When a prospective marriage visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 23 such decisions (2003 to 2026), covering the visa for a fiance intending to marry an Australian sponsor. 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 23 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 17% of the time, set it aside 0% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 83% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 19 | 82.6% |
| Upheld | 4 | 17.4% |
Counts from 23 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 2 | 0% |
| 2025 | 1 | 0% |
| 2024 | 19 | 0% |
| 2003 | 1 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 23 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 8702026-04-29RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy clause 300.216 – genuine intention to live together as spouses.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A 30‑year‑old Lebanese woman engaged to an Australian citizen sponsor applied for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy clause 300.216 – genuine intention to live together as spouses.
What the tribunal established
A Prospective Marriage visa applicant must satisfy clauses 300.211, 300.214, 300.215 and 300.216 at the time of application and continue to meet them under clause 300.221, with genuine intention assessed on the totality of evidence.
[2026] ARTA 4842026-01-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of cl 602.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely…
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, who had previously held a subclass 300 visa, applied for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa (subclass 602) while in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of cl 602.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily for medical treatment.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa satisfies the requirement of genuine intention to stay temporarily if they have a finite scope of medical treatment and plans to depart Australia after the treatment is completed.
[2025] ARTA 7142025-06-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 could be revoked.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Lebanese national, held a Class BS Spouse visa that was mandatorily cancelled after a 2019 conviction and was seeking revocation of that cancellation while onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 could be revoked.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose Class BS spouse visas are subject to mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) will not have the cancellation revoked where the Tribunal determines an unacceptable risk to the community outweighs other considerations.
[2024] AATA 40392024-10-09RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the genuine intention requirements under cl.300.216 and cl.300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Hasan Abdulahi Sulaiman Esmail, applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa (subclass 300) to marry Australian citizen Ms Hanan Mohamed Farah, and they were living together in rented accommodation in Western Sydney.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the genuine intention requirements under cl.300.216 and cl.300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as required by s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 300 prospective marriage visa must demonstrate a genuine intention to marry and live together both at the time of application and at the time of decision to satisfy the relevant regulatory criteria.
[2024] AATA 39212024-09-11RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met Public Interest Criterion 4005, specifically whether they had undergone the required medical assessments as per 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 applied for Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas, which were refused by the delegate due to a lack of evidence of a medical assessment.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met Public Interest Criterion 4005, specifically whether they had undergone the required medical assessments as per the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant for a Prospective Marriage visa has undergone the required medical assessments and their health requirements have been auto-cleared, the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of the remaining criteria.
[2024] AATA 38972024-09-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine intention to marry at 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
Mr Nabel Nissan applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa after marrying an Australian citizen in Lebanon, with a marriage certificate dated 24 July 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine intention to marry at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide evidence that they have a genuine intention to marry and that the marriage will occur within the visa period to satisfy clause 300.215 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 28592024-07-25RemittedThe central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the visa under section 65 of the Migration Act and whether the subsequent marriage triggered the provisions 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
Ms Kiim Sang Nguyen had applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa as the prospective spouse of Mr Chinh Van Nguyen and later married him on 2 November 2023 before the review was finalised.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the visa under section 65 of the Migration Act and whether the subsequent marriage triggered the provisions of regulation 2.08E of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
If a prospective marriage visa applicant marries the sponsor after a refusal and notifies the Tribunal before a final decision, regulation 2.08E mandates remitting the case for assessment as a partner visa.
[2024] AATA 28152024-07-24RemittedThe central issue was whether the marriage that occurred after the refusal triggered the requirement under Migration Regulations 1994 reg 2.08E to remit the application…
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 had applied on 23 September 2019 for Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visas while offshore, and after the delegate refused the visas they married in New Zealand on 13 May 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the marriage that occurred after the refusal triggered the requirement under Migration Regulations 1994 reg 2.08E to remit the application for a partner visa.
What the tribunal established
If a prospective marriage visa applicant marries the sponsor after a refusal and notifies the Tribunal before the review is finalised, reg 2.08E requires the matter to be remitted for assessment as a partner visa.
[2024] AATA 28182024-07-15RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires evidence 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
Ms Xiangui Cheng applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) Class TO visa to join her partner Mr Salih Bayram, who was in China for health reasons, and she was living in China at the time of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires evidence of a genuine intention to live together as spouses.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy clause 300.216 by providing sufficient evidence of a genuine intention to live together as spouses, including ongoing communication and concrete marriage plans.
[2024] AATA 21842024-06-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the genuine intention requirements under s 65 of the Migration Act and cl 300.215/300.216 of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Thi Yen Ngo applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa while being in a relationship with Mr Geoffrey Ison, who was her sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the genuine intention requirements under s 65 of the Migration Act and cl 300.215/300.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide credible evidence that satisfies cl 300.215 and cl 300.216, demonstrating a genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses, to be granted a Subclass 300 visa.
