When a business innovation and investment visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 25 such decisions (2024 to 2025), covering the provisional business and investment visa. Here is what actually happened in them, straight from the published record.
These figures describe decisions that have already been made. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, so they are a picture of the past, not a prediction. This is general information, not migration advice.
How to read these decisions
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Until 14 October 2024 it was called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). When someone is refused a visa or has one cancelled, they can often ask the tribunal to look at the decision again.
- Upheld / Affirmed
- The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stands (the applicant lost).
- Set aside
- The tribunal disagreed with the original decision and replaced it (the applicant won).
- Remitted
- The case was sent back to Home Affairs to decide again, with directions (a fresh chance for the applicant).
- Overturned
- The original decision was reversed. On these pages we group overturned decisions under "Set aside" above.
Citations follow a simple pattern: [2026] ARTA 315 means decision number 315 of the tribunal in 2026. Older decisions use AAT in place of ARTA.
What the tribunal decided
Across these 25 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 52% of the time, set it aside 0% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 48% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 13 | 52.0% |
| Remitted | 12 | 48.0% |
Counts from 25 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 4 | 0% |
| 2024 | 21 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 25 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.
[2025] ARTA 16582025-08-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the primary applicant met the requirements of cl 188.242(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the points test…
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 Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visas, specifically the Investor Stream of the Subclass 188 visa. The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not score the required points on the business innovation and investment points test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the primary applicant met the requirements of cl 188.242(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the points test for the Investor Stream.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 188 visa must meet the points test requirements as specified by the Minister.
[2025] ARTA 21302025-07-09RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's business and investment activities were of a nature not generally acceptable in Australia, as per cl 188.211 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 sought a Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa in the Significant Investor stream. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 188.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's business and investment activities were of a nature not generally acceptable in Australia, as per cl 188.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 188 visa in the Significant Investor stream must demonstrate that their business and investment activities are of a nature generally acceptable in Australia.
[2025] ARTA 3962025-03-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal under s65 of the Migration Act and the related subclass 188 criteria.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Anh Khoa Nguyen was the primary applicant for a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) subclass 188 visa and was offshore when the visa and subsequent review applications were made.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal under s65 of the Migration Act and the related subclass 188 criteria.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are not present in Australia at the time of a Business Skills (Provisional) visa application cannot have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal.
[2025] ARTA 3312025-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether they satisfied the asset requirement of clause 188.245 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates net business and personal assets…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, including Mr Yigeng Liu and his family, were onshore in Australia and had applied on 29 June 2021 for Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visas in the Investor stream of the Subclass 188 program.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether they satisfied the asset requirement of clause 188.245 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates net business and personal assets of at least $2.25 million for each of the two fiscal years before the invitation.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide verifiable evidence of net business and personal assets of at least $2.25 million for each of the two fiscal years prior to invitation, and arrangements that do not clearly establish ownership cannot satisfy the asset test.
[2024] ARTA 132024-11-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of 'member of the family unit' under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically cl 188.311 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 applicant sought a Business Skills (Provisional) visa, but the delegate refused it because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 188.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant was seeking to be included as a member of the family unit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of 'member of the family unit' under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically cl 188.311 of Schedule 2, which requires the applicant to be a member of the primary applicant's family unit at the time of decision.
What the tribunal established
A person can be considered a member of the family unit if they are wholly or substantially reliant on the primary applicant for financial support because the person is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions.
[2024] ARTA 1142024-11-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's score on the business innovation and investment points test met the minimum points specified by the Minister under cl…
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 review of a decision refusing their Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visas. The first applicant had applied for a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's score on the business innovation and investment points test met the minimum points specified by the Minister under cl 188.222(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 188 visa must achieve the minimum score on the business innovation and investment points test as specified by the Minister.
[2024] AATA 36902024-09-24UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the ownership and AUD 500,000 turnover requirements of clause 188.225 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 Chopra family applied onshore in Australia on 29 November 2019 for a Business Innovation stream Subclass 188 (Business Skills Provisional) visa as owners of a sole‑trader business.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the ownership and AUD 500,000 turnover requirements of clause 188.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 188 Business Innovation visa must independently satisfy both the ownership interest and the AUD 500,000 turnover threshold for at least two of the four fiscal years before the invitation.
