When a partner visa (offshore, provisional) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 85 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 85 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 16% of the time, set it aside 4% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 80% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 68 | 80.0% |
| Upheld | 14 | 16.5% |
| Set aside | 3 | 3.5% |
Counts from 85 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 | 5 | 20% |
| 2025 | 19 | 11% |
| 2024 | 61 | 0% |
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 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 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 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 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.
[2024] AATA 38632024-09-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of spouse under s 5F of the Migration Act 1958 and met the substantive criteria cl.309.211 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
Mrs Meihui Ke applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) Subclass 309 visa as the spouse of her sponsor Mr Yizhong Chen, who were married and seeking to establish a joint household in Sydney.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the definition of spouse under s 5F of the Migration Act 1958 and met the substantive criteria cl.309.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
If a tribunal finds that a partner visa applicant meets the substantive regulatory criteria, it may remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration rather than affirming the refusal.
[2024] AATA 38782024-09-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition in s 5F of the Migration Act and met cl.309.211(2) of 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 was the spouse of an Australian citizen and had applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) subclass 309 visa, seeking to establish a joint household in Sydney.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition in s 5F of the Migration Act and met cl.309.211(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who meet cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations can have a subclass 309 visa application remitted for reconsideration despite an initial refusal under s 5F.
[2024] AATA 31712024-08-29RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant had not satisfied regulatory criteria 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 Anas Moukdad applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa as the spouse of sponsor Mrs Baraa Chamma.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant had not satisfied regulatory criteria cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must satisfy the detailed financial and social criteria set out in cl.309.211 and cl.309.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations to establish a genuine spouse relationship.
[2024] AATA 31342024-08-26UpheldThe central issue was whether Mr Garcia Callaba satisfied the genuine relationship requirement for a Partner visa and whether any exception, such as the family‑violence…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Garcia Callaba held a temporary Partner (Provisional) subclass 309 visa granted in 2015 and applied onshore for a permanent Partner (Subclass 100) visa after his relationship with Ms Christina Callaba had ended. He was represented in Adelaide and the decision under review was the refusal of the permanent visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Mr Garcia Callaba satisfied the genuine relationship requirement for a Partner visa and whether any exception, such as the family‑violence exemption under Migration Act ss 359(2) and Regulation 1.24, applied.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are no longer in a genuine relationship cannot meet the partner visa genuine relationship requirement, and family‑violence exemptions only apply when the violence occurred during the relationship.
[2024] AATA 36942024-08-09RemittedThe central issue was whether the couple satisfied the genuine de facto relationship requirement under section 5CB of the Migration Act and the primary criteria 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 Charlene May applied onshore in Melbourne for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa as the de facto partner of Mr Kurwan Stuart, with whom she has been in a relationship for over 10 years and has two children together.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the couple satisfied the genuine de facto relationship requirement under section 5CB of the Migration Act and the primary criteria of clauses 309.211(2)(a) and 309.221(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must satisfy the primary criteria set out in clauses 309.211 and 309.221 of Schedule 2 to establish a genuine de facto relationship.
[2024] AATA 36912024-08-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition under s 5F of the Migration Act and the related criteria in cl 309.211 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Thi Hong Dinh, a Vietnamese national, applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) subclass 309 visa based on her relationship with her sponsor, but the relationship had ended and she failed to provide requested information.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition under s 5F of the Migration Act and the related criteria in cl 309.211 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the spouse definition under s 5F and the corresponding regulatory criteria at the time of application; inability to demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship results in refusal.
[2024] AATA 28312024-07-25RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to satisfy clause 309.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e., the spouse…
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 Neil Paul Truebody, was married to his sponsor and applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) Subclass 309 visa together with his wife and dependent child.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to satisfy clause 309.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e., the spouse requirement under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must satisfy both clause 309.211(2)(a) and clause 309.221(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, otherwise the decision may be remitted for further assessment.
[2024] AATA 27882024-07-24UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition in s 5F of the Migration Act and the primary criteria in cl 309.211(2) of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mrs Thieu My Tu, the spouse of sponsor Mr Yieu Vai Mak, applied onshore for a Partner (Provisional) Subclass 309 visa in November 2019, with a secondary applicant Mr Tuan Minh Ly included in the family unit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the spouse definition in s 5F of the Migration Act and the primary criteria in cl 309.211(2) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa must meet both the s 5F spouse definition and the primary criteria set out in cl 309.211(2) of the Migration Regulations.
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.