When a refugee 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 offshore visa for people subject to persecution in their home country. 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 46% of the time, set it aside 50% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 4% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Set aside | 14 | 50.0% |
| Upheld | 13 | 46.4% |
| Remitted | 1 | 3.6% |
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 | 6 | 50% |
| 2025 | 15 | 47% |
| 2024 | 7 | 57% |
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 7222026-04-24Set asideWhether the delegate’s discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) should be affirmed in light of the applicant’s criminal conduct and Direction 110.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
An Iraqi refugee granted a subclass 200 visa was convicted of possession of child abuse material and later had his visa cancelled under s 501(2).
The question before the tribunal
Whether the delegate’s discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) should be affirmed in light of the applicant’s criminal conduct and Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When exercising discretion under s 501(2), the decision‑maker must apply Direction 110, giving primary weight to protection of the Australian community and the seriousness of the conduct, and may set aside cancellation if the balance of considerations does not justify it.
[2026] ARTA 4752026-03-30UpheldThe central issue was whether the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a Subclass 200 Refugee visa in 2011, had his visa cancelled after being convicted of domestic violence offences. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct, considering the character test and Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
When assessing visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh all relevant considerations, including those in Ministerial Direction 110, to determine if there are reasons to revoke the original decision.
[2026] ARTA 8012026-03-30Set asideThe applicant's criminal history and failure to pass the character test were in dispute, with the delegate exercising discretion to refuse the visa under s 501(1) of the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was denied a protection visa on discretionary grounds due to his failure to pass the character test following a conviction for raping his daughter.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's criminal history and failure to pass the character test were in dispute, with the delegate exercising discretion to refuse the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 2972026-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, given he did not pass the character test under s…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Liberia, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, given he did not pass the character test under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including the applicant's character and the public interest.
[2026] ARTA 4162026-02-06Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the application of Ministerial Direction…
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 Myanmar, had a Class XB (Subclass 200) Refugee Visa and faced mandatory visa cancellation due to a substantial criminal record and not passing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the application of Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may set aside the decision if there is another reason to revoke the cancellation, taking into account relevant Ministerial Directions.
[2026] ARTA 822026-01-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be revoked, considering his criminal record and the requirements of s 501CA (4) of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Myanmar, had his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including arson and possession of child abuse material. The applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be revoked, considering his criminal record and the requirements of s 501CA (4) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA (4) of the Migration Act, the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community may outweigh other considerations.
[2025] ARTA 27682025-12-24UpheldThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, considering 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, a citizen of Myanmar, had his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act due to failing the character test because of sexually based offences involving a child.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's criminal conduct and the relevant Ministerial Direction.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501(3A) and Direction 110, the protection of the Australian community is generally given greater weight than other primary considerations.
[2025] ARTA 26492025-12-10Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, born in Iraq, held a Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa. The Minister sought to cancel the visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant's criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, considering the character test and relevant Ministerial Directions.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501(2), the Tribunal must weigh all relevant considerations, giving greater weight to primary considerations as per Ministerial Direction No 110, to determine whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.
[2025] ARTA 25772025-11-28Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa, based on the applicant failing the character test, should be revoked.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant's Refugee (Class XB) (Subclass 200) visa was cancelled. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa, based on the applicant failing the character test, should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Direction 110, and the potential impact on the applicant.
[2025] ARTA 23992025-11-12Set asideThe central issue was whether the application for review was lodged within the 9-day time limit prescribed by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act, as the Tribunal had no…
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, who held a Refugee (Class XB) (Subclass 200) visa, had their visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act and sought review of the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the application for review was lodged within the 9-day time limit prescribed by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act, as the Tribunal had no discretion to extend the time.
What the tribunal established
The Administrative Review Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision if the application for review is lodged outside the timeframe specified in s 500(6B) of the Migration Act.
[2025] ARTA 23512025-10-30UpheldThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA of the Migration Act 1958, considering…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Iraq, held a Refugee (Class XB) (Subclass 200) visa. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA of the Migration Act 1958, considering his criminal record and the Ministerial Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s501CA, the Tribunal must balance the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, with the protection of the Australian community being a significant factor.
[2025] ARTA 24682025-10-22Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant's Class XB Subclass 200 (Refugee) visa was cancelled due to convictions for rape, deprivation of liberty, and assault. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to cancel the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501CA, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the protection of the Australian community, ties to Australia, and the interests of any minor children.
[2025] ARTA 22172025-10-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa on character grounds, specifically due to a substantial criminal record, should be…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, who was born in Egypt and came to Australia on a Subclass 200 (Refugee) visa, had his visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa on character grounds, specifically due to a substantial criminal record, should be affirmed.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation on character grounds, the protection of the Australian community is the highest priority, and the risk of reoffending is a significant factor.
