When a temporary work (international relations) visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 34 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the visa for work under specific international arrangements. 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 34 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 91% of the time, set it aside 6% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 3% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 31 | 91.2% |
| Set aside | 2 | 5.9% |
| Remitted | 1 | 2.9% |
Counts from 34 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 | 1 | 100% |
| 2025 | 1 | 100% |
| 2024 | 32 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 34 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 3152026-03-06Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering their criminal history and the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, had their Class GD Subclass 403 visa cancelled. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering their criminal history and the potential risk of future criminal conduct.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the risk of future criminal conduct and the impact of removal, as outlined in relevant Ministerial Directions.
[2025] ARTA 1522025-01-31Set asideThe delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act, alleging the applicant no longer had a genuine intention to stay temporarily to carry out the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 403 Temporary Work (International Relations) visa onshore and was stood down by his employer due to a medical issue, subsequently resigning and seeking new employment.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act, alleging the applicant no longer had a genuine intention to stay temporarily to carry out the work for which the visa was granted.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate a continued genuine intention to fulfil the purpose of a Subclass 403 visa are not subject to cancellation under s 116(1)(g) even if their original employer ceases employment.
[2024] AATA 41532024-09-04UpheldThe central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, assessing whether the applicant faced a real risk of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a single man who arrived in Australia on a Subclass 403 PALM visa in February 2020 and applied on 1 September 2023 for a Permanent Protection (Subclass 866) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, assessing whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a personal real risk of significant harm, not a risk faced by the general population, to satisfy the protection visa criteria under s 65.
[2024] AATA 34982024-09-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 to cancel the applicant's Bridging C…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, held a Subclass 030 (Bridging C) visa while awaiting a decision on his protection visa application, after his 403 visa expired. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to cancel his Bridging C visa due to criminal convictions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 to cancel the applicant's Bridging C visa, considering his criminal convictions and other circumstances.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may cancel a visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 if the visa holder has been convicted of a crime, considering all relevant circumstances.
[2024] AATA 32052024-07-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the well‑founded fear requirement under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 to be granted a protection visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a Vanuatu citizen who arrived in Australia on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa under the PALM scheme and applied for a protection visa on 8 November 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the well‑founded fear requirement under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 to be granted a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the well‑founded fear test under s 65 of the Migration Act; without evidence of a real risk of significant harm, a protection visa may be refused.
[2024] AATA 32082024-07-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, given his claim of risk from natural disasters and personal…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vanuatu citizen, was on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa that arrived in Australia in April 2021 and later applied for a protection visa on 15 October 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, given his claim of risk from natural disasters and personal threats.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution or significant harm specific to them, not merely generalized natural disaster risk, to satisfy the protection test under s 65 of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 36872024-06-07UpheldThe delegate refused the protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding the applicant did not meet the protection criteria.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Fiji citizen, was in Australia on a Temporary Work (subclass 403) visa since January 2021 and applied for a protection visa on 3 January 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding the applicant did not meet the protection criteria.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide sufficient particulars and evidence to satisfy the protection criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act, otherwise the visa can be refused.
[2024] AATA 25042024-06-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa, i.e., whether Australia had protection…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a male Vanuatu citizen, was in Australia on a subclass 403 temporary work visa and applied onshore for a subclass XA-866 protection visa on 2 November 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa, i.e., whether Australia had protection obligations towards him.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate, under s 65 of the Migration Act, that Australia has protection obligations because they face a real risk of significant harm if removed.
[2024] AATA 23292024-05-30UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether she had a well‑founded fear…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was a woman on a Subclass 403 Temporary Work (International Relations) visa who arrived in Australia in December 2022 and applied on‑shore for a protection visa in September 2023, claiming threats from neighbours and friends in Timor‑Leste over unpaid debts.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether she had a well‑founded fear of persecution or significant harm and lacked adequate protection in Timor‑Leste.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm that cannot be mitigated by state protection to satisfy the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 21802024-05-27UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee definition under s 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958, which the delegate found she did not, leading to a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an East Timorese national, was on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa and lodged a protection visa application on 23 November 2023 while onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee definition under s 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958, which the delegate found she did not, leading to a refusal under s 65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the refugee definition in s 5H(1) of the Migration Act; lack of economic opportunities alone does not constitute a refugee claim.
[2024] AATA 36282024-05-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically the requirement to demonstrate a real…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a Solomon Islands national who arrived in Australia in October 2021 on a Subclass 403 visa and applied onshore for a protection visa on 16 October 2023 while unemployed and living with friends.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically the requirement to demonstrate a real risk of significant harm if removed.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the protection visa criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act by proving a real risk of significant harm upon return to their home country.
