When a regional sponsored migration scheme visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 28 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the permanent employer-sponsored visa for regional Australia. 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 28 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 68% of the time, set it aside 18% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 14% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 19 | 67.9% |
| Set aside | 5 | 17.9% |
| Remitted | 4 | 14.3% |
Counts from 28 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 2 | 0% |
| 2025 | 2 | 50% |
| 2024 | 24 | 17% |
Recent decisions
The 28 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 8452026-04-17RemittedThe applicant failed to disclose previous convictions in the UK, which were considered spent convictions, and the Department suspected that the applicant had 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
The applicant, Mr Dean Stuart Martin Moore, applied for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, but the application was refused due to concerns about the applicant's disclosure of previous convictions.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant failed to disclose previous convictions in the UK, which were considered spent convictions, and the Department suspected that the applicant had provided false or misleading information.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal applied the principle that an element of fraud or deception is necessary to attract the operation of Public Interest Criterion 4020.
[2026] ARTA 3722026-01-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria in PIC 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically cl 187.235(3) of Schedule…
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 a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa, but the delegate refused the visa due to the health criteria of a non-migrating family member not being met.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria in PIC 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically cl 187.235(3) of Schedule 2, due to a medical condition of the applicant's son.
What the tribunal established
When assessing health criteria for a visa, the Tribunal must consider all relevant information, including new medical opinions and the specific circumstances of the applicant and their family.
[2025] ARTA 4112025-02-19RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, including the approved…
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 a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The delegate initially refused the visa due to the nomination not being approved.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 187 visa, specifically cl.187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, including the approved nomination and the availability of the position.
What the tribunal established
For a Subclass 187 visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the applicant must meet the criteria in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, including an approved nomination and the position still being available.
[2025] ARTA 3042025-01-21Set asideThe Minister decided to cancel the applicant's Subclass 187 visa under section 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958. The central issue was whether the applicant provided…
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 India, had his Subclass 187 visa cancelled by the Minister. He had previously held student visas and applied for the 187 visa in 2017. At the time of the review, he stated he had no work.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister decided to cancel the applicant's Subclass 187 visa under section 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958. The central issue was whether the applicant provided incorrect information in his visa application.
What the tribunal established
A visa should not be cancelled if the applicant did not provide incorrect information in the visa application and the nomination was authorized.
[2024] AATA 40432024-10-10Set asideThe central issue was whether the nomination satisfied reg 5.19(10)(b) of the Migration Regulations because the Chef occupation was listed in the occupational caveat LIN…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Blackman's Brewery Pty Ltd, an Australian business, applied onshore for approval of a nomination for a Chef (ANZSCO 351311) under the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the nomination satisfied reg 5.19(10)(b) of the Migration Regulations because the Chef occupation was listed in the occupational caveat LIN 19/049.
What the tribunal established
An occupational caveat in a Legislative Instrument does not automatically preclude a Direct Entry nomination if the applicant can demonstrate that the position satisfies the substantive requirements of reg 5.19.
[2024] AATA 37142024-09-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005 under clause 187.235 of Schedule 2 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 applicants (Mrs Renuka Sharma, Mr Karan Mahant and their son Master Riyansh) applied onshore for Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 187 visas and were assessed for health criteria, with the child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005 under clause 187.235 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required by the Migration Act s 65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 187 Regional Employer Nomination visa must meet Public Interest Criterion 4005, demonstrating they are free from conditions that could impose significant health or community service costs on Australia.
[2024] AATA 32332024-08-21UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the nominator was not actively and lawfully operating, which constituted adverse information under clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants applied for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, specifically the Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa, as a pastry cook. The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the nominator was not actively and lawfully operating, which constituted adverse information under clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
For a Subclass 187 visa, the nominator must be actively and lawfully operating at the time of the decision.
