When a orphan relative visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 37 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the visa for an orphaned relative sponsored by an Australian relative. 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 37 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 41% of the time, set it aside 3% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 57% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 21 | 56.8% |
| Upheld | 15 | 40.5% |
| Set aside | 1 | 2.7% |
Counts from 37 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 | 50% |
| 2025 | 8 | 0% |
| 2024 | 27 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 37 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 9862026-05-04Set asideWhether the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked despite the applicant failing 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, an orphan relative visa holder with a mild intellectual disability, was convicted of multiple serious offences and had his visa cancelled under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) the Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation if there is ‘another reason’, applying the primary considerations in Direction 110 such as community safety, family‑violence history and ties to Australia.
[2026] ARTA 2852026-03-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the original visa cancellation should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's 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 sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class AH Subclass 117 Orphan Relative Visa after it was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 because they did not pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the original visa cancellation should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's criminal record and Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA(4), the decision-maker must consider the relevant Ministerial Direction.
[2025] ARTA 29282025-11-28RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of clauses 117.211 and 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
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, Ethiopian nationals, applied for Subclass 117 Orphan Relative visas to join their half-sister in Australia. The Tribunal reviewed the decision regarding whether the applicants met the requirements of the relevant regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of clauses 117.211 and 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding their status as orphan relatives.
What the tribunal established
When assessing applications for orphan relative visas, the Tribunal must consider the best interests of the children and whether they meet the criteria outlined in the relevant regulations.
[2025] ARTA 23942025-10-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should set aside the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, given his failure to pass the…
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 AH Subclass 117 Orphan Relative visa was mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test. The Tribunal considered whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should set aside the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, given his failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider Ministerial Direction No. 110, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 16562025-08-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically that the applicant was a…
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 national of Ethiopia, applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, as the niece of the sponsor, an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically that the applicant was a relative of the sponsor.
What the tribunal established
Where DNA evidence supports a familial relationship, the Tribunal may find that the applicant meets the requirements of cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 23472025-07-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate was correct in cancelling the applicant's visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958, based on non-compliance with ss 101…
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 the decision to cancel their Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa. The visa was cancelled due to the applicant providing incorrect information in their visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate was correct in cancelling the applicant's visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958, based on non-compliance with ss 101, 103, and 105 regarding incorrect evidence.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the visa because the applicant did not comply with the requirements of the Migration Act regarding the provision of correct information.
[2025] ARTA 13332025-07-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the Migration Regulations criteria cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 for a Subclass 117 orphan relative visa and 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 applicants are two Somali brothers, born in 2007 and 2003, who applied onshore for Child (Migrant) Class AH (Subclass 117) visas as orphan relatives, with their uncle acting as sponsor after their parents were deceased or of unknown whereabouts.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the Migration Regulations criteria cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 for a Subclass 117 orphan relative visa and the best‑interest test under reg 1.14(b) and 1.14(c), as required by s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate that at the time of application a parent is deceased or of unknown whereabouts and who meet both cl 117.211 and cl 117.221, together with the best‑interest test, are eligible for a Subclass 117 orphan relative visa even after turning 18.
[2025] ARTA 9222025-03-25RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was found not to satisfy cl 117.223 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, Mr Juhey Jalloh, was onshore applying for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 117 visa after initially applying on 30 May 2019, and was dependent on his sister Ms Fatoumata Diamy Diallo.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was found not to satisfy cl 117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the health requirement in PIC 4005.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate compliance with the specific health requirements of PIC 4005(1)(aa)–(c) for cl 117.223 may have a refusal remitted for reconsideration.
[2025] ARTA 3072025-03-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, specifically concerning the death or unknown whereabouts 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
The applicants, Joe and Elvis, applied for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 117 visas, sponsored by their half-sister, an Australian citizen. The applications were refused by the Minister.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, specifically concerning the death or unknown whereabouts of their parents and compliance with Public Interest Criterion 4020.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an application for a Subclass 117 visa, the decision-maker must consider all relevant evidence, including DNA testing and the best interests of the applicants, to determine if the criteria are met.