[2024] AATA 32872024-05-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she faced persecution in Vanuatu due to her…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, arrived in Australia on a subclass 403 visa and applied for a protection visa. The delegate of the Minister refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she faced persecution in Vanuatu due to her sexual orientation.
What the tribunal established
To be considered a refugee, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of, among other things, membership of a particular social group, such as the LGBTI community.
[2024] AATA 23902024-05-10UpheldThe delegate refused the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding the applicant did not meet the protection criteria.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Tongan citizen, was on a Temporary Work (International Relations) GD‑403 visa, left Australia in September 2022 and returned in February 2023, and applied for a protection visa on 2 November 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding the applicant did not meet the protection criteria.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the substantive criteria in s 65 of the Migration Act to be granted a protection visa; economic hardship alone does not establish a refugee claim.
[2024] AATA 32612024-05-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether Australia had…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, arrived in Australia on a Subclass 403 visa and applied for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Vanuatu due to family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations because the applicant was a refugee.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a protection visa, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to their country of origin.
[2024] AATA 9632024-05-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act, exercising discretion under section…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore in Australia holding a subclass 403 temporary work (international relations) visa (class GD) when his visa was mandatorily cancelled after a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act, exercising discretion under section 501CA(4) and considering Ministerial Direction No 99.
What the tribunal established
When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A), the discretion to revoke the cancellation under s 501CA(4) will not be exercised if the protection of the Australian community outweighs any impediments to removal identified under Direction 99.
[2024] AATA 23932024-04-29UpheldThe delegate refused the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant’s claim of economic hardship did not meet the protection criteria in s…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Timor‑Leste national, was on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa after arriving in Australia in January 2023 and applied on‑shore for a protection visa in December 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant’s claim of economic hardship did not meet the protection criteria in s 5J(1)(a).
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the protection criteria in s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act and cannot rely solely on economic hardship to obtain a protection visa.
[2024] AATA 16312024-04-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy public interest criterion PIC 4005(1)(aa)(i) requiring completion of the specified medical…
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 Arfat Ali Shah, a Fijian national, applied onshore on 1 December 2023 for a GD – Temporary Work (International Relations) visa under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme to work as a Meat Process Worker for 12 months.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy public interest criterion PIC 4005(1)(aa)(i) requiring completion of the specified medical examinations under clause 403.291(g) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy PIC 4005(1)(aa) by completing the required medical examinations before a GD subclass 403 visa can be granted.
[2024] AATA 13822024-04-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958, given the delegate’s refusal under s 65 that he…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Timor‑Leste citizen, arrived in Australia in June 2023 on a subclass 403 temporary work visa and applied for a protection visa on 9 October 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958, given the delegate’s refusal under s 65 that he could obtain protection from Timor‑Leste authorities.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who cannot demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and for whom protection can be obtained from the country of origin, do not meet the s 36 protection‑visa criteria.
[2024] AATA 26432024-04-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether Australia had protection…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Timor‑Leste citizen, held temporary work (Subclass 403) visas in 2017‑2018 and again in 2023, and applied for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa while on a bridging visa in September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether Australia had protection obligations towards her.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the protection visa criteria in s 65 of the Migration Act, demonstrating a real risk of significant harm, for a protection visa to be granted.
[2024] AATA 21442024-04-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether there was a real chance of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vanuatuan citizen, was on a GD‑403 temporary work visa in Australia and applied onshore for a protection visa on 15 December 2023, claiming threats and black‑magic related persecution.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, i.e., whether there was a real chance of suffering significant harm if returned to Vanuatu.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide credible evidence of a real risk of significant harm to satisfy the s 65 protection visa test; unsubstantiated claims of black‑magic persecution are insufficient.
[2024] AATA 6252024-04-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s501(3A) of the Migration Act, given his substantial criminal record, and whether there were…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Tongan citizen, held a Class GD Subclass 403 Temporary Work (International Relations) visa. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act due to his criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s501(3A) of the Migration Act, given his substantial criminal record, and whether there were 'other reasons' to revoke the cancellation under s501CA(4).
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Direction 99, to determine if there are 'other reasons' to revoke the cancellation.
[2024] AATA 30332024-04-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution or significant harm under s65 of the Migration Act 1958, given the threat over a debt.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Timor‑Leste, entered Australia on a subclass 403 visa in March 2022, returned to Timor‑Leste in November 2022, and re‑entered Australia in March 2023 before applying for a protection visa in August 2023 after claiming he would be harmed over a debt owed to a friend.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution or significant harm under s65 of the Migration Act 1958, given the threat over a debt.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must show a real risk of significant harm or persecution that cannot be mitigated by protection available in the country of origin to satisfy s65 of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 26452024-04-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa, given claims of religious persecution and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Samoan citizen who arrived in Australia on a subclass 403 International Relations visa in October 2021, applied on 27 September 2023 for a protection visa while living in Sydney.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 for a protection visa, given claims of religious persecution and family threats in Samoa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a real risk of significant harm that cannot be mitigated by state protection to be granted a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 19792024-04-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee criteria under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, after the delegate refused the protection…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was a Vanuatu national holding a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa who arrived in Australia in November 2021 and lodged an on‑shore protection visa application on 5 September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the refugee criteria under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, after the delegate refused the protection visa under s 65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the substantive protection test in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act by demonstrating a real risk of significant harm to obtain a protection visa.