[2024] AATA 34882024-09-16UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide documentation to support the claim that the business and personal assets had a net value of at least…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, Mr. Zhang and Ms. Yuan, applied for a Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) Subclass 188 visa in the Investor stream. Mr. Zhang was on a Bridging visa A and Ms. Yuan was on a Bridging visa C.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide documentation to support the claim that the business and personal assets had a net value of at least AUD2,250,000 as required by cl 188.245 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) Subclass 188 visa must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate they meet the financial requirements outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 30002024-08-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the net asset requirement under clause 188.245(a) 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
Mr Douli Wang applied onshore for a Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) Subclass 188 visa in the Investor stream and was required to demonstrate net business and personal assets of at least AUD2.25 million, with no supporting financial documentation provided.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the net asset requirement under clause 188.245(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide satisfactory evidence that their net business and personal assets meet the minimum threshold set out in clause 188.245 of the Migration Regulations to be granted a Subclass 188 Investor visa.
[2024] AATA 31902024-08-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied clause 188.245 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires documentary evidence of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Peng Sun and his son Chengze Sun applied onshore for Business Skills (Provisional) Class EB (Subclass 188 Investor) visas, but had not supplied the required documentary evidence to support the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied clause 188.245 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires documentary evidence of the investment and assets.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide the documentary evidence required by clause 188.245 of the Migration Regulations to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 188 Investor visa.
[2024] AATA 28022024-07-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied regulation 1.11(1)(b) and clause 188.225 requiring direct and continuous day‑to‑day involvement in business…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The primary applicant, a former nurse living onshore in Australia, applied with her husband and child for Business Skills (Provisional) Class EB (subclass 188) visas.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied regulation 1.11(1)(b) and clause 188.225 requiring direct and continuous day‑to‑day involvement in business management.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide verifiable evidence of direct and continuous day‑to‑day management to satisfy reg 1.11(1)(b) for subclass 188 Business Innovation visas.
[2024] AATA 28212024-07-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires provision of a statement or police…
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, including Mr Du Sang Truong as the primary applicant, applied onshore for Business Skills (Provisional) Subclass 188 visas with his family members included in the family unit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires provision of a statement or police certificate evidencing criminal history for each country of residence.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit visa decisions when an applicant subsequently provides the criminal history documentation required under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a).
[2024] AATA 23382024-06-24UpheldThe delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act because the primary applicant was found to have provided a bogus document, breaching cl 188.213 of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The family applied onshore for Business Skills (Provisional) subclass 188 visas on 18 October 2019, seeking to meet the investment and business requirements of the stream.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act because the primary applicant was found to have provided a bogus document, breaching cl 188.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who submit bogus or false documents cannot successfully obtain a ministerial waiver of visa criteria under s 65(4) and the Tribunal will uphold refusals on that basis.
[2024] AATA 22482024-06-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visas on the basis that the first applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information, breaching clause 188.213 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 family group applied onshore for Business Skills (Provisional) subclass 188 visas after their initial application on 12 December 2019, with the first named applicant seeking the visa while the family were in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas on the basis that the first applicant had provided a bogus document or false or misleading information, breaching clause 188.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 and s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Public Interest Criterion 4020 can be waived where compelling compassionate circumstances are demonstrated, even if a bogus document allegation exists.
