When a temporary graduate visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 139 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the post-study work visa for recent international graduates. 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 139 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 35% of the time, set it aside 7% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 58% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 80 | 57.6% |
| Upheld | 44 | 31.7% |
| Set aside | 10 | 7.2% |
| Affirmed | 4 | 2.9% |
| Other | 1 | 0.7% |
Counts from 139 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 | 7 | 0% |
| 2025 | 18 | 11% |
| 2024 | 114 | 7% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 5 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 10792026-06-04AffirmedThe issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of living only in a designated regional area for at least two years immediately before applying for the visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a temporary graduate, applied for a second Subclass 485 visa after living in Australia for several years, but had spent four months in Malaysia for medical treatment.
The question before the tribunal
The issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of living only in a designated regional area for at least two years immediately before applying for the visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal applied the principle that the requirement of living only in a designated regional area means the applicant must have a home in that area and not be living elsewhere.
[2026] ARTA 10822026-06-01AffirmedThe applicant did not provide evidence of having undertaken a prescribed English language test with the required scores within the three years before the day on which…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a graduate from Deakin University, applied for a Subclass 485 visa but was refused due to not meeting the English language requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not provide evidence of having undertaken a prescribed English language test with the required scores within the three years before the day on which the visa application was made.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must apply the law as set out in the Migration Act and Regulations, and cannot waive English language requirements.
[2026] ARTA 9652026-05-13AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied clause 485.223 requiring evidence of a skills assessment application.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an automotive electrician, applied for a Subclass 485 Graduate Work visa but failed to provide evidence of a skills assessment at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied clause 485.223 requiring evidence of a skills assessment application.
What the tribunal established
Clause 485.223(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations requires that a Subclass 485 visa application be accompanied by evidence that the applicant has applied for a skills assessment with the relevant assessing authority at the time of application, and the Tribunal has no discretion to waive this requirement.
[2026] ARTA 6832026-04-01OtherWhether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal decision when the application was filed outside the 9‑day review period.
The result
The review ended without a decision on the merits (dismissed, refused or withdrawn).
The situation
The applicant lodged a subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa, was refused on 26 May 2025 and was notified on 10 June 2025, but filed a review application on 3 March 2026.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the refusal decision when the application was filed outside the 9‑day review period.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal has no power to extend the statutory 9‑day review period and lacks jurisdiction to review a refusal decision filed out of time.
[2026] ARTA 6392026-03-18AffirmedThe applicant did not provide an English language test result with her visa application, which is a requirement under cl 485.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ms Jessica Dene Erskine, applied for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under Subclass 485, but was refused due to not demonstrating the required English language proficiency.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not provide an English language test result with her visa application, which is a requirement under cl 485.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must demonstrate they have the required English language proficiency at the necessary point in time to meet the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa.
[2026] ARTA 4302026-02-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the Australian study requirement under cl 485.231(3)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically whether…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa under the Post-Study Work stream. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the Australian study requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the Australian study requirement under cl 485.231(3)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically whether the course was completed within 6 months of the visa application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 485 visa under the Post-Study Work stream must satisfy the Australian study requirement within the 6 months immediately before the visa application.
[2026] ARTA 3852026-02-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the English language requirements of cl 485.212(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not have the required English language proficiency.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the English language requirements of cl 485.212(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she had undertaken an approved English test within the required timeframe.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal is bound to apply the law as it is written and cannot consider the reasons why an English test was not undertaken within the prescribed period.
[2025] ARTA 24352025-09-18RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's application was 'accompanied by' evidence of adequate health insurance, as required by cl 485.215(1) of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa (Subclass 485). The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl 485.215(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's application was 'accompanied by' evidence of adequate health insurance, as required by cl 485.215(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
An application for a visa is considered to be 'accompanied by' evidence of adequate health cover if the evidence was available to the Department at the time of the application, even if not newly submitted with the application.
