When a partner visa (offshore, provisional) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 93 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the first stage of the offshore partner 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 93 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 17% of the time, set it aside 6% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 76% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 71 | 76.3% |
| Upheld | 14 | 15.1% |
| Set aside | 6 | 6.5% |
| Affirmed | 2 | 2.2% |
Counts from 93 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-09-27. 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 | 13 | 31% |
| 2025 | 19 | 11% |
| 2024 | 61 | 0% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 11 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 40 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 20352026-09-15Set asideWhether the applicant passes the s 501 character test and whether discretion should be exercised to refuse the 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
A US national convicted of a sexual offence against a child, married to an Australian citizen, sought a Class UF Partner (Provisional) visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the s 501 character test and whether discretion should be exercised to refuse the visa.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(6) of the Migration Act a person convicted of a sexual offence involving a child fails the character test and, per Direction 110, the protection of the Australian community is the primary consideration when deciding to refuse a visa.
[2026] ARTA 19112026-08-21RemittedWhether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in a material particular under Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) for the Subclass 309 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
A Ghanaian male applicant and his Australian citizen partner sought a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa, which was refused on the basis of alleged false or misleading information under PIC 4020.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information in a material particular under Public Interest Criterion 4020(1) for the Subclass 309 visa.
What the tribunal established
Under s 65 of the Migration Act and cl 309.225 of the Migration Regulations, an applicant must not supply false or misleading information or a bogus document in a material particular (PIC 4020(1)) and must satisfy identity and related PIC 4020 sub‑clauses, unless waived on compassionate grounds.
[2026] ARTA 18862026-08-21Set asideWhether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4) 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 29‑year‑old Ethiopian citizen holding a Subclass 309 Partner visa had his visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) after a 14‑month prison sentence for serious offences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) the Tribunal may revoke a mandatory cancellation only if the applicant passes the character test or another valid reason exists, and it must not rely on evidence that contradicts the proven conviction.
[2026] ARTA 21302026-08-11RemittedThe applicant's sponsor had previously sponsored two other individuals for partner visas, and the delegate refused to approve the current sponsorship due 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 applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa, where the refusal was based on the sponsor's sponsorship limitations.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's sponsor had previously sponsored two other individuals for partner visas, and the delegate refused to approve the current sponsorship due to the limitations in regulation 1.20J.
What the tribunal established
Sponsorship limitations in migration regulations can be waived if there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor.
[2026] ARTA 12342026-07-02AffirmedThe applicant's history of violent offences, including recklessly causing serious injury and contravening a family violence intervention order, was in dispute.
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, had his provisional partner visa application refused due to character concerns stemming from a history of violent offences in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's history of violent offences, including recklessly causing serious injury and contravening a family violence intervention order, was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The character test under s 501 of the Migration Act requires consideration of whether a person poses a risk to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 10372026-05-26Set asideWhether the discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) should be exercised in light of Direction 110 and the applicant’s circumstances.
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 UK citizen holding a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa, was convicted of drug trafficking and faced visa cancellation on character grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) should be exercised in light of Direction 110 and the applicant’s circumstances.
What the tribunal established
When exercising the s 501(2) discretion, the decision‑maker must apply the principles and primary considerations set out in Direction 110, weighing protection of the community against the applicant’s ties, family interests and other counter‑vailing factors.
[2026] ARTA 15192026-05-19AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies Special Return Criteria 5001, which is required for the grant of a Subclass 309 visa under cl 309.226 of 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 applicant, a Lebanese national residing in Lebanon with his Australian citizen spouse and seven Australian citizen children, sought a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa after his permanent Partner visa was cancelled in 2015 on character grounds under s501 of the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies Special Return Criteria 5001, which is required for the grant of a Subclass 309 visa under cl 309.226 of the Migration Regulations 1994, given his visa was cancelled under s501 and not revoked.
What the tribunal established
An applicant whose visa has been cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and whose cancellation has not been revoked under subsection 501C(4) or 501CA(4) does not meet Special Return Criteria 5001, as required by cl 309.226 for the grant of a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa.
[2026] ARTA 7272026-05-05RemittedWhether the decision-maker must exercise the discretion under s 501(1) to refuse the visa on character grounds.
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 UK citizen living in New Zealand, married to an Australian citizen, applied for a provisional partner visa but has a substantial criminal record including a GBH conviction.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the decision-maker must exercise the discretion under s 501(1) to refuse the visa on character grounds.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(1) the Minister may refuse a visa if the applicant fails the character test, and a substantial criminal record (s 501(6)(a) and s 501(7)(c)) triggers that failure; the discretion must be exercised in line with Direction 110, giving primary weight to community protection.