[2024] AATA 16242024-05-28RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the applicants satisfied the primary asset requirement of cl 188.226 of Schedule 2 to…
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 Weizhong Ye, a Chinese businessman, arrived in Australia in 2019 and applied onshore with his family for a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) Subclass 188 visa in the Business Innovation stream.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the applicants satisfied the primary asset requirement of cl 188.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate that their net business and personal assets meet the threshold in cl 188.226 are eligible for a Subclass 188 Business Innovation visa and the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 16032024-05-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was deemed not to satisfy cl 188.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires…
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 Alexander Lebedev applied on 9 January 2020 for a Business Skills (Provisional) Class EB visa (Subclass 188 Business Innovation stream) while holding an ownership interest in the nominated business.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was deemed not to satisfy cl 188.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires the nominated business to be the applicant’s main business for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before invitation.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate that the nominated business is their main business for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before invitation to satisfy cl 188.225 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 16042024-05-22RemittedThe central issue was whether Mr Bansal satisfied the Migration Regulations 1994, cl.188.232, which requires an applicant to have an ownership interest in a qualifying…
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 Aakhesh Kumar Bansal and his family, residing onshore in Australia, applied for a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa while owning a convenience store and a retail tobacconist business.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Mr Bansal satisfied the Migration Regulations 1994, cl.188.232, which requires an applicant to have an ownership interest in a qualifying business at the relevant times.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must prove both current ownership and ongoing interest in a qualifying business under cl.188.232 to meet the primary criteria for a Subclass 188 visa.
[2024] AATA 11142024-05-06RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 188.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically the points test score requirement for the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa, which was refused. The Tribunal reviewed the decision regarding the applicant's eligibility for a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 188.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically the points test score requirement for the visa.
What the tribunal established
When calculating the net value of an applicant's assets in a business for a Subclass 188 visa, a director's loan properly recorded on financial statements can be included as an asset.
[2024] AATA 9462024-04-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the family‑unit requirement in clause 188.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Kuan Liu and Mr Jing Liu applied onshore as members of the family unit of primary applicant Mr Shaoquiang Liu for a Business Skills (Provisional) subclass 188 visa, claiming dependent child status.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the family‑unit requirement in clause 188.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of the decision.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the specific family‑unit and dependence requirements of clause 188.311 at the time of decision to be eligible for a Business Skills (Provisional) visa.
[2024] AATA 12222024-04-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the member of the family unit requirement under clause 188.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 23‑year‑old child of a father holding a Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa, applied onshore for a Business Skills (Provisional) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the member of the family unit requirement under clause 188.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the dependency test in regulation 1.05A(1)(b).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are 23 years old must satisfy the dependency requirements in regulation 1.05A(1)(b) to be regarded as members of the family unit for subclass 188 visa eligibility.
[2024] AATA 9322024-04-03RemittedThe delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the applicants met the financial asset requirement of cl 188.222 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, who previously held Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visas granted in 2016, returned to Iran and applied on 19 November 2020 for Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visas as business owners.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the applicants met the financial asset requirement of cl 188.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate net business and personal assets of more than AUD 2.25 million for the two fiscal years immediately before invitation satisfy cl 188.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, prompting the Tribunal to remit the matter for further consideration.
[2024] AATA 6892024-03-26RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 188 visa, specifically clauses 188.231, 188.232, and 188.233 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 a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa, specifically a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa. The primary applicant, Mrs. Latif, was seeking to operate a business in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 188 visa, specifically clauses 188.231, 188.232, and 188.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 188 visa must demonstrate a genuine and realistic commitment to maintaining ownership and involvement in their business.
[2024] AATA 2892024-02-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa, specifically…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, holding Subclass 188 visas in the Significant Investor stream, applied for a second extension of their visas, which was refused. They had previously held a complying significant investment.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa, specifically concerning the requirements for maintaining a complying significant investment.
What the tribunal established
To maintain a complying significant investment, an investor must reinvest withdrawn funds within 30 days to avoid a lapse in compliance.
[2024] AATA 2082024-02-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 188.252(1) and regulation 5.19C, specifically whether the funds for the complying significant…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visas, specifically Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visas under the Significant Investor Stream.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 188.252(1) and regulation 5.19C, specifically whether the funds for the complying significant investment were lawfully acquired.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 188 visa under the Significant Investor Stream must provide verifiable evidence that the funds for their complying significant investment were lawfully acquired.
[2024] AATA 1382024-01-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the first applicant met the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 of Schedule 4 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 applicants applied for Business Skills (Provisional) visas (subclass 188). The delegate refused the visa to the first applicant because they did not meet the health criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the first applicant met the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the significant cost to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a visa will be refused if their medical condition is likely to result in a significant cost to the Australian community in the areas of health care and community services.
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.