[2024] AATA 31412024-08-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the primary criteria for a Subclass 187 visa under s65 of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation r 1.15C schedule 2 cl…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, Janos Szilvasi and Anna Sarmai, were onshore long‑term residents who applied on 2 November 2022 for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 187 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream as a welder, having lived and worked in Australia for 22 years and raising an Australian‑born son.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the primary criteria for a Subclass 187 visa under s65 of the Migration Act 1958 and regulation r 1.15C schedule 2 cl 187.222, including English language and points requirements.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 187 visa must satisfy both the common criteria and the specific primary stream criteria, and failure to meet any component results in refusal regardless of long residence.
[2024] AATA 31372024-08-16Set asideThe delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine need for the chef under reg 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Fitzroy Childcare Pty Ltd, an early learning centre, applied onshore to have a Chef (ANZSCO 351311) nominated under the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine need for the chef under reg 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can satisfy the genuine need requirement in reg 5.19(4) must have their employer nomination approved under the Direct Entry stream.
[2024] AATA 29652024-08-06Set asideThe delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the business did not satisfy Regulation 5.19(9)(g) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires capacity to…
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, Tulum Turkish Restaurant Pty Ltd, sought approval of a nomination for a chef under the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa, operating onshore in Adelaide.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the business did not satisfy Regulation 5.19(9)(g) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires capacity to employ the nominee for at least two years at the market salary rate.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate, through financial and operational evidence, that their business can employ a nominated worker for at least two years at the market salary satisfy Reg 5.19(9)(g) and must be granted nomination approval.
[2024] AATA 23412024-06-25UpheldThe issue was whether the nominator satisfied regulation 187.233(5) of the Migration Regulations, which requires the nominating business to be actively and lawfully…
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 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream to work as a Retail Manager, with the primary applicant and three secondary family members applying onshore.
The question before the tribunal
The issue was whether the nominator satisfied regulation 187.233(5) of the Migration Regulations, which requires the nominating business to be actively and lawfully operating and able to provide the nominated position for at least two years.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 187 Direct Entry visa must meet regulation 187.233(5), proving the nominating business is actively and lawfully operating and can provide the nominated position for the required period.
[2024] AATA 11972024-05-10UpheldThe delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants (Mr and Mrs Ngoap and their child) applied onshore for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 187 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream to work as a dairy cattle farmer.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved employer nomination, under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa must have an approved employer nomination to meet clause 187.223 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 11982024-05-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved employer nomination, under…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Cromwell Buzon applied onshore for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) subclass 187 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream as a dairy cattle farmer.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved employer nomination, under the Migration Act s 65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 187 visa must have an approved employer nomination to meet the regulatory nomination requirement; without it the visa must be refused.
[2024] AATA 10642024-04-19Set asideThe delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the application did not satisfy Regulation 5.19(9)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Azooba The Food Wonderland Pty Ltd, an Australian restaurant business, applied onshore to nominate a Chef under the Direct Entry stream of the Subclass 187 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination on the basis that the application did not satisfy Regulation 5.19(9)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine need for the nominee under the direct control of the employer.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet the genuine‑need requirement for a Direct Entry nomination by demonstrating that the nominated position is essential to the business and that the nominee will carry out the full occupational duties.
[2024] AATA 9152024-04-18UpheldThe delegate refused the nomination because the applicant did not satisfy reg 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which concerns the genuine need for…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mitchell Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd applied for approval of a nomination for Ms Thuy Minh Truong, a Vietnamese citizen, for a Marketing Specialist position under the Direct Entry nomination stream for a Subclass 187 RSMS visa. The related visa application was refused when the nomination failed.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the nomination because the applicant did not satisfy reg 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which concerns the genuine need for the employment.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Direct Entry nomination, there must be a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control.
[2024] AATA 36402024-04-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria under s.73 of the Migration Act and subclass 020.211, 020.212(2) and 020.221 requirements for a Bridging B…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants – a husband, wife and their child – were onshore and had substantive visa applications (subclass 187 and 482) but were not holding a Bridging A or Bridging B visa when they applied for a Bridging B (Class WB) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria under s.73 of the Migration Act and subclass 020.211, 020.212(2) and 020.221 requirements for a Bridging B (Class WB) visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must be holders of a Bridging A or Bridging B visa at the time of applying for a Bridging B (Class WB) visa and satisfy the specific subclass 020 criteria, otherwise the visa cannot be granted.