[2025] ARTA 21312025-09-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants' visa application was accompanied by evidence of applying for an Australian Federal Police check, as required by cl 485.213…
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 applied for a Subclass 485 visa. The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the application was accompanied by evidence of an AFP check.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants' visa application was accompanied by evidence of applying for an Australian Federal Police check, as required by cl 485.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Evidence of applying for any form of an Australian Federal Police check satisfies the requirement of cl 485.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2025] ARTA 16262025-08-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had complied with ss 101 and 103 of the Migration Act 1958, which relate to providing correct information and documents, and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of India, had her Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa cancelled due to providing incorrect information and bogus documents with her application. She claimed family violence and that her husband provided the information, but the Tribunal found her complicit.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had complied with ss 101 and 103 of the Migration Act 1958, which relate to providing correct information and documents, and whether the visa should be cancelled under s 109(1).
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled if the visa holder has failed to comply with the requirements of the Migration Act, particularly if the applicant was complicit in providing incorrect information and bogus documents.
[2025] ARTA 22492025-07-24Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958, relating to risk to the Australian community, was made out, and if…
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 national of India, held a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, which was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958. The applicant sought review of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958, relating to risk to the Australian community, was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the risk to the community against the hardship to the applicant and the legal consequences of cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 16392025-07-23RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically whether the qualification was completed…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 visa. The delegate refused the visa because the first applicant did not satisfy the Australian study requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically whether the qualification was completed within six months before the visa application.
What the tribunal established
A course is considered completed for the purposes of the regulations as soon as the education provider has finished assessing and evaluating the student’s work.
[2025] ARTA 23862025-07-21RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's qualifications met the requirements of cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically the Australian study…
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 485 visa, which was refused because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s qualifications met the Australian study requirement. The applicant had completed a Certificate IV and a Diploma of Hospitality Management.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's qualifications met the requirements of cl 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically the Australian study requirement for the Post-Study Work stream.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the Australian study requirement for a Subclass 485 visa, the applicant's qualifications must have been completed within six months immediately before the day the application is made.
[2025] ARTA 21202025-07-08RemittedThe central issue was whether Mrs. Poudel satisfied PIC 4005(1)(aa)(i) for the purpose of cl 485.216 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 applicants, a married couple, applied for a subclass 485 visa while in Australia. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Mrs. Poudel satisfied PIC 4005(1)(aa)(i) for the purpose of cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a subclass 485 visa must meet the health requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2025] ARTA 13322025-07-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visas because the first applicant did not satisfy clause 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the health requirement…
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 applied onshore in Melbourne for Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas, with the first named applicant needing to meet Subclass 485 health criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the first applicant did not satisfy clause 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the health requirement in Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa).
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 485 visa must meet the health requirement set out in PIC 4005(1)(aa) under clause 485.216, otherwise the decision may be remitted for reconsideration.
[2025] ARTA 13352025-07-01RemittedThe delegate refused the visas because the first applicant did not satisfy clause 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the health requirement…
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 applied onshore for Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas in July 2025, with the first named applicant needing to meet health criteria for a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visas because the first applicant did not satisfy clause 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the health requirement in Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa).
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the health requirement set out in PIC 4005(1)(aa) under clause 485.216 of the Migration Regulations to be granted a Subclass 485 visa when applying for a Skilled Provisional visa.
[2025] ARTA 7952025-06-19UpheldThe delegate refused the bridging visa on the basis that the applicant failed the character test under s501(1) of the Migration Act, relying on Direction no. 110.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Rakesh Razwantee, an onshore applicant whose temporary graduate visa had been cancelled, sought a Bridging (Class WE) visa while his wife and two minor daughters were in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the bridging visa on the basis that the applicant failed the character test under s501(1) of the Migration Act, relying on Direction no. 110.
What the tribunal established
Delegates may refuse a bridging visa on character grounds under s501(1) and Direction 110 regardless of a prior visa cancellation, and the power is not deemed spent.
[2025] ARTA 14462025-03-17UpheldThe central issue was the refusal of the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, requiring the applicant to meet the protection criteria in s36 of the Act.
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 Kenyan male who arrived on a student visa in 2015, later held a subclass 485 temporary graduate visa and applied onshore for a Subclass 866 Protection (Class XA) visa in April 2020.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the refusal of the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, requiring the applicant to meet the protection criteria in s36 of the Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the specific protection criteria in s36(2)(a) or s36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act to be granted a protection visa.