[2024] AATA 13542024-03-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act and s 5J(1) of the Act, i.e., whether he faced a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a Timor‑Leste national who arrived in Australia on 8 February 2023 on a Subclass 403 International Relations visa and sought a protection visa after his onshore claim was refused.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act and s 5J(1) of the Act, i.e., whether he faced a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if removed.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate personal risk of persecution or significant harm; general economic or security conditions in the country of origin are not sufficient to satisfy the protection‑visa criteria.
[2024] AATA 18142024-03-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the refugee definition under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, given the lack of a Convention nexus and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Samoan citizen, was onshore in Australia holding a subclass 403 temporary work visa and later a Bridging Visa A when she applied for a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the refugee definition under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, given the lack of a Convention nexus and economic conditions in Samoa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the specific refugee definition in s 65 of the Migration Act, and economic hardship alone is insufficient to establish Convention refugee status.
[2024] AATA 25642024-03-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether Australia had protection…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vanuatu citizen, arrived in Australia on a Temporary Work (Subclass 403) visa in September 2021, later held Subclass 408 visas and bridging visas, and applied onshore for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa in September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him as a refugee.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the statutory protection visa criteria in the Migration Act, demonstrating a real risk of significant harm in their country of origin, for a protection visa to be granted.
[2024] AATA 23882024-03-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (refugee or complementary protection) as required for a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a single mother from Tonga, arrived in Australia in November 2022 on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 visa and applied for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa in August 2023 while on a bridging visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (refugee or complementary protection) as required for a Protection visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the specific protection criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act and the corresponding regulations to be granted a Protection visa.
[2024] AATA 23692024-03-12UpheldThe delegate refused the protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding no real risk of significant harm if the applicant were returned to Tonga.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a Tongan national who arrived in Australia in June 2023 on a Temporary Work (International Relations) subclass 403 PALM visa and applied onshore for a protection visa on 11 August 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, finding no real risk of significant harm if the applicant were returned to Tonga.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a real risk of significant harm under s 65 of the Migration Act for a protection visa to be granted; personal family disputes alone do not satisfy this requirement.
[2024] AATA 20922024-02-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria in section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, particularly the requirement to demonstrate a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2021 on a Temporary Work (International Relations) visa (subclass 403) under the PALM stream and applied for a protection visa on 22 October 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the protection‑visa criteria in section 65 of the Migration Act 1958, particularly the requirement to demonstrate a real risk of significant harm if removed to Samoa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the protection‑visa criteria in s 65 of the Migration Act, and a refusal will be upheld where the Tribunal is not satisfied that a real risk of significant harm exists upon removal.
[2024] AATA 6792024-02-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 403.232 and cl 403.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she…
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 Subclass 403 visa to work as a representative of the Spanish Consulate in Melbourne, but the delegate refused the visa. The applicant was in Australia at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 403.232 and cl 403.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she was employed as a representative of a foreign government agency.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Subclass 403 visa under the Foreign Government Agency stream, an applicant must be employed as a representative of a foreign government agency that does not enjoy official status in Australia.
[2024] AATA 12552024-02-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act, specifically whether fear of natural disasters constituted…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was in Australia on a Subclass 403 seasonal worker visa and applied onshore for a protection visa in September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act, specifically whether fear of natural disasters constituted a refugee ground.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must show a real risk of significant personal harm that cannot be avoided by relocation or protection in their home country; fear of natural disasters alone does not meet the refugee criteria.
[2024] AATA 12582024-01-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether the fear of natural disasters…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vanuatu citizen, was onshore holding a Subclass 403 temporary work visa (later a Subclass 408 temporary activity visa) and applied for a protection visa in September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the protection visa criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether the fear of natural disasters constituted a well‑founded fear of persecution.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the well‑founded fear of persecution test under s 36 and s 65 of the Migration Act, and environmental disasters alone are insufficient for a protection visa.
[2024] AATA 4362024-01-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he was a refugee.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, applied for a Protection visa after arriving in Australia on a subclass 403 visa. He claimed he feared harm related to debts and threats from his ex-partner's family.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he was a refugee.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Protection visa, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or face a real risk of significant harm if returned to their home country.
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.