When a special category visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 236 such decisions (2018 to 2026), covering the visa held by New Zealand citizens living 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 236 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 60% of the time, set it aside 39% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 0% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 112 | 47.5% |
| Set aside | 93 | 39.4% |
| Affirmed | 30 | 12.7% |
| Dismissed | 1 | 0.4% |
Counts from 236 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-09-27. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 69 | 29% |
| 2025 | 106 | 48% |
| 2024 | 60 | 35% |
| 2018 | 1 | 100% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 45 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 20512026-09-14Set asideWhether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 444 visa despite his failure of the character test under s 501.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A 42‑year‑old New Zealand citizen with 15 years residence, two minor children and extensive criminal convictions in both New Zealand and Australia sought revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 444 visa despite his failure of the character test under s 501.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) the Tribunal may revoke a mandatory cancellation if, having regard to Direction No 110, primary considerations such as community protection, family violence, ties to Australia or the best interests of children outweigh the need to cancel.
[2026] ARTA 19872026-09-10AffirmedWhether the Minister should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s subclass 444 visa under s 501CA(4).
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 48‑year‑old New Zealand citizen with a long criminal record, including domestic violence offences, whose subclass 444 visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A).
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Minister should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s subclass 444 visa under s 501CA(4).
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) the Minister may revoke a mandatory visa cancellation only if the person passes the character test or another reason justifies revocation, taking into account Direction 110 primary considerations.
[2026] ARTA 19652026-09-08AffirmedWhether the mandatory cancellation of the visa could be revoked under s 501CA(4) in light of the applicant’s failure of the character test and the application of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 44‑year‑old New Zealand citizen who has lived in Australia for 18 years was convicted of serious weapons offences and had his Class TY Subclass 444 visa cancelled under s 501, seeking revocation of that cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation of the visa could be revoked under s 501CA(4) in light of the applicant’s failure of the character test and the application of Ministerial Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) may be revoked only if the person passes the character test or another reason exists, and the Tribunal must apply Direction 110, giving primary weight to community protection.
[2026] ARTA 20802026-09-08AffirmedThe applicant did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, and the Tribunal had to determine if there was 'another reason' to revoke the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 47-year-old New Zealand citizen, sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his subclass 444 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, and the Tribunal had to determine if there was 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
Australia has a sovereign right to determine who remains in the country, and the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority.
[2026] ARTA 18972026-09-01Set asideWhether the Minister should revoke the visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen holding a Subclass 444 temporary visa had the visa cancelled after a money‑laundering conviction and sought revocation of the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Minister should revoke the visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may revoke a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) if the person makes a representation and the Minister is satisfied the person passes the character test or there is another reason to revoke the cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 18632026-08-28AffirmedWhether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 444 visa under s 501(3A) should be revoked.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 39-year‑old New Zealand citizen residing in Australia with a long history of multiple criminal convictions and a current custodial sentence.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 444 visa under s 501(3A) should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
A visa cancellation under s 501(3A) is effective if the person fails the character test due to a substantial criminal record and is serving a full‑time custodial sentence, and the Tribunal may only revoke it if a reason under s 501CA(4) exists, considering Direction 110 primary and other considerations.
[2026] ARTA 18672026-08-28Set asideWhether the Minister’s discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa under s501(2) should be exercised given his criminal record and the mitigating personal 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
A New Zealand citizen holding a Subclass 444 Special Category Visa had his visa cancelled under s501(2) because of a child‑pornography conviction and sought review of that cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Minister’s discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa under s501(2) should be exercised given his criminal record and the mitigating personal circumstances.
What the tribunal established
Under s501(2) the Minister may cancel a visa if the person does not pass the character test, but the Tribunal may set aside such a cancellation where it is not reasonably necessary, taking into account risk, family ties and mitigating factors.
[2026] ARTA 18992026-08-20Set asideWhether the Minister’s mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category Visa under s 501(3A) should be revoked.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A 37‑year‑old New Zealand citizen holding a Special Category Visa with a long criminal record, including recent grievous bodily harm, faced a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A).
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Minister’s mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category Visa under s 501(3A) should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(3A) the Minister may cancel a visa for failing the character test, but the cancellation can be revoked if the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has shown insight, remorse and a low risk to the community.
[2026] ARTA 15302026-08-03AffirmedWhether the discretion under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised to cancel the applicant's visa given his failure to pass the character test due 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 is a 27-year-old New Zealand citizen who has lived in Australia since age 14 and had his Special Category (subclass 444) visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record including violent offences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the discretion under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised to cancel the applicant's visa given his failure to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record.
What the tribunal established
Where a person fails the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must determine whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(2) to cancel the visa, having regard to Ministerial Direction No. 110 which requires the protection of the Australian community to be the paramount priority.
[2026] ARTA 14372026-07-30Set asideThe Tribunal had to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of Ms Moeke-Hemi's visa, considering her offending history and character…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Ms Moeke-Hemi, a 26-year-old New Zealand citizen, had her Special Category (Temporary) visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal had to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of Ms Moeke-Hemi's visa, considering her offending history and character concerns.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 14122026-07-06Set asideThe applicant's character test failure due to his substantial criminal record was in dispute.