[2025] ARTA 7652025-02-19UpheldThe central issue was whether Ms Kamalathevan was exempt from the NARWP under the Social Security Act, specifically whether she qualified as a dependent child of a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Kamalathevan, holding a Subclass 117 visa, applied for Youth Allowance in April 2023 and June 2024. Centrelink rejected her claims, applying a Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period (NARWP).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Ms Kamalathevan was exempt from the NARWP under the Social Security Act, specifically whether she qualified as a dependent child of a refugee.
What the tribunal established
A person is not considered a dependent child of a refugee for the purposes of exemption from the NARWP if they were not financially reliant on the refugee at the time the refugee was granted a permanent protection visa.
[2024] AATA 39872024-09-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 117.221 and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, required to establish her as an…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The visa applicant, a Sierra Leonean child born in 2008, applied on 13 October 2022 for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa with her maternal aunt as sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 117.221 and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, required to establish her as an orphan relative of the sponsor under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 117 orphan relative visa must provide satisfactory evidence that they are an orphan relative under clause 117.211(a) and meet the related regulatory requirements, including proof of the sponsor's relationship and the death of the parents.
[2024] AATA 34852024-09-11RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not provided a completed Form 80, as required by Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) of 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 a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically a Subclass 117 (Orphan relative) visa. The applicant was required to meet Public Interest Criterion 4001.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not provided a completed Form 80, as required by Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Migrant) visa must provide a completed Form 80 if requested, and failure to do so can lead to visa refusal, but providing the form later can resolve the issue.
[2024] AATA 34862024-09-11RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement to provide a…
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, specifically a Subclass 117 (Orphan relative) visa. The delegate refused the visa due to the applicant not providing a completed Form 80.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement to provide a completed Form 80.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant provides a completed Form 80 after the delegate's decision but before the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal can remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 33362024-09-03RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the health criteria under Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 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 a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, which was refused because the delegate found the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations was not met.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the health criteria under Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding medical examinations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa application, the decision-maker must consider all relevant information, including updated advice from the Department, to ensure the applicant meets the health criteria.
[2024] AATA 33422024-09-03RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria under Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically…
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 refusing to grant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria under Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding medical assessments.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Migrant) visa must meet the health criteria outlined in Public Interest Criterion 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including undergoing required medical assessments.
[2024] AATA 21912024-06-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, proving both parents were deceased, under s 65 of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Miss Butoyi Kanefu applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) Class AH Subclass 117 orphan‑relative visa as a minor with no spouse or partner, claiming she was an orphan of Australian relatives.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, proving both parents were deceased, under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for an orphan‑relative visa must provide credible evidence that both parents are dead or unavailable to meet reg 1.14(b) and clause 117.211; unverified claims are insufficient.
[2024] AATA 21922024-06-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, i.e., proving her parents were dead, and whether a waiver…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Miss Diana Kanefu applied onshore for a Child (Migrant) Class AH Subclass 117 orphan‑relative visa; she was a minor with no partner and claimed her parents were deceased.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, i.e., proving her parents were dead, and whether a waiver under PIC 4020 could be applied.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for subclass 117 orphan‑relative visas must provide credible evidence that both parents are deceased to satisfy reg 1.14(b), and a PIC 4020 waiver will not be granted without satisfactory justification.
[2024] AATA 22982024-06-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicants did not satisfy the regulatory criteria for Subclass 117, including age…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
An Australian citizen sponsor sought Child (Migrant) Class AH (Subclass 117 orphan relative) visas for four children from Somalia, alleging compelling circumstances and presenting disputed documents.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicants did not satisfy the regulatory criteria for Subclass 117, including age requirements and Public Interest Criterion 4020.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 117 orphan relative visas must meet all specified regulatory criteria, including age, relationship and Public Interest Criterion 4020, or the decision may be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 30192024-05-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the age requirement under s65 of the Migration Act and cl 117.211 of the Migration Regulations for a Subclass 117 visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The Hamed brothers applied for Subclass 117 orphan relative visas in 2017, but were over 18 years old at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the age requirement under s65 of the Migration Act and cl 117.211 of the Migration Regulations for a Subclass 117 visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must be under 18 years of age at the time of application to qualify for a Subclass 117 orphan relative visa.
