test.
[2024] AATA 15302024-05-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine and continuing spousal…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Abiodun Kolawole Fatoki, was onshore in Australia and had applied for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) Subclass 100 visa based on his marriage to an Australian citizen, but the relationship had ceased.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of decision, under s65 of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the genuine and continuing relationship criteria of clause 100.221 of the Migration Regulations at the time of decision to be granted a Partner visa.
[2024] AATA 10002024-05-08Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under the Migration Act could be set aside, considering the provisions of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii)…
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, an Albanian citizen, held a Class BC Subclass 100 spouse (permanent) visa onshore in Australia and had a substantial criminal record, with an Australian‑citizen wife and child.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under the Migration Act could be set aside, considering the provisions of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) and the Ministerial Direction No 99.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visas are mandatorily cancelled for serious offences may have the cancellation revoked if the Tribunal identifies another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) after weighing community safety and family considerations.
[2024] AATA 25552024-05-06RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(4)(b) and (c)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 for a Subclass 100 visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant was an onshore holder of a provisional Partner (Class BC) visa who had married his sponsor overseas and later alleged family violence, seeking a Subclass 100 Partner visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 100.221(4)(b) and (c)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 for a Subclass 100 visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can satisfy Subclass 100 visa requirements by meeting the specific relationship criteria in cl 100.221(4)(b) and (c)(i) of the Regulations, even where family violence allegations are present.
[2024] AATA 20992024-05-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, questioning the genuineness of…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Nouroz Ali was an onshore applicant for a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa (Subclass 100) based on his marriage to an Australian sponsor and had two children.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, questioning the genuineness of the relationship under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate they satisfy clause 100.221 of Schedule 2 are entitled to have their Partner visa application remitted for reconsideration even after an initial refusal.
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.