[2026] ARTA 13332026-04-06Set asideThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on his mother or her spouse due to incapacity for work caused by loss of bodily or…
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, an Afghan national, was included as a secondary applicant in his mother's partner visa application, but was refused due to concerns about his dependency on his parents.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on his mother or her spouse due to incapacity for work caused by loss of bodily or mental functions.
What the tribunal established
A person is a member of the family unit of another person if they are wholly or substantially reliant on that person for financial support due to incapacity for work.
[2026] ARTA 15202026-04-03RemittedWhether the applicant satisfies the dependency requirement under cl 309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of decision, specifically whether…
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 is an Afghan national residing in [Country 1], included as a secondary applicant in his mother's partner visa application, and is over 18 but under 23 years of age.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the dependency requirement under cl 309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of decision, specifically whether he is wholly or substantially reliant on his father for financial support to meet basic needs.
What the tribunal established
A person is a dependent child under reg 1.05A if they are wholly or substantially reliant on the family head for financial support to meet basic needs for food, clothing and shelter, and their reliance on the family head is greater than any other source of support.
[2026] ARTA 8672026-03-18RemittedWhether the applicant and sponsor were genuine spouses at the time of application and decision.
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 sponsor, a frail elderly man, and his Vietnamese partner applied for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa amid allegations of a contrived marriage and financial exploitation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant and sponsor were genuine spouses at the time of application and decision.
What the tribunal established
A Subclass 309 visa may be granted only if the applicant satisfies the spouse criteria in s 5F of the Migration Act and the relevant Regulation clauses (e.g., 309.211‑309.213, 309.221).
[2026] ARTA 5752026-03-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be in a genuine and…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a genuine and continuing relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be in a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing relationship for a Partner visa can be established even if the relationship is less than 12 months old, if there are compelling and compassionate circumstances.
[2026] ARTA 2002026-01-19RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the relationship…
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, an Australian citizen, sponsored her partner, a Nigerian national, for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309). The delegate refused the visa, finding the relationship was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the relationship was genuine and continuing.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing relationship for a Partner visa can be established through evidence of a valid marriage, regular communication, and intentions for a shared life, even with limited financial and social interaction due to geographical separation.
[2025] ARTA 28832025-12-24Set asideThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to set aside the refusal decision, despite 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 applicants sought a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) (Subclass 309) visa. The Minister decided to refuse the visa because the applicant did not pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to set aside the refusal decision, despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering a visa refusal under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the expectations of the Australian community, the risk of re-offending, and the best interests of any minor children.
[2025] ARTA 29572025-12-10Set asideThe delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1) of the Migration Act 1958, on the basis that the decision to grant the visa was based on a fact or circumstance that 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's Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) visa was cancelled, and the applicant sought review of this decision. The Federal Circuit and Family Court remitted the application for reconsideration to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1) of the Migration Act 1958, on the basis that the decision to grant the visa was based on a fact or circumstance that no longer exists.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the best interests of a child are a primary consideration, and other factors may outweigh the grounds for cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 29132025-11-13RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and visa applicant had a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the Migration Regulations, specifically cls…
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, Ms. Adu, sponsored Mr. Darteh for a Subclass 309 (Partner Provisional) visa. The visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister, and the applicant sought review of that decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and visa applicant had a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the Migration Regulations, specifically cls 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing relationship for a Partner visa requires consideration of the commitment, financial, household, and social aspects of the relationship, even when the couple lives in different countries.
[2025] ARTA 26202025-10-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the sponsorship…
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, Mrs Thi Nguyen Le, applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) based on her spousal relationship with Mr Thanh Si Le. The delegate refused the visa because Mr Le's sponsorship had not been approved due to his criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the sponsorship limitation due to the sponsor's criminal record.
What the tribunal established
A sponsor's criminal history does not automatically disqualify a visa application; the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors and evidence to determine if the sponsorship limitation applies.
[2025] ARTA 16442025-08-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had previously sponsored two other people, triggering the sponsorship limitation in reg 1.20J(1) of 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 applicant sought review of a decision refusing to grant a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa. The applicant was sponsoring his current wife, but had previously sponsored two other people.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had previously sponsored two other people, triggering the sponsorship limitation in reg 1.20J(1) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Compelling circumstances, such as the sponsor's caregiving responsibilities and financial hardship, can justify a waiver of the sponsorship limitation for partner visas.