[2024] AATA 24732024-05-03UpheldThe Tribunal needed to decide whether the applicant met regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, which require proof that both parents are dead, permanently…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Miss Lagrace Kalenda, a Congolese child residing in Malawi, applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 117 orphan‑relative visa as the child of an Australian citizen father.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal needed to decide whether the applicant met regulation 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, which require proof that both parents are dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 117 orphan‑relative visa must provide credible evidence that both parents are deceased, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts to satisfy reg 1.14(b) and clause 117.211.
[2024] AATA 24812024-05-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 1.14(a)(iii) and 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, i.e., proving the parents were deceased or of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The visa applicant, a Congolese child residing in Malawi, sought a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) Subclass 117 orphan relative visa with an Australian citizen parent as the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 1.14(a)(iii) and 1.14(b) and clause 117.211 of Schedule 2, i.e., proving the parents were deceased or of unknown whereabouts.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 117 orphan relative visa must provide credible evidence that both parents are dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts to satisfy reg 1.14(b).
[2024] AATA 35412024-04-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the Subclass 117 visa, specifically whether they could not be cared for by either parent due to death…
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 sought Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, specifically the Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa. They were applying as nieces and nephews of an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the Subclass 117 visa, specifically whether they could not be cared for by either parent due to death or unknown whereabouts, as per clause 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 117 visa will be considered an orphan relative if they cannot be cared for by either parent because each of them is either dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts.
[2024] AATA 12192024-04-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 117 visa, particularly cl.117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires 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 applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically the Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, but was over 18 at the time of the decision. The applicant's parents were deceased, and he was living in a third country with his aunt and cousin.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 117 visa, particularly cl.117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires the applicant to be under 18 at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant for a Subclass 117 visa meets the criteria at the time of application, but no longer meets a criterion due to circumstances arising after the application, the application may be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 10902024-03-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants failed to satisfy PIC 4020 because of alleged false or misleading information about the mother’s death, invoking s 65 of 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
Miss Makoya K Sesay and her family applied onshore for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas (subclass 117 Orphan Relative) for herself, her husband and their child. The applications were refused on the basis that they did not meet Public Interest Criterion 4020 under cl 117.223/117.321 of the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants failed to satisfy PIC 4020 because of alleged false or misleading information about the mother’s death, invoking s 65 of the Migration Act and the relevant regulation clauses.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose Child (Migrant) visa refusal is based on PIC 4020 can have the decision remitted if they can demonstrate compassionate or compelling circumstances that justify a waiver of the public interest requirement.
[2024] AATA 24842024-03-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of an orphan relative under regulation 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, 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 was a child seeking a Child (Migrant) Class AH Subclass 117 orphan relative visa onshore in Australia, claiming he could not be cared for by his parents who were dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of an orphan relative under regulation 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by clause 117.211.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the strict definition of “orphan relative” in regulation 1.14(b), proving both parents are dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts at the time of application.
[2024] AATA 24832024-03-18RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of an orphan relative under Regulation 1.14 and the criteria of clause 117.211 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 was a child under 18, the maternal aunt’s nephew, applying onshore in Australia for a Child (Migrant) Class AH (Subclass 117 Orphan Relative) visa after the death of his mother and the unknown whereabouts of his father.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of an orphan relative under Regulation 1.14 and the criteria of clause 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who satisfy the orphan relative definition in reg 1.14 and meet clauses 117.211 and 117.221 are eligible for a Subclass 117 visa, subject to further assessment of any remaining criteria.
[2024] AATA 24712024-03-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met regulation 1.14 and clause 117.211, which require that both parents be dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a minor without a spouse or partner, sought a Child (Migrant) Class AH (Subclass 117 orphan relative) visa onshore with an Australian family sponsor while his parents were in Ethiopia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met regulation 1.14 and clause 117.211, which require that both parents be dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 117 orphan‑relative visa must satisfy regulation 1.14 and clause 117.211 by proving both parents are dead, permanently incapacitated or their whereabouts are unknown.