[2024] AATA 6882024-03-26UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically because the nomination had been…
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 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa (Subclass 187) under the Temporary Residence Transition stream. The first applicant was nominated as Chief Executive or Managing Director.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically because the nomination had been refused.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 187 visa under the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the position must be the subject of an approved nomination.
[2024] AATA 7522024-03-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approved position…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas (Subclass 187) under the Direct Entry stream, with the primary applicant nominated for the position of Secretary (General). The delegate refused the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 187.233 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the approved position nomination.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 187 visa, the applicant must satisfy the criteria in Part 187 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including the requirement that the position was nominated in an approved application.
[2024] AATA 5892024-03-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 187.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an applicant to be a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (subclass 187) visas. The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not meet the nomination requirements and the family members did not meet the requirements to be considered members of the family unit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 187.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires an applicant to be a member of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 187 visa.
What the tribunal established
To be considered a member of the family unit for the purposes of a subclass 187 visa, an applicant must meet the definition in reg 1.12 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2024] AATA 5272024-03-12UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the nomination to which the application related had not been approved, specifically failing to meet clause 187.233(1) of Schedule 2…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants applied for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa under the Direct Entry stream, with the first applicant seeking to work as a Hair or Beauty Salon Manager. The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the nomination to which the application related had not been approved, specifically failing to meet clause 187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 187 visa under the Direct Entry stream, the nomination for the position must be approved by the Minister.
[2024] AATA 5112024-03-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nomination for…
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 Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream as a Café or Restaurant Manager. The delegate refused the visa because the nomination had not been approved.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 187.233(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the nomination for the position had been approved.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream must have a nomination that has been approved by the Minister.
[2024] AATA 5052024-03-05UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as the nomination application for 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 a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream, with a nominated position as a Motor Mechanic (General). The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as the nomination application for the position was not approved.
What the tribunal established
For a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, the nomination by the employer must be approved by the Minister for the visa to be granted.
[2024] AATA 5042024-02-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the Minister had approved 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 a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream to work as a Mixed Crop Farmer. The applicant's employer nomination was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met cl 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the Minister had approved the employer nomination.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, the Minister must have approved the employer nomination.
[2024] AATA 6842024-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria of cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the Minister had…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants applied for a Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream, with the first applicant nominated as a Customer Service Manager. The delegate refused the visas because the nomination was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria of cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the Minister had approved the nomination.
What the tribunal established
For a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream, the Minister must have approved the nomination for the applicant to meet the criteria.
[2024] AATA 2142024-02-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically…
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 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa (subclass 187). The delegate refused the visa because the applicant's son, a non-migrating family member, did not meet the health criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion 4007 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically concerning the son's medical condition.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal is generally bound to accept the opinion of a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth regarding health criteria, unless there is a basis to depart from that opinion.
[2024] AATA 1312024-01-25UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to approved nominations.
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 Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under the Direct Entry stream to work as a Café Manager, but the employer's nomination was not approved.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to approved nominations.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa under the Direct Entry stream, an applicant must meet the requirements of clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including having an approved nomination.
[2024] AATA 1442024-01-09UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 187.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as the position would not provide the…
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 Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa in the Direct Entry stream as a Cook, but the nominated position was no longer available.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet cl 187.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, as the position would not provide the applicant with the employment referred to in the application.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry stream must demonstrate that the nominated position will provide the applicant with the employment referred to in the application.
[2024] AATA 132024-01-03RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 and the secondary applicants failed…
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 Muhammad Shabir applied onshore for a Regional Employer Nomination (Class RN) Subclass 187 visa as the primary applicant, with his spouse and children as secondary applicants.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 187.233(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 and the secondary applicants failed to meet clause 187.311.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit visa applications for reconsideration when the applicant has not satisfied the specific regulatory criteria, requiring compliance with the relevant clause of Schedule 2.
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.