[2025] ARTA 4362025-03-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 485.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the qualification to be completed…
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, Aman Ullah Khan, was onshore on a student visa and applied on 6 April 2022 for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 visa (Post‑Study Work stream).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 485.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the qualification to be completed within the six months immediately before the visa application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can provide corrected documentary evidence proving their qualification was completed within the six‑month period before filing satisfy the Australian study requirement under cl 485.221.
[2025] ARTA 2962025-03-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant's qualifications met the requirements of clause 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Subclass 485 visa under the Post-Study Work stream, having completed a Certificate III and Diploma in Early Childhood Education and Care. The delegate refused the visa, finding the qualifications did not meet the Australian study requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's qualifications met the requirements of clause 485.231 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the Australian study requirement for the Post-Study Work stream.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the Australian study requirement for a Subclass 485 visa, the applicant must have completed a relevant qualification within six months of the visa application.
[2025] ARTA 4202025-02-20Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, relating to the applicant's conviction, was made out, and if…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The Minister sought to cancel the visa due to the applicant's conviction for an offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, relating to the applicant's conviction, was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under section 116 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances, including the potential hardship to the applicant and the availability of alternative visa pathways.
[2025] ARTA 4162025-02-18UpheldThe Minister cancelled the applicant's visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958, because the circumstances that allowed the visa to be granted no longer existed.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of India, had his Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa cancelled. He had previously been granted a Skilled visa as a family member.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister cancelled the applicant's visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958, because the circumstances that allowed the visa to be granted no longer existed.
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled under section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 if the Minister is satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based on a fact or circumstance that no longer exists.
[2025] ARTA 4212025-02-10RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the English test result was not within the required timeframe because the regulations required the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Ali Abbas, a 26‑year‑old Pakistani citizen, applied onshore for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate (Post‑Study Work) visa after completing an English test on the same day as lodging the application.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, finding the English test result was not within the required timeframe because the regulations required the test to be taken “before the day” of lodgement (cl 485.212).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who take and pass the English language test on the same day as lodging a Subclass 485 visa application satisfy the “before the day” requirement of cl 485.212 of the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 4242025-02-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the prescribed ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically reg.2.43(1) (oa) of the Migrations…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, which was cancelled due to criminal convictions. The applicant's visa was granted as a member of the family unit of his wife, but the relationship had ceased.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the prescribed ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically reg.2.43(1) (oa) of the Migrations Regulations 1994, applied due to the applicant's criminal convictions.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will affirm a decision to cancel a visa if the reasons for cancellation outweigh the reasons for not cancelling the visa, considering the applicant's circumstances and Australia's international obligations.
[2025] ARTA 1042025-01-17RemittedThe primary issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language proficiency requirement under clause 485.212(1)(a) 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
Rubina Khanal applied onshore for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 visa with her spouse Saroj Adhikari as a secondary applicant, while the spouse remained offshore in Nepal.
The question before the tribunal
The primary issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language proficiency requirement under clause 485.212(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants may meet the English language requirement of clause 485.212(1)(a) even if evidence is provided after the usual deadline where departmental policy permits flexibility due to exceptional circumstances.
[2024] ARTA 732024-11-26RemittedThe central issue was whether the first applicant met the requirements of reg 2.03AA of the Migration Regulations, specifically regarding the provision of criminal…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants sought a Subclass 485 visa, but the delegate refused due to the first applicant's failure to provide requested criminal history documentation. The other applicants were refused as dependents.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the first applicant met the requirements of reg 2.03AA of the Migration Regulations, specifically regarding the provision of criminal history information.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 485 visa must provide requested criminal history documentation, but the Tribunal can remit the matter if the applicant later complies with the request.
[2024] ARTA 1342024-11-21RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide evidence of a medical assessment, as required by 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 sought a Subclass 485 visa, which was refused by the delegate due to a lack of medical assessment evidence. The applicant applied for the visa on 16 February 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide evidence of a medical assessment, as required by the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant provides evidence of a medical assessment after the initial decision, the Tribunal may remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2024] ARTA 1382024-11-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4005, as required by cl 485.216 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 a Subclass 485 visa, which was refused because he did not meet the health criteria under PIC 4005. The applicant had undergone a medical assessment and was cleared of the health requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met Public Interest Criterion 4005, as required by cl 485.216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 485 visa must meet the health criteria specified in PIC 4005, and a positive assessment by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth satisfies the requirements of PIC 4005(1)(aa).