[2025] ARTA 23882025-08-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor met the definition of a de facto relationship under cl 309.211(2) 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 applicant sought a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) based on a de facto relationship with the sponsor. The delegate initially refused the visa, finding the relationship did not meet the definition of a de facto relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor met the definition of a de facto relationship under cl 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
A de facto relationship registered under a relevant State or Territory law satisfies the 12-month requirement for a partner visa application.
[2025] ARTA 16532025-08-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) based on their relationship with the sponsor. The delegate initially refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing spousal relationship, as defined by s 5F of the Migration Act, must be demonstrated to satisfy the requirements for a Partner (Provisional) visa.
[2025] ARTA 24252025-08-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were spouses within the meaning of s.5F of the Migration Act…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) based on his relationship with his sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, finding insufficient evidence of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were spouses within the meaning of s.5F of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing spousal relationship, including mutual commitment to a shared life, is a key factor in determining eligibility for a Partner visa.
[2025] ARTA 20092025-07-25RemittedThe delegate refused the visas because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically Public…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas, but the delegate refused them because the primary applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4020, due to false or misleading information.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may waive the requirements of PIC 4020 if satisfied that compassionate or compelling circumstances justify granting the visa.
[2025] ARTA 22432025-07-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 309 visa, specifically addressing the requirements of cls 309.211, 309.221, 309.311…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309). The primary applicant was in a relationship with the sponsor, and the other applicants were members of the family unit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 309 visa, specifically addressing the requirements of cls 309.211, 309.221, 309.311, 309.321, and reg 2.03A of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, applicants must satisfy the criteria outlined in Part 309 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, including demonstrating a genuine and continuing relationship.
[2025] ARTA 19662025-07-11RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa, specifically cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 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
Mr. Gu, a Chinese national, applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa to join his wife, an Australian permanent resident. His application was refused, and the Tribunal reviewed the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa, specifically cl 309.211 and cl 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects.
[2025] ARTA 22522025-07-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the sponsorship requirements under cl.309.222 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 applicant sought a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa based on their relationship with their sponsor. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet the sponsorship requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the sponsorship requirements under cl.309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Compelling circumstances, such as family violence, medical conditions, and financial hardship, can justify the approval of a partner visa sponsorship even if the standard requirements are not fully met.
[2025] ARTA 28532025-07-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 309 visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, 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 applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa, specifically a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa, based on his spousal relationship with his sponsor. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 309 visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, as outlined in the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner (Provisional) visa application, the Tribunal must consider all aspects of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment, to determine if the relationship is genuine and continuing.
[2025] ARTA 3462025-03-27RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the primary applicant was deemed not to meet clauses 309.211, 309.221 or 309.311 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, including Ms Mona Kobeissi as the primary applicant, were onshore in Australia and sought a Partner (Provisional) Subclass 309 visa based on a genuine marital relationship with the sponsor and included two dependent children.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the primary applicant was deemed not to meet clauses 309.211, 309.221 or 309.311 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must satisfy the specific primary and secondary criteria listed in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations to be granted the visa.
[2025] ARTA 3942025-03-26RemittedThe key issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spousal relationship requirements under s5F(2) of the Migration Act and the substantive criteria in cl.309.211 and…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mrs An Hong Ngoc Nguyen applied for a Partner (Provisional) Subclass 309 visa as the spouse of an Australian citizen, with the couple living in different countries and the applicant having previously been refused a visitor visa.
The question before the tribunal
The key issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spousal relationship requirements under s5F(2) of the Migration Act and the substantive criteria in cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate a genuine and continuing spousal relationship meeting s5F(2) and the specific subclass criteria may have a refusal remitted for reconsideration even when they are offshore.
[2025] ARTA 4402025-03-20RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, specifically cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding criminal…
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 Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas (Subclass 309). The delegate refused the visas due to insufficient evidence of criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for the visa, specifically cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding criminal history.
What the tribunal established
When new evidence of criminal history is presented, the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration if the new evidence satisfies the relevant criteria for the visa.
