When a child visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 39 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the permanent visa for a dependent child of an Australian sponsor. 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 39 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 64% of the time, set it aside 10% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 26% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 25 | 64.1% |
| Remitted | 10 | 25.6% |
| Set aside | 4 | 10.3% |
Counts from 39 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 | 1 | 100% |
| 2025 | 16 | 6% |
| 2024 | 22 | 9% |
Recent decisions
The 39 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 732026-01-08Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister correctly exercised the discretion under s501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 to cancel the applicant's visa, considering his…
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, born in Fiji, had a Class AH Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) visa. The Minister decided to cancel his visa under s501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister correctly exercised the discretion under s501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 to cancel the applicant's visa, considering his character and criminal history.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s501(2), the Tribunal must weigh all relevant considerations, including those in Ministerial Direction 110, to determine whether the discretion should be exercised.
[2025] ARTA 28922025-12-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of the Migration Regulations, specifically whether she had been undertaking a…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) for his daughter, who was over 18. The daughter claimed to be undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of the Migration Regulations, specifically whether she had been undertaking a full-time course of study since turning 18.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements of cl 101.213, the visa applicant's conduct, considered as a whole, must warrant the conclusion that they have been undertaking relevant study.
[2025] ARTA 16572025-08-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the dependency requirements for a Child visa under the Migration Regulations, specifically clauses 802.212(1) and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, aged 24, applied for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa while holding a Bridging A visa. His father, who sponsored the application, died during the review process.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the dependency requirements for a Child visa under the Migration Regulations, specifically clauses 802.212(1) and 802.221(1), (2)(a)(i).
What the tribunal established
To be considered a dependent child, an applicant must be wholly or substantially reliant on the sponsor for financial support to meet their basic needs.
[2025] ARTA 17402025-08-06RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant continued to satisfy the study requirement under cl 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994…
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 review of a decision to refuse a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant continued to meet the study requirement due to a gap between completing study in China and commencing study in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant continued to satisfy the study requirement under cl 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the gap between studies.
What the tribunal established
A gap between studies does not automatically disqualify an applicant from meeting the study requirement for a Child (Migrant) visa if the applicant demonstrates a continued intention to study.
[2025] ARTA 22452025-08-04UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements under cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) as a dependent child of an Australian citizen. The applicant was over 18 years old at the time of application and needed to meet study-related criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements under cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding completion of the equivalent of Year 12 in the Australian school system.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements of cl 101.213(1)(c), an applicant over 18 for a Subclass 101 visa must have completed the equivalent of Year 12 in the Australian school system.
[2025] ARTA 16512025-07-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the study-related criteria in cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) as a dependent child of an Australian citizen. The applicant had a two-year break in studies after turning 18.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the study-related criteria in cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding continuous study since turning 18.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 101 visa must demonstrate continuous study since turning 18, and breaks in study due to personal choices or general circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may not be sufficient to meet the criteria.
[2025] ARTA 21042025-07-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding enrollment in a…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) as an over-18 child. The applicant was not enrolled in a full-time course of study at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding enrollment in a full-time course of study.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, an applicant over 18 must be enrolled in a full-time course leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification.
[2025] ARTA 10102025-07-07Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act, applying Direction No 110, 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 held a Child (permanent) subclass 101 visa and faced a mandatory cancellation under the character test while onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act, applying Direction No 110, was correct.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may substitute a decision not to cancel a visa where Direction No 110 considerations outweigh the character grounds for mandatory cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 11812025-07-04RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant failed to satisfy clause 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
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, over 18, applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa while undertaking full-time tertiary study and progressing through a bachelor’s degree.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant failed to satisfy clause 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 may satisfy the Subclass 101 study requirement if they have been engaged in full‑time study within a reasonable period after completing year 12, even where short gaps occur.
[2025] ARTA 21412025-07-04UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the study-related criteria in cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, given a gap in her…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa as the dependent child of an Australian resident. The applicant was over 18 years old and required to meet study-related criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the study-related criteria in cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, given a gap in her studies.
What the tribunal established
To meet the requirements of cl 101.213(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, a visa applicant over 18 must have been undertaking a full-time course of study, and any gaps in study must be due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control.
