When a special category visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 221 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 221 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 61% of the time, set it aside 38% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 0% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 112 | 50.7% |
| Set aside | 85 | 38.5% |
| Affirmed | 23 | 10.4% |
| Dismissed | 1 | 0.5% |
Counts from 221 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 | 54 | 22% |
| 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 30 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 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 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 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 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 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.
[2026] ARTA 9322026-04-30AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501(6)(b) and, if not, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.
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 previously belonged to the Mongrel Mob and Bandidos returned to New Zealand and had his Class TY Subclass 444 visa cancelled on character grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501(6)(b) and, if not, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
s 501(2) requires a reasonable suspicion the person does not pass the character test and, if the minister is not satisfied, the decision‑maker must then exercise a discretion, guided by Direction 110, to either cancel or not cancel the visa.
[2026] ARTA 9552026-04-29AffirmedWhether the delegate’s cancellation of the visa under s 501(2) for failing the character test was lawful and should be affirmed.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a long‑term New Zealand resident of 40 years, held a Special Category (Class TY) visa which was cancelled on character grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the delegate’s cancellation of the visa under s 501(2) for failing the character test was lawful and should be affirmed.
What the tribunal established
A decision to cancel a visa under s 501(2) must consider the specific circumstances and the eight principles in Ministerial Direction 110, giving primary weight to community protection and family‑violence considerations.
[2026] ARTA 6962026-04-28Set asideWhether the Tribunal could find a reasonable suspicion that the applicant failed the character test under s 501(6)(b) and, if so, whether the discretion to cancel 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
A 62‑year‑old New Zealand citizen holding a Subclass 444 Special Category visa was detained after the Minister cancelled his visa on the basis of a suspected association with the Highway 61 outlaw motorcycle gang.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal could find a reasonable suspicion that the applicant failed the character test under s 501(6)(b) and, if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(2) the decision‑maker must first form a reasonable suspicion that the person does not pass the character test and, if not satisfied, then exercise a discretion to cancel, taking into account the primary considerations in Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 7282026-04-23AffirmedWhether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 41‑year‑old New Zealand citizen, long‑term resident of Australia, was sentenced to two years imprisonment for aggravated home burglary.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her visa.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record (sentence of 12 months or more) and revocation under s 501CA(4) is only possible if another reason is found, considering the primary and other considerations in Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 7302026-04-16AffirmedWhether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa 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 31‑year‑old New Zealand citizen holding a Special Category (subclass 444) visa was cancelled on character grounds after a 15‑month imprisonment for multiple property offences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the delegate should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
If a person does not pass the character test under s 501(6) and no other reason is found under s 501CA(4), the mandatory cancellation must not be revoked.
[2026] ARTA 5662026-04-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa based on the character test under section 501(2)…
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, held a Subclass 444 Special Category visa. The delegate of the Minister decided to cancel his visa under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly exercised the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa based on the character test under section 501(2) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under section 501(2) of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 3972026-03-16UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his long-term residence and criminal…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, holding a Special Category (Class TY) Subclass 444 visa, had his visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering his long-term residence and criminal history.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501, the decision-maker must consider all relevant factors, including the length of residence, the nature of the criminal conduct, and the Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 3122026-03-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should dismiss the application due to the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing, as per section 99 of 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 New Zealand citizen, held a Subclass 444 Special Category visa. His visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act due to a substantial criminal record, and he applied for review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should dismiss the application due to the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing, as per section 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may dismiss an application if the applicant fails to appear at a hearing after receiving appropriate notice.
[2026] ARTA 3162026-03-10UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s 501(6)(a) and s…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, HGXH, held a Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa, which was cancelled under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s 501(6)(a) and s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the protection of the Australian community is generally given greater weight than other primary considerations, especially when the applicant poses a medium to high risk of reoffending.
[2026] ARTA 3042026-03-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant, holding a subclass 444 visa, met the residence requirements under s 23(1)(b) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act…
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 holding a Special Category Visa (subclass 444), sought access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The NDIA denied access, finding the applicant did not meet residence requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant, holding a subclass 444 visa, met the residence requirements under s 23(1)(b) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) to access the NDIS.
What the tribunal established
A non-protected Special Category Visa holder does not meet the residence requirements for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme under s 23(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.
[2026] ARTA 2802026-03-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister should revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501(CA) of the Migration Act, considering the 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
The applicant, a New Zealand citizen, held a Subclass 444 Special Category Visa which was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 after being convicted of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister should revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501(CA) of the Migration Act, considering the character test and other relevant factors.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under section 501(CA), the Tribunal must weigh all relevant considerations, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, to determine whether revocation is warranted.
[2026] ARTA 2902026-03-03UpheldThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per 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's Special Category (Subclass 444) visa was mandatorily cancelled because he did not pass the character test. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations favouring the applicant against the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 3382026-03-03Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering 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 Class TY, subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa, which had been cancelled. The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, considering the character test and Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including the strength of the applicant's ties to the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, as outlined in Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 2332026-02-20Set asideThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, considering 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 28-year-old New Zealand citizen, had his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, considering the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 2092026-02-17UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 67-year-old New Zealand citizen, held a Class TY Subclass 444 (Temporary) visa. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to serious drug offending.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as per s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given his failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider all relevant matters, including the seriousness of the offending and the public interest.
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.