[2025] ARTA 3432025-03-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
An Australian citizen sponsored his wife, a Fijian national, for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309). The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not satisfy the criteria regarding the definition of 'spouse'.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the definition of 'spouse' under section 5F of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
For a Partner (Provisional) visa, the applicant must demonstrate that they are the spouse of the sponsor, satisfying the criteria outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 3422025-03-13UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 309.225 of the Migration Regulations, after being found to have provided…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Angeline Kalee Gonwokay and her family applied onshore for Partner (Provisional) subclass 309 visas on 4 February 2019, seeking to sponsor her partner and children.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 309.225 of the Migration Regulations, after being found to have provided false or bogus documentation, invoking Migration Act s 65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide false or misleading information that breaches PIC 4020 are not eligible for a waiver and their visa refusal will be upheld.
[2025] ARTA 5222025-03-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criteria 4020(2A) and cl 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa based on his relationship with the sponsor. The applicant's identity was questioned due to a biometric match with a previous application under a different name.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criteria 4020(2A) and cl 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning the verification of the applicant's identity.
What the tribunal established
When assessing identity, the Tribunal must consider both biometric data and supporting documentation, especially when potential for misidentification exists.
[2024] ARTA 1072024-11-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the Migration Act 1958 and 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 applicant sought a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa based on their relationship with the sponsor. The Tribunal reviewed the Minister's decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
A genuine and continuing spousal relationship is established when the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others, and live together, or not separately and apart, on a permanent basis.
[2024] ARTA 1122024-10-23RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met clause 300.222(1) of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the sponsorship limitation.
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 applied for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa based on her marriage to the sponsor. The delegate refused the visa because the sponsor had exceeded the sponsorship limit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met clause 300.222(1) of the Migration Regulations, specifically concerning the sponsorship limitation.
What the tribunal established
Where there are compelling circumstances, such as a child of the relationship and another child expected, the sponsorship limitation may be overcome.
[2024] AATA 40142024-10-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the sponsor's visa cancellation, with reference to s140(2) and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian citizen, held a Subclass 309 (Spouse Provisional) visa granted in 2017 and was onshore in Australia when his wife's Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 119) visa was cancelled.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 due to the sponsor's visa cancellation, with reference to s140(2) and s359(2).
What the tribunal established
A temporary visa may be cancelled under s109(1) when the sponsor's visa is cancelled, regardless of the applicant's personal circumstances.
[2024] AATA 41362024-10-09RemittedThe key issue was whether the sponsor could satisfy the sponsorship requirement under cl 309.211 and cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations despite his…
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 was onshore applying for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa based on her marriage to an Australian sponsor who had a criminal history and a diagnosed mental health condition. The sponsor’s prior convictions and lack of ministerial sponsorship approval were central to the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The key issue was whether the sponsor could satisfy the sponsorship requirement under cl 309.211 and cl 309.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations despite his relevant offences defined in reg 1.20KC.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet the sponsorship requirement for a Subclass 309 visa when the sponsor discloses relevant convictions, demonstrates remorse and ongoing treatment, satisfying cl 309.222 despite not having prior ministerial approval under cl 309.211.
[2024] AATA 38402024-10-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which is required under s 5F of the Migration Act 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 Hongxia Kuang, married to her sponsor, applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (Subclass 309) and was refused by the delegate.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which is required under s 5F of the Migration Act to demonstrate a genuine spouse relationship.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who satisfy the substantive criteria of cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations must have their Partner (Provisional) visa application remitted for further consideration rather than being refused.
[2024] AATA 38892024-09-20RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 and clause 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as required under s…
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 Faiza Mahmuda was onshore applying for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) subclass 309 visa after marrying her partner, with a prior allegation of a bogus marriage document.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 and clause 309.225 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as required under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy PIC 4020 and the specific subclass criteria, but if sufficient evidence of a genuine marriage is later established, the decision can be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 38682024-09-19RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant did not satisfy clause 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e…
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 Nirmal Singh Sandhu, applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa (subclass 309) based on his marriage to sponsor Mrs Laarni Palar White.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant did not satisfy clause 309.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e., was not the ‘spouse’ of the sponsor.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who satisfy clause 309.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations are recognised as spouses for Partner (Provisional) visas, and the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration when this criterion is met.
[2024] AATA 38702024-09-13RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was found not to satisfy clause 309.211 of Schedule 2 to 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
Ms Lucy Nanun Joe, a Liberian citizen, applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) subclass 309 visa as the spouse of permanent resident Mr Ericson Joe.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant was found not to satisfy clause 309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must satisfy the primary criteria in cl 309.211 and related clauses, and the Tribunal may remit the decision if it finds the criteria can be met on further consideration.
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.