[2025] ARTA 11992025-07-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the study requirements under clause 101.213(1)(c) and clause 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration…
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 applicants were Pakistani nationals applying onshore for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas (Subclass 101) for two sons born in 1995 and 1997, with the sponsor being their mother residing in Australia. The first named applicant sought the visa in May 2020 and the matter was reviewed in 2025.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the study requirements under clause 101.213(1)(c) and clause 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which formed the basis of the delegate’s s65 refusal.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 101 child visa must demonstrate full‑time study meeting clause 101.213 and a qualifying vocational or trade qualification under clause 101.221(2)(b).
[2025] ARTA 8852025-06-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act, which relates to the risk the applicant poses to the…
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 to not revoke the cancellation of their Class AH Subclass 101 Child Visa. The decision was made under section 501CA(4) and the character test in section 501(6) of the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act, which relates to the risk the applicant poses to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a person's character under section 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider the risk the person poses to the Australian community, including the strength of their ties to Australia and the potential impediments they would face if removed.
[2025] ARTA 6632025-04-08RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding full-time…
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 Subclass 101 (Child) visa, having applied in 2018. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria of cl.101.213(1)(c) because they were not enrolled and actively participating in a full-time course of study for a cumulative period of 27 months.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding full-time study and any gaps in study.
What the tribunal established
When assessing whether a visa applicant has met the requirements of full-time study, temporary pauses due to financial hardship can be considered, and the essentially intermittent nature of study may be acceptable.
[2025] ARTA 3062025-03-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020 and cl. 101.213 and cl. 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa. The delegate refused the visa based on a finding that a certificate of completion was a bogus document.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of PIC 4020 and cl. 101.213 and cl. 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
For a Child (Migrant) visa, the applicant must meet the criteria of PIC 4020, cl. 101.213, and cl. 101.221(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 4792025-03-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of a dependent child under cl 101.211 and cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 29-year-old woman from Hong Kong, applied for a Subclass 101 visa as the dependent child of her mother, who held a Subclass 801 Partner visa. The applicant was working full-time at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of a dependent child under cl 101.211 and cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding financial dependency and study status.
What the tribunal established
To be considered a dependent child for a Subclass 101 visa, an applicant must meet specific criteria related to age, financial dependency, and study status as defined in the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 1382025-02-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 101.213(1)(c) and 101.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) for her son, who was over 18. The son had completed his degree and was employed at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 101.213(1)(c) and 101.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding full-time study at the time of application and decision.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Migrant) visa who are over 18 must meet the full-time study requirements at the time of both application and decision.
[2025] ARTA 92025-01-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under the Migration Act s501F and Direction 110 following the alleged sexual offence.
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 permanent Subclass 101 (Child) visa and was alleged to have committed a sexually based offence involving a child while onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under the Migration Act s501F and Direction 110 following the alleged sexual offence.
What the tribunal established
Visas can be cancelled under s501F where the holder is found to have engaged in conduct that poses a risk to the Australian community, even for permanent child visas.
[2024] AATA 40132024-10-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the study requirement under clause 101.213(c) of the Migration Regulations, a condition for a Subclass 101 visa, as…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a stateless person born in July 2004, applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa while over 18 years old and was living in Bangladesh with limited access to formal education.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the study requirement under clause 101.213(c) of the Migration Regulations, a condition for a Subclass 101 visa, as required by s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) visa must meet the study requirement in clause 101.213(c) at the time of application, and incapacity must be clearly evidenced.
[2024] AATA 36492024-10-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 101.211(1)(c)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a recognised adoption or that the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The visa applicant, Mr Kelvin Annor Mensah, a 24‑year‑old Ghanaian citizen, applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa as the son of an Australian permanent‑resident relative. He was seeking entry to Australia based on a customary adoption arrangement in Ghana.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 101.211(1)(c)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a recognised adoption or that the relationship not be significantly closer than with any other person, given that formal adoption was available in Ghana.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 101 child visa must meet clause 101.211(1)(c) by demonstrating a formally recognised adoption or that no other relationship is significantly closer, and customary adoption alone is insufficient where formal adoption is reasonably practicable.
[2024] AATA 38442024-09-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had supplied a bogus document in breach of s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958, resulting in a failure to satisfy Public…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Eddie Sheka Sidique, applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (subclass 101) as the child of the review applicant, Ms Doris Dorah Dumbaya, after being informally cared for by a family friend. The application was made on 19 August 2021 and the delegate refused it on the basis of a bogus document.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had supplied a bogus document in breach of s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958, resulting in a failure to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) under cl 101.223(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide a bogus document are deemed to have failed PIC 4020 and a visa refusal will be upheld unless the Minister is satisfied that compelling or compassionate circumstances justify a waiver.