[2024] AATA 16802024-06-04RemittedThe delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, citing a lack of evidence that…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Three onshore applicants (Ms Bunky Sun, Master Darapiseth Lim and Miss Leeanna Lim) sought Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas after lodging their application on 4 April 2018.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not satisfy clause 300.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, citing a lack of evidence that marriage arrangements were made within the visa period.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate a genuine intention to marry with documented marriage arrangements falling within the visa period satisfy clause 300.215 and the decision may be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 24312024-05-30UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 300.215 (and 300.216) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which require a genuine intention to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Thi Phuong Pham, a 62‑year‑old Vietnamese woman, applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa as the prospective spouse of an 80‑year‑old Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 300.215 (and 300.216) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which require a genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses within the visa period.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Prospective Marriage visa must demonstrate a genuine intention to marry within the visa period to meet clause 300.215 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 24332024-05-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied migration regulation clauses 300.216 and 300.221, which require a genuine intention to live together as spouses at…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mrs Huda Jameel Rahi Al-Zamili applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa with her sponsor Mr Assaad Mohamad Taha, and the couple's relationship had broken down before the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied migration regulation clauses 300.216 and 300.221, which require a genuine intention to live together as spouses at the time of decision.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must continue to meet clause 300.221 by proving a genuine intention to live together as spouses at the time of decision, otherwise the visa must be refused.
[2024] AATA 25112024-05-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(2A) under Schedule 2, cl 300.223 of the Migration Regulations, a 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, Mr Richie Konadu-Yiadom, applied on 6 April 2022 for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) Class TO (Subclass 300) visa while onshore, with his partner Ms Mouricia Amoah as sponsor. He was an onshore applicant seeking to marry his partner and was refused on identity grounds.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(2A) under Schedule 2, cl 300.223 of the Migration Regulations, a requirement for the Subclass 300 visa, after the delegate found his identity documents inconsistent.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet Public Interest Criterion 4020(2A) for a Subclass 300 visa by providing credible statutory declarations and biometric birth certificates even when there are minor discrepancies in documentary details.
[2024] AATA 10762024-05-02RemittedThe issue was whether the marriage that occurred after the refusal triggered the requirements of Migration Regulation 2.08E to convert the application to a partner visa.
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 had applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa as the prospective spouse of the sponsor and was later married to the sponsor in Vietnam before the review was determined.
The question before the tribunal
The issue was whether the marriage that occurred after the refusal triggered the requirements of Migration Regulation 2.08E to convert the application to a partner visa.
What the tribunal established
If a prospective marriage visa applicant marries the sponsor after a refusal and notifies the Tribunal before the review is final, the application must be remitted for assessment as a partner visa under reg 2.08E.
[2024] AATA 10612024-04-24RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to meet clause 300.221A of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires no impediment 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
The visa applicant, Mr Panha Oeur, applied onshore for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa after being engaged to Ms Chanra Khen, who had previously been married and divorced.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to meet clause 300.221A of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires no impediment to marriage under Australian law.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can satisfy the "no impediment to marriage" requirement for a Prospective Marriage visa by supplying official single status or celibacy certificates when prior evidence is insufficient.
[2024] AATA 22572024-04-22RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the parties satisfied the personal meeting requirement of cl 300.214 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
Ms Rosse Mary Jarro Cuyo, a 51‑year‑old Bolivian national, applied for a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) Class TO (subclass 300) visa as the prospective spouse of Australian citizen Mr Juan Felix Lastra Pena, with her two Bolivian sons included as secondary applicants.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, questioning whether the parties satisfied the personal meeting requirement of cl 300.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can prove a genuine in‑person meeting overseas meet the requirements of clause 300.214 of Schedule 2, allowing the Tribunal to remit the decision for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 9142024-04-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the criteria in cls 300.215 and 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding 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 review of a decision to refuse a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa (Subclass 300). The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of the relevant clauses.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the criteria in cls 300.215 and 300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the intention to marry and the date of the intended marriage.
What the tribunal established
For a Prospective Marriage visa, the applicant must genuinely intend to marry an Australian citizen and the marriage must be intended to take place within the visa period.
[2024] AATA 4182024-03-08RemittedThe central issue was whether the refusal of the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 was appropriate, considering the findings made by the Tribunal.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a Permanent Residence (Spouse Visa) (Class 801) visa. The matter was remitted to the AAT by the Federal Court of Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the refusal of the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 was appropriate, considering the findings made by the Tribunal.
What the tribunal established
When reconsidering a visa refusal under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider the findings of the Tribunal.
[2024] AATA 1592024-01-31RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl.300.215, cl.300.216 or cl.300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, which was refused. The central issue was whether the applicant and their partner genuinely intended to marry and live together as spouses.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl.300.215, cl.300.216 or cl.300.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding the genuine intention to marry.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Prospective Marriage visa, applicants must genuinely intend to marry and live together as spouses, both at the time of application and at the time of the decision.
[2024] AATA 4722024-01-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant genuinely intended to marry and live with their partner, as required by the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa, which was refused. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 300 (Prospective Marriage) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant genuinely intended to marry and live with their partner, as required by the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Prospective Marriage visa, applicants must demonstrate a genuine intention to marry and live together as spouses.
[2024] AATA 4742024-01-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 300 visa, as outlined in Part 300 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants applied for Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visas, which at the time of application was a Subclass 300 visa. The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visas.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 300 visa, as outlined in Part 300 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will remit a visa application for reconsideration if it finds that the applicant meets some, but not all, of the criteria for the visa.
[2003] AATA 9762003-09-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the character test under Migration Act 1958 section 501(1) justified refusing the spouse visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Sergey Shmarakov applied onshore for a spouse visa sponsored by his wife Marina Shmarakova, seeking to remain in Australia with his family.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the character test under Migration Act 1958 section 501(1) justified refusing the spouse visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants facing refusal under s 501(1) may have the discretion exercised in their favour where substantial hardship and insufficient evidence of serious character concerns are shown.
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.