[2025] ARTA 15532025-08-22Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a South Sudanese national, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test and Direction no. 110 under s 501CA of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Direction no. 110, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 11822025-07-28RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement of s21(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, specifically the mental/physical incapacity 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
Ms Yurub Mohamed Hussein, a Somali national on a subclass 200 refugee visa, married with four children, applied onshore for Australian citizenship by conferral on the basis of a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement of s21(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, specifically the mental/physical incapacity test under s21(3)(d).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can prove a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity that meets s21(3)(d) satisfy the citizenship eligibility requirement despite an initial refusal.
[2025] ARTA 14172025-06-25Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory character‑based cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering…
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 was a 26‑year‑old Somali citizen holding a Refugee (Class XB) subclass 200 visa whose cancellation was under review.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory character‑based cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering Direction 110, was correct.
What the tribunal established
A visa cancellation under the character test may be revoked if the Tribunal finds that the primary considerations outweigh the risk to the Australian community under s501CA(4).
[2025] ARTA 6312025-05-23UpheldThe central issue was the cancellation of his visa for failing the good character test under s 501(2) of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Lam was holding a Class XB Subclass 200 refugee visa onshore in Australia (Brisbane) at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the cancellation of his visa for failing the good character test under s 501(2) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose refugee visas are cancelled for failing the good character test under s 501(2) cannot successfully challenge the cancellation on other grounds.
[2025] ARTA 5852025-05-16UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering factors such as the risk of harm in…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Iraqi national, had their Class XB, Subclass 200 Refugee visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to failing the character test because of substantial criminal offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering factors such as the risk of harm in Iraq, family ties, and the best interests of minor children, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501, the Tribunal must weigh the seriousness of the offending against other relevant considerations, including the best interests of any minor children and the expectations of the Australian community.
[2025] ARTA 1092025-02-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under Migration Act s 501 could be revoked, considering the requirements of Ministerial Direction No 110 and the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 24‑year‑old Iraqi citizen, held a Class XB (Subclass 200) refugee visa and faced mandatory cancellation after failing the character test due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under Migration Act s 501 could be revoked, considering the requirements of Ministerial Direction No 110 and the character test provisions.
What the tribunal established
Mandatory visa cancellations under s 501 are only remitted where the Minister identifies a valid reason under Direction 110; a substantial criminal record satisfies the character test and upholds the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 562025-02-03UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason why the cancellation of CGQJ's visa should not be revoked, considering his criminal record and the character test…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, CGQJ, had his Class BA Subclass 200 (Refugee) visa mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a murder conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason why the cancellation of CGQJ's visa should not be revoked, considering his criminal record and the character test under sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal prioritizes the protection of the Australian community when considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act, particularly when the applicant has a serious criminal history.
[2025] ARTA 182025-01-16Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501CA, as guided by Direction No 110, was correct.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant held a Class XB Subclass 200 Global Humanitarian visa and was subject to a mandatory cancellation under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501CA, as guided by Direction No 110, was correct.
What the tribunal established
Applicants subject to a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA can have the decision set aside if the Tribunal finds alternative grounds under Direction 110 that outweigh the character concerns.
[2024] ARTA 3512024-11-29Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a national of Iran, had his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test because of serious drug offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, ties to Australia, and the best interests of children, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
[2024] ARTA 2762024-11-13Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his criminal…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a 22-year-old Iraqi citizen, had his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including recklessly causing serious injury. The Tribunal reviewed the Minister's delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his criminal history and the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the applicant's character, the risk to the Australian community, and Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
[2024] ARTA 162024-11-04UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa, considering the applicant's substantial criminal…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Ethiopia, had been granted a Class BA (Subclass 200) Refugee visa. The Minister had made a decision to cancel the visa due to the applicant's failure to pass the good character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa, considering the applicant's substantial criminal record and further offending, as per the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation due to character concerns, the decision-maker must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Directions, to determine whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
[2024] ARTA 782024-10-30Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant's Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa was mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and serving a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant sought review of the decision to not revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's character and rehabilitation.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act if there are other compelling reasons, such as rehabilitation and family circumstances, that outweigh the character concerns.
[2024] AATA 34912024-09-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the good character requirement under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, considering his criminal history…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, who held a Refugee (subclass 200) visa, applied for Australian citizenship by conferral. The delegate refused the application because they were not satisfied the applicant was of good character.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the good character requirement under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, considering his criminal history and conduct.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an applicant's character for citizenship, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors and determine whether it can reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is of good character.
[2024] AATA 26302024-07-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test and whether any other reason under s501CA(4) justified revoking the cancellation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Refugee (Class XB) Subclass 200 visa that was subject to mandatory cancellation under s501(3A) of the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test and whether any other reason under s501CA(4) justified revoking the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
When a visa holder fails the character test, a mandatory cancellation under s501(3A) cannot be set aside unless another reason under s501CA(4) is established.
[2024] AATA 13012024-05-28Set asideThe central issue was whether the visa should be cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant’s substantial criminal record.
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 was an onshore holder of a Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa who had been convicted and was serving a custodial sentence, and he was married with three young daughters living in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa should be cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the applicant’s substantial criminal record.
What the tribunal established
Visa cancellations under s 501 may be revoked where the best interests of minor children and significant community ties outweigh the risk to the Australian community.
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.