[2024] AATA 30762024-08-16UpheldThe refusal was based on the failure to satisfy Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 cl 101.326, specifically the public interest criteria 4017 under the Migration Act…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants were children of Mr Kazeem Adewale Agboola who applied for Subclass 101 (Child) visas in 2016 while residing in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The refusal was based on the failure to satisfy Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 cl 101.326, specifically the public interest criteria 4017 under the Migration Act 1958 s65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 101 visas must satisfy the public interest criteria 4017; failure to demonstrate that the applicant’s home country permits removal or that lawful parents consent results in refusal.
[2024] AATA 28862024-08-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked, 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, Mr Ali Mushtaq Mukhtar, held a Child (Class AH) subclass 101 visa and had been living in Australia since 2001, but was convicted of multiple serious criminal offences in 2022.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked, considering the character test and Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who fail the character test and are subject to a Ministerial Direction for cancellation under s501(3A) cannot have a mandatory visa cancellation revoked.
[2024] AATA 31872024-08-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of a dependent child under regulation 1.05A(1)(a) and regulation 1.03, requiring at least 12 months…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The visa applicant, an adult child over 18, applied on 8 April 2020 for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa as a dependent of his stepfather, while the review applicant was his mother residing in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of a dependent child under regulation 1.05A(1)(a) and regulation 1.03, requiring at least 12 months of financial dependency prior to the application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must demonstrate at least 12 months of financial dependency before the application to meet the dependent child definition under regulation 1.05A(1)(a).
[2024] AATA 28912024-07-31UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 101.213(1)(c) and 101.213(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which require full‑time study or incapacity…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ms Jasmin Villarta Candelario, sought a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa onshore while raising three children and was not engaged in full‑time study after turning 18.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 101.213(1)(c) and 101.213(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which require full‑time study or incapacity for work after age 18, under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 101 child visas must be engaged in full‑time study or be incapacitated for work after turning 18; a gap year or financial hardship does not satisfy the requirement.
[2024] AATA 29102024-07-30RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the required medical assessment evidence to satisfy clause 101.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 was not provided.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Zainab Jaafar Ali Alsaad was a child applicant for a Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) visa, with her sponsor seeking the visa onshore after an initial refusal.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the required medical assessment evidence to satisfy clause 101.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 was not provided.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a visa refusal for reconsideration when new evidence satisfies the health criteria without the need for a hearing under s 360(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 27852024-07-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 101.223 of the Migration Regulations after providing false or…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Miss Anjali Umeshika Lindara Mudiyanselage applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) subclass 101 visa as the dependent child of the review applicant.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 101.223 of the Migration Regulations after providing false or misleading information about her full‑time study program.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide false or misleading information in a material particular cannot meet Public Interest Criterion 4020 for a Child (Migrant) visa unless the Minister expressly waives the requirement on compassionate or compelling grounds.
[2024] AATA 31002024-07-23UpheldThe Minister cancelled the visa under s109(1) of the Migration Act because the applicant failed to comply with s104 by not notifying a change in marital status.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Suffian Kamara, a Sierra Leone national, held a Subclass 101 (Child) visa granted in July 2018 and was living in Australia for six years when his visa was cancelled in March 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister cancelled the visa under s109(1) of the Migration Act because the applicant failed to comply with s104 by not notifying a change in marital status.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who fail to notify changes in circumstances under s104 are subject to cancellation under s109(1) of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 24472024-06-26RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child requirement under clause 101.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by s 65…
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 visa applicant, a child born in 2004, applied on 19 October 2021 for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa as the dependent child of Mr Ryam Jordan Santiago Almero, who appeared as the review applicant and biological father. The matter was considered onshore in Sydney.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child requirement under clause 101.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the dependent child criteria in clause 101.211 of Schedule 2, including proof of a biological relationship, to be eligible for a Subclass 101 child visa.
[2024] AATA 14752024-06-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under the Migration Act's character test (section 501) should apply given the applicant's substantial…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Somali citizen, held a Child (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa and was onshore in Australia with an extensive criminal history and polysubstance drug addiction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under the Migration Act's character test (section 501) should apply given the applicant's substantial criminal record.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who fail the character test under s 501 and are subject to a Ministerial Direction for mandatory cancellation cannot rely on other grounds to avoid visa cancellation.
