When a temporary activity visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 66 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the visa for specific short-term work or activities in Australia. Here is what actually happened in them, straight from the published record.
These figures describe decisions that have already been made. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, so they are a picture of the past, not a prediction. This is general information, not migration advice.
How to read these decisions
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Until 14 October 2024 it was called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). When someone is refused a visa or has one cancelled, they can often ask the tribunal to look at the decision again.
- Upheld / Affirmed
- The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stands (the applicant lost).
- Set aside
- The tribunal disagreed with the original decision and replaced it (the applicant won).
- Remitted
- The case was sent back to Home Affairs to decide again, with directions (a fresh chance for the applicant).
- Overturned
- The original decision was reversed. On these pages we group overturned decisions under "Set aside" above.
Citations follow a simple pattern: [2026] ARTA 315 means decision number 315 of the tribunal in 2026. Older decisions use AAT in place of ARTA.
What the tribunal decided
Across these 66 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 11% of the time, set it aside 0% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 89% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 59 | 89.4% |
| Upheld | 6 | 9.1% |
| Affirmed | 1 | 1.5% |
Counts from 66 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 | 0% |
| 2025 | 2 | 0% |
| 2024 | 59 | 0% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 4 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 9602026-05-27AffirmedThe issue in dispute was whether the applicant met the 'Australian government endorsed event' requirements in cl 408.229, specifically whether she was in a class 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 65-year-old woman from Vanuatu, applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa under the Australian government endorsed event stream, but was refused due to not meeting the requirements of cl 408.229 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in dispute was whether the applicant met the 'Australian government endorsed event' requirements in cl 408.229, specifically whether she was in a class of persons specified in the relevant legislative instrument and whether she sought to remain in Australia to undertake work directly associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal applied the principle that the requirements of cl 408.229 must be met at the time of the decision, having regard to the most up-to-date evidence available.
[2026] ARTA 8562026-04-28RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied clause 408.223 of the Regulations because of insufficient information about her role as a…
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 Analyn Usi, a perpetually professed religious sister, applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa to work as a religious worker for a Catholic church in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied clause 408.223 of the Regulations because of insufficient information about her role as a religious worker.
What the tribunal established
A decision to refuse a Subclass 408 visa must be based on the applicant meeting all requirements of clause 408.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, and the Tribunal may set aside and remit the decision if the applicant subsequently provides the required evidence.
[2026] ARTA 5932026-03-19RemittedThe issue in dispute was whether the applicant had provided a statement from an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a…
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 Luis Paulo Vieira Cajaiba, applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa and was refused due to not meeting the character requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in dispute was whether the applicant had provided a statement from an appropriate authority that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4001 by providing a statement from an appropriate authority in a country where the person resides or has resided.
[2026] ARTA 9052026-03-19RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied reg 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing an appropriate police statement.
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 Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa and was required to provide a police clearance from the Philippines.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied reg 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing an appropriate police statement.
What the tribunal established
A visa applicant must satisfy reg 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing a genuine, current police clearance from an appropriate authority, unless it is unreasonable to do so.
[2026] ARTA 1962026-02-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.219A and cl 408.222(3)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (Subclass 408) to work as an elite player. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide a letter of endorsement from a national sporting body.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.219A and cl 408.222(3)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the letter of endorsement from a national sporting body.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa must meet the requirements of cl 408.219A and cl 408.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including sponsorship requirements.
[2025] ARTA 17202025-07-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa 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 Sri Lankan national, arrived in Australia on a Temporary Activity (subclass 408) visa and applied for a protection visa. The delegate refused the visa due to concerns about the genuineness and credibility of the applicant's claims.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations because the person is a refugee under s36(2)(a).
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 country of origin.
[2025] ARTA 10212025-05-22RemittedThe central issue was whether the first named applicant satisfied clause 408.223(c)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires full‑time work that…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The family of applicants sought Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity – Class GG) visas as religious workers while onshore in Australia, with the first named applicant employed in a church worship team and design ministry.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the first named applicant satisfied clause 408.223(c)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, which requires full‑time work that directly serves the religious objectives of the institution.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose main paid duties are in a worship team can meet clause 408.223(c)(ii) if that work directly serves the religious objectives of the institution.
[2024] ARTA 122024-11-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should confirm the dismissal of the application under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, due to the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa. The applicant failed to attend the tribunal hearing, leading to the dismissal of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should confirm the dismissal of the application under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, due to the applicant's non-appearance at the hearing.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant fails to appear at a tribunal hearing and does not seek reinstatement within the specified timeframe, the tribunal must confirm the original decision.
[2024] AATA 36992024-10-03RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement in Migration Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) to provide a statement from an appropriate authority about 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
Mr Mike David Rudi Read was an onshore applicant for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) subclass 408 visa who had initially been refused after not providing a required police clearance, and later supplied an Australian Federal Police National Police Certificate.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement in Migration Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) to provide a statement from an appropriate authority about his criminal history under PIC 4001.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals can remit a visa refusal when an applicant subsequently fulfills the statutory police clearance requirement under reg 2.03AA(2)(a).
