When a global special humanitarian visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 31 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the offshore humanitarian visa for people sponsored by a proposer in 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 31 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 52% of the time, set it aside 48% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 0% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Set aside | 15 | 48.4% |
| Upheld | 15 | 48.4% |
| Affirmed | 1 | 3.2% |
Counts from 31 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 | 8 | 75% |
| 2025 | 14 | 43% |
| 2024 | 9 | 33% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 3 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 31 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 8212026-05-18AffirmedThe applicant's history of violence, family violence, and driving offences raised concerns about his character and potential risk to the Australian community.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a South Sudanese national, had his Global Special Humanitarian visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including violent conduct and family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's history of violence, family violence, and driving offences raised concerns about his character and potential risk to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 7092026-04-30Set asideWhether the Tribunal should set aside the delegate’s decision to cancel the visa under s 501(2) in light of Direction 110 considerations.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A humanitarian visa holder with an intellectual disability was convicted of two indecent acts with his niece, a child under 16, and faced visa cancellation under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should set aside the delegate’s decision to cancel the visa under s 501(2) in light of Direction 110 considerations.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(2) the Minister may cancel a visa if the person does not pass the character test, and the Tribunal must apply the primary and other considerations in Direction 110, giving greatest weight to protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 8192026-04-28Set asideWhether there was ‘another reason’ under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa 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
A South Sudan national with schizoaffective disorder who has a lengthy criminal record and was convicted of serious violence had his Class XB (Subclass 202) Global Humanitarian visa cancelled under s 501(3A).
The question before the tribunal
Whether there was ‘another reason’ under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
When applying Direction 110, the Tribunal must balance community safety against the applicant’s health and humanitarian considerations and may revoke a mandatory cancellation if the overall assessment shows it is the correct or preferable decision.
[2026] ARTA 5332026-03-31Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958, as…
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 Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa, which was subject to mandatory cancellation. The applicant's visa cancellation was under review.
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 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958, as the applicant did not pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations in favour of affirming the decision against those in favour of revoking the cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 1642026-02-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister was correct in cancelling the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the character…
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 sought review of a decision to cancel their Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister was correct in cancelling the applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501(2), the Tribunal must weigh the relevant considerations, including those in Ministerial Direction 110, to determine whether cancellation is justified.
[2026] ARTA 3222026-01-29Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa, given he did not pass the character test under s501CA(4) of…
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 31-year-old Iraqi citizen, held a Subclass 202 visa. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act after he was convicted of money laundering.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa, given he did not pass the character test under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the impact on family and the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 612026-01-20UpheldThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
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 Global Humanitarian Class (XB) subclass 202 visa, which was subject to mandatory cancellation due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must balance various considerations, with primary considerations of community protection often outweighing other factors.
[2026] ARTA 182026-01-07Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.
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 Sudanese national, had his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian Visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test because of violent offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must carefully weigh all relevant considerations, as guided by Ministerial Direction No. 110, to determine if there is another reason why the visa should not be cancelled.
[2025] ARTA 26912025-12-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised their discretion not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering 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 Sudan, had their Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (subclass 202) visa cancelled under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised their discretion not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, including the risk to the Australian community and the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 22742025-10-29Set asideThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
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 Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian Visa, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under section 501CA(4), the Tribunal must weigh the seriousness of the offending against the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia and other relevant factors, as guided by Ministerial Direction 110.
[2025] ARTA 22632025-10-24UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was subject to a mandatory cancellation of their Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian Visa due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Direction 110, to determine if there are other reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 20832025-10-15Set asideThe central issue was whether the decision to mandatorily cancel the applicant's visa under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked under s 501CA(4) 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 citizen of Iraq, had his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test because of a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the decision to mandatorily cancel the applicant's visa under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the expectations of the Australian community against the applicant's ties to the community and the best interests of any children involved.
[2025] ARTA 22762025-10-13UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act…
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 XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa had been mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act, considering the character test under s 501(6).
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider the character test and whether there are other reasons to revoke the cancellation, including the protection of the Australian community.
[2025] ARTA 15622025-08-27Set asideThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) 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's Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal record and serving a sentence of imprisonment. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
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 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his character and ties to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may give more weight to an applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of their children if they have lived in Australia for most of their life and have demonstrated rehabilitation.
[2025] ARTA 30552025-08-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration…
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 his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Humanitarian visa under s501CA(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 under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of any affected children.
[2025] ARTA 12322025-07-15Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3) of the Migration Act could be revoked by invoking an "another reason" under s 501CA, as outlined…
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, Ahmed Hussein Mohemadali, held a Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa and was onshore in Australia when his visa was mandatorily cancelled after a conviction for a serious violent offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3) of the Migration Act could be revoked by invoking an "another reason" under s 501CA, as outlined in Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3) can be set aside where the Minister identifies an "another reason" under s 501CA in accordance with Direction No 110.
[2025] ARTA 5192025-04-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under Migration Act s 501 could be revoked on any other ground, considering Ministerial Direction No…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
FKCV was onshore holding a Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) subclass 202 visa and was the father of two minor children while having an extensive criminal history including serious sexual and family violence offences.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of his visa under Migration Act s 501 could be revoked on any other ground, considering Ministerial Direction No 110 and the character test provisions.