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 TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa was cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including armed robbery and multiple counts of fraud.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's character test failure due to his substantial criminal record was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, defined as having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
[2026] ARTA 11262026-06-23DismissedThe applicant's failure to attend case events and comply with orders led to the dismissal of the application for review of the visa cancellation decision.
The result
The review ended without a decision on the merits (dismissed, refused or withdrawn).
The situation
The applicant's Special Category 444 visa was mandatorily cancelled due to character concerns, and the applicant failed to attend multiple case events during the review process.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's failure to attend case events and comply with orders led to the dismissal of the application for review of the visa cancellation decision.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may dismiss an application where the applicant fails to attend a case event or comply with orders.
[2026] ARTA 13252026-06-22Set asideThe applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation was under review.
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 27-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa cancelled due to failing the character test after being convicted of serious crimes.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation was under review.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 11402026-06-22AffirmedThe applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and she requested revocation of the cancellation decision.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 44-year-old New Zealand citizen, had her Class 444 Special Category visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and she requested revocation of the cancellation decision.
What the tribunal established
A non-citizen who has a substantial criminal record does not pass the character test under section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 12322026-06-19AffirmedWhether, under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa despite the applicant failing the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen holding a Special Category (Temporary) Subclass 444 visa had the visa cancelled after a substantial criminal record and sought revocation of that cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether, under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
Section 501CA(4) allows the Tribunal to revoke a mandatory cancellation if the applicant passes the character test or if another reason exists, with the decision guided by Direction 110’s primary considerations such as community protection and risk of re‑offending.
[2026] ARTA 11072026-06-19Set asideThe applicant's history of alcohol misuse and violent behavior when intoxicated led to the cancellation of his visa, and the decision to revoke the cancellation was in…
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 New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record after assaulting a police officer while intoxicated.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's history of alcohol misuse and violent behavior when intoxicated led to the cancellation of his visa, and the decision to revoke the cancellation was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation if the person passes the character test or if there is another reason to revoke the cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 11252026-06-19Set asideThe applicant's visa was cancelled on character grounds, and the decision not to revoke the cancellation was under review.
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 41-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and serving a sentence of imprisonment.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa was cancelled on character grounds, and the decision not to revoke the cancellation was under review.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation decision if the person passes the character test or if there is another reason to revoke the decision.
[2026] ARTA 10632026-06-16AffirmedThe applicant's history of violent and driving offences led to the cancellation of his visa, and he applied to have the decision revoked.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a dual citizen of New Zealand and Samoa, had his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa mandatorily cancelled due to his substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's history of violent and driving offences led to the cancellation of his visa, and he applied to have the decision revoked.
What the tribunal established
A person may fail the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, and the decision to revoke a mandatory cancellation must consider the protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 10452026-06-12AffirmedThe applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, arguing that he had changed and was no longer a risk to the Australian…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 31-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category visa mandatorily cancelled due to his criminal history, including convictions for family violence and firearm offenses.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, arguing that he had changed and was no longer a risk to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
The character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 is failed if a person has a substantial criminal record.
[2026] ARTA 12252026-06-11Set asideThe applicant's character test was failed due to his substantial criminal record, and the decision to cancel his visa was under review.
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 New Zealand, had his visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including multiple acts of violence against women and other serious offences.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's character test was failed due to his substantial criminal record, and the decision to cancel his visa was under review.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 10272026-06-10Set asideThe applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation of her visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
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 New Zealand national, had her Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation of her visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must cancel a visa if a person does not pass the character test and is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis.
[2026] ARTA 10282026-06-09AffirmedWhether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant’s character failures.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 43‑year‑old New Zealand citizen with a long record of traffic, theft, assault and domestic‑violence offences had her Subclass 444 Special Category visa cancelled.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant’s character failures.
What the tribunal established
A visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) will not be revoked where the applicant fails the character test and the seriousness of the conduct outweighs any mitigating factors.
[2026] ARTA 10062026-06-05AffirmedThe applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision, but the Minister decided not to revoke it, and the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 45-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa mandatorily cancelled due to his substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision, but the Minister decided not to revoke it, and the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 12212026-06-05AffirmedThe applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 40-year-old male citizen of New Zealand, had his Special Category Temporary Visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 10082026-06-03AffirmedWhether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Leslie Matthew Ruru, a New Zealand citizen holding a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa, had the visa cancelled for failing the character test and sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) can only be revoked if the Tribunal finds an ‘another reason’ under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), such as a relevant ministerial direction, that outweighs the character concerns.
[2026] ARTA 10212026-06-02Set asideWhether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) should be revoked under s 501CA(4) in light of the applicant’s character test failure.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen who has lived in Australia since childhood held a Subclass 444 visa and is serving a four‑year prison term for drug trafficking and firearms offences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) should be revoked under s 501CA(4) in light of the applicant’s character test failure.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) the Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation if the person passes the character test or if another reason exists, and the Tribunal must apply Ministerial Direction 110 when making that assessment.