[2024] AATA 38502024-09-25RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations due to not meeting Public Interest…
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 Akesa Tagilala Mitchell Davuiqalita applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa together with two family members, after lodging the application on 29 January 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations due to not meeting Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate compliance with PIC 4005(1)(aa) satisfy clause 408.216 and may have a refusal remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 38492024-09-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visas on the basis that the applicants had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about their…
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, Mr Amarjit Singh and Mrs Neelam Devi, applied on 7 November 2023 for Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visas while onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas on the basis that the applicants had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about their criminal history.
What the tribunal established
A police clearance certificate from an appropriate authority satisfies the requirement of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for Subclass 408 visa applications.
[2024] AATA 38512024-09-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about…
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 Thomas William McLoughlin applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and provided police clearance certificates from Australia and the United Kingdom.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide appropriate police clearance certificates can satisfy the Reg 2.03AA(2)(a) criminal history requirement for Subclass 408 visas, and the Tribunal may waive the Form 80 requirement where it was not requested.
[2024] AATA 38522024-09-23RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about…
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 Harkirat Singh, an onshore applicant, sought a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and had provided police clearance certificates from Australia and India.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet the Reg 2.03AA(2)(a) criminal history statement requirement by providing police clearance certificates from appropriate authorities.
[2024] AATA 39792024-09-23RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) as required by clause 408.216 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
The applicant, Mr Tee Jia Min, applied onshore in Brisbane for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa on 31 January 2024 after holding no other visa, and his application was refused on health grounds.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) as required by clause 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 408 visas must meet the health requirements of PIC 4005(1)(aa) and failure to do so can be addressed by a remittal directing compliance with that criterion.
[2024] AATA 38422024-09-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to have satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about…
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 Sebastian Dean Bodman applied onshore in Australia for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and had provided police clearance certificates from Australia and the United Kingdom.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was deemed not to have satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about his criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Police clearance certificates from appropriate authorities can satisfy the requirement of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for Temporary Activity visas.
[2024] AATA 38432024-09-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement…
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 Pawan Kumar Mungar applied onshore in Brisbane for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and had provided police clearance certificates from Australia and Mauritius.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide an appropriate police clearance certificate satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and the requirement cannot be waived for Form 80 if it has not been requested.
[2024] AATA 38452024-09-20RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing a statement from an appropriate authority about his criminal history.
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 an onshore person seeking a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and had supplied police clearance certificates from Australia and Turkey.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing a statement from an appropriate authority about his criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide police clearance certificates from the relevant authorities satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and the decision can be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 38462024-09-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about 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
Mr William Hooper applied onshore in Brisbane for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and had provided police checks from the UK and Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about his criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants can meet Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) by providing alternative criminal history documents that are equivalent to a police clearance certificate from an appropriate authority.
[2024] AATA 34842024-09-17RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning the provision of police…
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 Subclass 408 visa, which was refused because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4001 as prescribed in the regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning the provision of police clearance certificates to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4001.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 408 visa must provide police clearance certificates from relevant authorities in countries where they have resided for a total of 12 months or more in the last 10 years to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4001.
[2024] AATA 34822024-09-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.317 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4001, 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 Subclass 408 visa, which was refused by the delegate because she did not satisfy cl.408.317 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The applicant had not provided the required police clearance certificates.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 408.317 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4001, concerning criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 408 visa must provide a statement from a relevant authority regarding their criminal history to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4001.
[2024] AATA 34832024-09-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of r.2.03AA(2) of the Regulations, specifically providing a statement from a relevant authority…
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 Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (Subclass 408). The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl.408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and PIC 4001 as prescribed in reg 2.03AA(2) of the regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of r.2.03AA(2) of the Regulations, specifically providing a statement from a relevant authority regarding their criminal history, as required by PIC 4001.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 408 visa must provide a statement from a relevant authority regarding their criminal history to satisfy PIC 4001, as per r.2.03AA(2) of the Regulations.
[2024] AATA 34772024-09-13RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4001, 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
The applicant applied for a Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity) visa. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl.408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically failing to meet Public Interest Criterion 4001.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4001, regarding criminal history checks.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 408 visa must provide a police clearance certificate from relevant authorities in countries where they have resided for a total of 12 months or more in the last 10 years to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4001.
[2024] AATA 34212024-09-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 408 visa, specifically cl 408.216 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 review of a decision refusing a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (Subclass 408). The delegate refused the visa due to insufficient evidence of criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 408 visa, specifically cl 408.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding criminal history.
What the tribunal established
When new evidence is presented that satisfies a visa criterion, the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 34032024-09-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criterion for the visa grant under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clause 408.216 of Schedule 2…
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 a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (Subclass 408). The delegate refused the visa due to insufficient evidence of criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criterion for the visa grant under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clause 408.216 of Schedule 2, regarding criminal history.