What the tribunal established
Mandatory visa cancellations under s 501 can only be revoked where a specific statutory reason exists, and the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community outweighs other mitigating factors.
[2025] ARTA 1912025-03-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the applicant did not…
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 Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (subclass 202) visa, which was subject to mandatory cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a conviction for a drug offense.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the applicant did not pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider the factors outlined in Direction 110, including the protection of the Australian community and the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 1952025-03-06Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under subsection 501CA(4) 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 Syrian citizen, sought review of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (subclass 202) visa. The applicant had failed the character test due to serious 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 subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against other relevant considerations, such as the applicant's remorse, rehabilitation, and ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 982025-02-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under the Migration Act for failing the good character test could be set aside, with reference to the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, HDTY, a South Sudan citizen, held a Class XB (Subclass 202) Global Special Humanitarian visa and was onshore in Australia after being kidnapped and suffering grievous bodily harm.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory visa cancellation under the Migration Act for failing the good character test could be set aside, with reference to the relevant provision of the Migration Act and Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose humanitarian visas are subject to mandatory cancellation for failing the good character test cannot rely on Ministerial Direction 110 to override the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 1232025-01-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should review the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the applicant's failure to appear at part 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, who held a Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa, had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should review the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the applicant's failure to appear at part of the hearing.
What the tribunal established
Failure to appear at a scheduled hearing can lead to the dismissal of an application for review under section 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
[2025] ARTA 362025-01-21Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per section 501CA of the Migration Act…
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, had his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test after multiple criminal convictions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per section 501CA of the Migration Act, considering his criminal history and ties to Australia.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against other factors, such as ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
[2024] ARTA 2732024-11-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, based on the applicant's character under section 501CA(4), 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, a citizen of Sudan or South Sudan, had their Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (subclass 202) visa cancelled under section 501CA(4). The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, based on the applicant's character under section 501CA(4), was correct.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under section 501CA(4), the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Direction 110, including the risk to the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2024] ARTA 182024-10-25UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, considering the applicant's failure to pass the good character…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, DXJL, held a Class XB (Subclass 202) Global Special Humanitarian visa. The Minister had made a decision to not revoke the visa despite the applicant's extensive criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, considering the applicant's failure to pass the good character test due to their criminal record.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa due to character grounds, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Directions, to determine if there are any other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
[2024] AATA 36172024-10-11Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under Migration Act 1958 s 501(1) could be revoked and whether the discretion to refuse the protection visa…
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 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa that was cancelled and had applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa; he arrived in Australia at age eight and has lived there for the majority of his life.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under Migration Act 1958 s 501(1) could be revoked and whether the discretion to refuse the protection visa under the same provision should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
Applicants with strong ties to Australia and a demonstrated low risk of reoffending can have a mandatory cancellation under s 501(1) revoked and the discretion to refuse a protection visa not exercised.
[2024] AATA 35042024-10-02UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under section 501(3A)…
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 Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 202) visa mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test. The Tribunal reviewed the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
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 character test under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh factors for and against revocation, considering the seriousness of the offending and the risk of recidivism.
[2024] AATA 24802024-06-24Set asideThe issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s109(1) of the Migration Act for providing incorrect information and alleged non‑compliance with s101(b).
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 primary applicant held a Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa onshore in Australia and was accompanied by her spouse and children, with family ties including a child from a previous de facto relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s109(1) of the Migration Act for providing incorrect information and alleged non‑compliance with s101(b).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can show that sufficient time has passed since alleged non‑compliance and that cancellation would adversely affect the best interests of their Australian‑resident children may have a cancellation decision set aside.
[2024] AATA 12912024-05-30Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked by finding an ‘another reason’ under s 501CA(4).
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 Global Special Humanitarian (class XB) subclass 202 visa onshore and faced a mandatory cancellation of that visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked by finding an ‘another reason’ under s 501CA(4).
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visas are subject to mandatory cancellation under s 501 may have the cancellation revoked where significant impediments or a serious risk of harm satisfy the ‘another reason’ requirement of s 501CA(4).
[2024] AATA 6272024-04-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the character requirements for the visa, considering various criminal convictions and behaviors, as per the Migration Act…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, applied for a Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 202) visa. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa due to the applicant not satisfying the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the character requirements for the visa, considering various criminal convictions and behaviors, as per the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an applicant's character for a visa, the Tribunal must consider the nature, seriousness, and frequency of any criminal conduct, as well as the risk the applicant poses to the Australian community.
[2024] AATA 1982024-02-01UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 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 held a Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa. The Minister's delegate decided not to revoke the visa cancellation decision due to the applicant's substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked, considering the applicant did not pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction 99, to determine if there are other reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2024] AATA 14842024-01-18UpheldThe central issue was whether there was “another reason” under section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 to revoke the mandatory cancellation despite the failure to meet…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a South Sudanese citizen, held a Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa and faced mandatory cancellation under section 501CA due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was “another reason” under section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 to revoke the mandatory cancellation despite the failure to meet the good character test.
What the tribunal established
Mandatory visa cancellations under section 501CA can only be set aside if the Minister identifies a separate reason beyond the applicant’s failure of the good character test.
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.