[2026] ARTA 9282026-05-29AffirmedThe applicant's dishonesty and drug-related offences led to the cancellation of her visa, and the Tribunal had to decide whether to revoke the cancellation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had her Special Category visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's dishonesty and drug-related offences led to the cancellation of her visa, and the Tribunal had to decide whether to revoke the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's character when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 10152026-05-28AffirmedThe applicant's visa was cancelled due to his failure to pass the character test, and he sought revocation of the cancellation decision.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had his visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa was cancelled due to his failure to pass the character test, and he sought revocation of the cancellation decision.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, defined as having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
[2026] ARTA 10232026-05-26AffirmedWhether the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category visa under s 501CA(4) should be upheld.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 40‑year‑old New Zealand citizen, long‑term resident in Australia, was convicted of multiple serious offences including drug trafficking, assault and family‑violence related breaches, resulting in a 22‑month prison term.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category visa under s 501CA(4) should be upheld.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, i.e. a sentence of 12 months or more, and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4) requires the existence of ‘another reason’ after applying the primary and other considerations in Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 8782026-05-25AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and, if not, whether any other reason exists to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her subclass 444 visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A long‑term New Zealand resident with seven minor children, multiple violent convictions and a substantial criminal record, currently detained after a mandatory visa cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and, if not, whether any other reason exists to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her subclass 444 visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must apply s 501(6) character test and, under Direction 110, give primary weight to protection of the Australian community, so a substantial criminal record outweighs ties to Australia and best‑interest of children.
[2026] ARTA 10542026-05-25AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and whether any other reason exists to revoke the cancellation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen holding a Subclass 444 temporary visa had it cancelled because of a substantial criminal record and sought review of the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and whether any other reason exists to revoke the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record (s 501(6)(a) and s 501(7)), and the decision must be made in accordance with Direction 110, giving primary weight to protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 8712026-05-22AffirmedWhether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A long‑term resident on a Special Category (subclass 444) visa was convicted of possessing child exploitation material and had his visa cancelled under the character provisions.
The question before the tribunal
Whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) can be revoked only if the applicant passes the character test or the decision‑maker is satisfied that there is another reason, applying the primary and other considerations set out in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 8922026-05-18AffirmedThe applicant's claim was rejected due to late lodgement, and the applicant argued that special circumstances prevented them from making the claim on time.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a holder of a Subclass 444 visa, made a claim for family tax benefit for the 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22 financial years, which was rejected by the Respondent.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim was rejected due to late lodgement, and the applicant argued that special circumstances prevented them from making the claim on time.
What the tribunal established
A claim for family tax benefit for a past period is not effective if made after the end of the second income year after the relevant income year, unless special circumstances prevented the claimant from making the claim on time.
[2026] ARTA 8262026-05-15AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the character test and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen who grew up in Australia has a substantial criminal record including extortion, firearms offences and dangerous driving.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the character test and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(6)(a) a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record (s 501(7)(c)), and s 501CA(4) requires the Tribunal to consider any other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation in light of Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 9332026-05-14AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and whether any other reason exists to revoke the visa cancellation.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen holding a Subclass 444 Special Category visa with a substantial criminal record, including domestic‑violence and drug offences, and a large family network in Australia, appeared self‑represented.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and whether any other reason exists to revoke the visa cancellation.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(6)(a) and Direction 110, a person with a substantial criminal record (imprisonment of 12 months or more) fails the character test, and protection of the Australian community outweighs other considerations.
[2026] ARTA 10692026-05-14AffirmedThe decision under review was whether to revoke the cancellation of WNMY's Special Category (Temporary) visa, which was cancelled due to his criminal history and failure…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 37-year-old New Zealand citizen, WNMY, who arrived in Australia at age 10, has had his visa cancellation affirmed due to his substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The decision under review was whether to revoke the cancellation of WNMY's Special Category (Temporary) visa, which was cancelled due to his criminal history and failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of staying in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 11082026-05-12AffirmedThe Applicant's substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test were in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 48-year-old New Zealand citizen with a history of substance use disorder and criminal offending had his visa cancellation decision affirmed by the Tribunal.
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant's substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test were in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must cancel a visa if the person does not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record.
[2026] ARTA 7722026-05-08Set asideThe applicant was found guilty of attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.
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 28-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his special category visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was found guilty of attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider whether the Australian community requires protection from harm arising from the applicant's criminal activity.
[2026] ARTA 8272026-05-08AffirmedWhether the Minister’s discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised in light of the applicant’s substantial criminal record and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A New Zealand citizen holding a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa has multiple convictions for contraventions of domestic violence orders, including a 12‑month imprisonment term.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Minister’s discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised in light of the applicant’s substantial criminal record and the considerations in Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
Cancellation under s 501(2) is discretionary but may be affirmed when the applicant fails the character test due to a substantial criminal record and the primary considerations in Direction 110, especially protection of the Australian community, outweigh any mitigating factors.
[2026] ARTA 7132026-04-30AffirmedThe applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, arguing that there were other reasons why the cancellation should be revoked.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 36-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category visa cancelled due to failing the character test after being convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, arguing that there were other reasons why the cancellation should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
The Minister has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens of character concern are allowed to enter or remain in Australia.
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.