What the tribunal established
When new evidence is presented to the Tribunal that satisfies a criterion for a visa, the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 37172024-08-29RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Julyana Rodrigues Lima applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and was required to provide an overseas police clearance certificate.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant subsequently provides the required statement under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) after a refusal, the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration rather than uphold the refusal.
[2024] AATA 37272024-08-29RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
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 Miloud Hadj Abdallah applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa after previously holding no substantive visa, and was required to provide overseas police clearance certificates.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide the overseas police clearance statements required under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for a Subclass 408 visa, and the Tribunal will not waive the Form 80 requirement.
[2024] AATA 31472024-08-20RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet regulation 2.03AA(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement for a…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Rina Hanzawa applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (subclass 408) and needed to provide police checks and a Form 80 as part of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet regulation 2.03AA(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement for a statement from an appropriate authority and a completed Form 80.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a visa refusal when the applicant provides the required police certificates and the decision-maker failed to properly request a Form 80, thereby satisfying the relevant regulation.
[2024] AATA 29722024-08-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
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 Mandy Farrell, an onshore applicant in Melbourne, sought a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa after a prior refusal and was required to provide overseas police clearance certificates.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about her criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals can remit a visa application for reconsideration when an applicant subsequently fulfills the statement requirement under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a).
[2024] AATA 29772024-08-07RemittedThe central issue was whether she satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires statements from appropriate authorities about her…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Grace Zoe Darlington applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa (Subclass 408) and was required to provide police clearance certificates and a Form 80 as part of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires statements from appropriate authorities about her criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide the required police clearance statements satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2) and the decision can be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 29792024-08-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
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 Al Masad Bin Kabir applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and was initially refused because he had not provided the required Australian Federal Police certificate.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about the applicant's criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide the required police certificate after an initial refusal satisfy reg 2.03AA(2)(a) and the decision can be remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 29762024-08-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about her criminal history.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Valentina Carolay Flores Enrique was onshore in Australia and applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa in January 2024, needing to provide police clearance documents.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2) requiring a statement from an appropriate authority about her criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a visa refusal when an applicant subsequently provides the required police clearance to satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2).
[2024] AATA 29782024-08-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement or police clearance for PIC 4001 under 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, Mr Max Werner Kursave, was onshore in Australia and had applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa on 29 January 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) requiring a statement or police clearance for PIC 4001 under the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who subsequently provide the required police certificates to satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2) for PIC 4001 must have their visa refusal remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 29692024-08-05RemittedThe central issue was whether she satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about her…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Samantha-Louise Parrett was onshore applying for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and initially lacked the required criminal history statements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about her criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit visa applications when the applicant subsequently provides the required criminal history statements to meet Regulation 2.03AA(2).
[2024] AATA 29712024-08-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
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 an onshore person who had applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa after initially lodging the application on 18 December 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about the applicant's criminal history.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant subsequently provides the required statement from an appropriate authority, a tribunal can remit a visa refusal for reconsideration under Regulation 2.03AA(2).
[2024] AATA 29752024-08-05RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an…
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 Siti Nur Hanis Rozali, onshore, applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and was required to provide criminal history statements.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide an appropriate authority statement under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) to satisfy the public interest criterion for a Subclass 408 visa, and the Tribunal cannot waive this requirement unless it is unreasonable.
[2024] AATA 28422024-08-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires statements from appropriate…
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 Gabriel Boudet, an onshore applicant, sought a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and was required to provide police certificates from Australia, France and New Zealand.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant had not satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires statements from appropriate authorities about criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a visa refusal when the applicant subsequently fulfills the public interest criterion prescribed in Regulation 2.03AA(2).
[2024] AATA 28382024-08-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Barbara Andrea Sepulveda Mendoza applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa after being refused, and she was required to provide police certificates as part of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about the applicant's criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide genuine and current police certificates after an initial refusal can satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and have their visa matter remitted for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 28392024-08-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority…
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 Joao Marcos Dos Santos was onshore in Australia and applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa in January 2024; he was required to provide police clearance certificates as part of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a statement from an appropriate authority about the applicant's criminal history.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who provide genuine and current police clearance certificates from the relevant authorities satisfy the requirement of Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) for Subclass 408 visas.
[2024] AATA 28752024-07-15RemittedThe central issue was whether he satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement or police certificate from an appropriate…
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 Edgardo Leonel Gimenez applied onshore for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa after an earlier refusal, and was required to provide police certificates for Australia and countries he had lived in.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether he satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a statement or police certificate from an appropriate authority to meet Public Interest Criterion 4001.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who subsequently provide the required police certificates can satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and the Tribunal may remit the decision for reconsideration.
[2024] AATA 26242024-07-10RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates a criminal history statement from a relevant…
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 Vikhyath Varma Buddharaju, applied onshore in Australia for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) Subclass 408 visa and was required to provide police clearance documents.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates a criminal history statement from a relevant authority.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a visa refusal when the applicant subsequently provides the required police clearance to satisfy Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a).
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.