[2024] AATA 6382024-03-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, specifically clauses 117.211 and 117.221 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 applicants, residing in Ghana, applied for Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, sponsored by their aunt, an Australian permanent resident. The Tribunal reviewed the refusal of their applications.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, specifically clauses 117.211 and 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 117 visa must meet the criteria in clauses 117.211 and 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations at the time of application and decision.
[2024] AATA 6162024-02-23RemittedThe central issue was whether the primary visa applicants met the requirements of clause 117.211 and clause 117.221 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 applicants sought Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, specifically the Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa. The delegate refused the visa, and the applicants appealed to the AAT.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the primary visa applicants met the requirements of clause 117.211 and clause 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa must meet the criteria in Part 117 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including the definition of orphan relative in regulation 1.14.
[2024] AATA 3682024-02-22RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of reg 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations, specifically whether the applicant could not be cared…
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, specifically the Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa, sponsored by their relative. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet the requirements of reg 1.14(b).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of reg 1.14(b) of the Migration Regulations, specifically whether the applicant could not be cared for by either parent because each of them is either dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa must demonstrate that they cannot be cared for by either parent because each of them is either dead, permanently incapacitated or of unknown whereabouts.
[2024] AATA 3632024-02-16UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant failed to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020, specifically regarding the provision of bogus documents or misleading…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Eric Nitegeka, applied for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 117 - Orphan Relative) on 26 May 2020. The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant failed to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020, specifically regarding the provision of bogus documents or misleading information.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a visa who provide bogus documents or misleading information may be refused a visa unless there are compelling or compassionate circumstances.
[2024] AATA 5422024-02-13RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding…
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 refusing a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa. The applicant claimed to meet the criteria for a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding the parents' inability to care for the applicant.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an application for an Orphan Relative visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant meets the criteria outlined in the Migration Regulations, specifically regarding the parents' inability to care for the applicant.
[2024] AATA 6992024-01-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the first applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 117 visa, specifically cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 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 sought Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, specifically a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa. The first applicant was the younger sibling of the visa applicant, and the Tribunal considered whether she met the requirements for the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the first applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 117 visa, specifically cl 117.211 and cl 117.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
When considering an application for an Orphan Relative visa, the Tribunal must assess whether the applicant meets the criteria specified in the Migration Regulations, including age and guardianship requirements.
[2024] AATA 6472024-01-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether 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, an Australian citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa for his niece, a South African citizen. The visa was sought under the Orphan Relative (Subclass 117) stream.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the applicant's parents were dead, permanently incapacitated, or of unknown whereabouts.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 117 visa cannot be considered an orphan if their parents' whereabouts are known at the time of application, even if there is limited contact.
[2024] AATA 1002024-01-17RemittedThe central issue was whether the first applicant met the definition of an orphan relative under regulation 1.14 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether…
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 sought Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas, specifically Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visas, as orphans of an Australian relative. The delegate refused the visas because the first applicant did not meet the criteria under cl 117.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the first applicant met the definition of an orphan relative under regulation 1.14 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether there was a compelling reason to believe that the grant of a visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an orphan relative visa application, the Tribunal must consider whether there is a compelling reason to believe that the grant of a visa would not be in the best interests of the applicant.
[2024] AATA 432024-01-09RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 117.211 and cl 117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
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, Mr. Jan Mohammad Sultani and Mr. Nematullah Sultani, sought Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visas as orphan relatives. The delegate refused the visas because the applicants did not satisfy the requirements of cl 117.211 and cl 117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 117.211 and cl 117.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the death of their parents and the provision of potentially bogus documents.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an application for an orphan relative visa, the Tribunal must consider all relevant evidence, including the validity of death certificates and the application of Public Interest Criterion 4020.
[2024] AATA 262024-01-04UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the identity requirements under PIC 4020(2A) of Schedule 4 of 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 sought a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa (Subclass 117, Orphan Relative). The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not satisfy the identity requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the identity requirements under PIC 4020(2A) of Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Child (Migrant) visa must satisfy the identity requirements as per PIC 4020(2A) of Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
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.