[2024] AATA 16642024-05-30Set asideThe issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act could be revoked despite his failure of the character test due…
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 is a 24‑year‑old Papua New Guinea citizen who was onshore holding a Child (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act could be revoked despite his failure of the character test due to a rape conviction.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visas are subject to mandatory cancellation under s 501CA may have the cancellation revoked where the Tribunal identifies another reason that outweighs the character concerns.
[2024] AATA 12212024-05-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 101.211(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly the definition of a dependent or…
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 dependent child of an Australian citizen who applied on 30 December 2019 for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa, with an adoption arrangement that was later being terminated.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 101.211(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, particularly the definition of a dependent or adopted child under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) visa must satisfy the specific dependency and adoption criteria set out in clause 101.211 of the Migration Regulations to be eligible.
[2024] AATA 24532024-05-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4017(b) under the Migration Act and Regulation cl 101.226, which requires consent from…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was a child seeking a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa, with the mother acting as sponsor, and the matter was heard onshore in Melbourne.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4017(b) under the Migration Act and Regulation cl 101.226, which requires consent from each person who can lawfully determine the child’s residence.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Migrant) Subclass 101 visa must satisfy PIC 4017(b) by demonstrating that every person who can lawfully determine the child’s residence consents, and the inability to identify a biological father does not fulfil this requirement.
[2024] AATA 9012024-04-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements for a Subclass 101 (Child) visa, specifically cl 101.213, cl 101.221(2)(b) and PIC 4020 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 applicants, children of an Australian permanent resident, applied for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas in 2016. The delegate refused the visas due to concerns about the authenticity of documents and the applicants' eligibility under the relevant criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements for a Subclass 101 (Child) visa, specifically cl 101.213, cl 101.221(2)(b) and PIC 4020 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Compassionate circumstances, such as the emotional and physical impact of long-term separation on an Australian permanent resident, can justify waiving public interest criteria for a visa.
[2024] AATA 10912024-03-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied public interest criteria 4017 and 4018 under clause 101.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Kamille Dua Khan, a child born through a surrogacy arrangement, applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa while residing offshore, with her parents seeking to sponsor her entry to Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied public interest criteria 4017 and 4018 under clause 101.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by s.65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 101 child visas will meet the eligibility criteria if no compelling reasons exist against their best interests, satisfying public interest criteria 4017 and 4018.
[2024] AATA 11012024-03-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied public interest criterion (PIC) 4017 under Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires consent…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was a Vietnamese child seeking a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 101 visa, with the mother applying on his behalf after a long separation from the father who had not been heard from for 14 years.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied public interest criterion (PIC) 4017 under Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires consent from the other parent.
What the tribunal established
Public interest criterion 4017 is a mandatory requirement for Subclass 101 child visas and does not allow discretion to consider the child’s best interests without the other parent’s consent.
[2024] AATA 7362024-03-14Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, considering the applicant's character and reoffending after…
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 Class AH Subclass 101 Child visa was cancelled due to failing the character test, and the Tribunal reviewed the decision to cancel the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, considering the applicant's character and reoffending after release.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh factors for and against revocation, including the applicant's character and any mitigating circumstances.
[2024] AATA 6502024-03-08RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child criteria under cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101). The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant was not a dependent child. The Tribunal reviewed the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child criteria under cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was under 18 at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
A child applying for a Subclass 101 visa must meet the criteria in Part 101 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including being a dependent child as defined in regulation 1.03.
[2024] AATA 2572024-02-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was engaged in…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Lebanese national, applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) in 2019, being over 18 years old at the time. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was not engaged in study as required by the regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 101.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was engaged in study or incapacitated for work.
What the tribunal established
To be considered a dependent child for a Subclass 101 visa, an applicant over 18 must either be engaged in full-time study or be incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of bodily or mental functions.
[2024] AATA 252024-01-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa applicant, who was over 18, was enrolled in and participating in full-time education at the time of application, as required by…
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 Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 101) as an over-18 child. The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa, focusing on whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.101.213 of the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant, who was over 18, was enrolled in and participating in full-time education at the time of application, as required by cl.101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Migrant) visa who are over 18 must demonstrate they are enrolled in and participating in full-time education to meet the requirements of the visa.
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.