[2024] ARTA 112024-10-23Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
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 Hong Kong national, held a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa and was convicted of an offence. The Minister for Home Affairs decided to cancel his visa under s 116 of the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 116 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's remorse, the impact on their relationships, and the potential hardship caused by cancellation.
[2024] AATA 40202024-10-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 and the prescribed ground in reg 2.43(1)(oa) of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa, married with a wife and daughter, and had been convicted of offences in Queensland.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 and the prescribed ground in reg 2.43(1)(oa) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose 485 visas are subject to a prescribed ground under reg 2.43(1)(oa) for state convictions cannot avoid cancellation by invoking hardship or family considerations.
[2024] AATA 40262024-10-08Set asideThe Minister sought to cancel her visa under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act because she was no longer a member of the primary visa holder’s family unit.
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 Laxmi Pun was onshore in Australia holding a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa as a secondary visa holder, married to the primary visa holder and later separated, while holding a bridging visa and a pending Subclass 500 student visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister sought to cancel her visa under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act because she was no longer a member of the primary visa holder’s family unit.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are secondary holders of a Subclass 485 visa and cease to be members of the primary holder’s family unit are not automatically subject to cancellation if the Tribunal exercises discretion under s5F(1).
[2024] AATA 39882024-10-02UpheldThe Minister sought to cancel her visa under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the grounds for the visa no longer existed.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Pema Seldon held a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa as a spouse and member of the family unit of the primary visa holder and was onshore in Australia when the relationship ended.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister sought to cancel her visa under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the grounds for the visa no longer existed.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose relationship with the primary visa holder ends and who no longer satisfy the purpose of a Subclass 485 visa may have that visa cancelled under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act.
[2024] AATA 39962024-10-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the purpose of the visa was no longer fulfilled.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa onshore as a secondary applicant and was no longer in a relationship with the primary visa holder.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the purpose of the visa was no longer fulfilled.
What the tribunal established
Visa cancellation under s116(1)(a) is appropriate where the applicant no longer fulfills the purpose of the visa because the underlying relationship has ended.
[2024] AATA 37092024-10-01UpheldThe central issue was whether she satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(2) under clause 485.216 of the Migration Regulations, which she failed due to alleged false or…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Gagandeep Kaur was on a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa and applied onshore for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa in August 2022.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020(2) under clause 485.216 of the Migration Regulations, which she failed due to alleged false or misleading information.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who have provided false or misleading information and fall within PIC 4020(2) are not eligible for a visa waiver unless they can prove compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting Australian interests.
[2024] AATA 39012024-09-26RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) as required by clause 485.216 of Schedule 2 of 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 Saif Ullah Saad, was onshore and had applied for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa on 30 March 2024, but 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 485.216 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who do not meet the health PIC for a provisional skilled visa may have their case remitted if they can satisfy the same PIC requirements under the criteria for a Subclass 485 visa.
[2024] AATA 37302024-09-24UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the circumstances that justified its grant no longer existed.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa, granted in December 2022 as a secondary applicant, and was divorced with limited contact with his child in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled under s 116(a) of the Migration Act 1958 because the circumstances that justified its grant no longer existed.
What the tribunal established
Visas may be cancelled under s 116(1)(a) when the factual basis for the grant has ceased to exist, regardless of claimed hardship.
[2024] AATA 35702024-09-18Set asideThe delegate sought to cancel the visa under section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, alleging the original grant conditions no longer existed.
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, Narinder Singh Sachdeva, was onshore holding a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa and was involved in family law proceedings concerning access to his child after a marital breakdown.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate sought to cancel the visa under section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, alleging the original grant conditions no longer existed.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visa cancellation grounds under s 116 are met may still avoid cancellation where substantial hardship and the best interests of a child outweigh the statutory grounds.
[2024] AATA 39572024-09-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement in clause 485.212(1)(a) of the Migration Regulations, as required under s65 of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Thi Thanh Loan Pham applied onshore for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa and was studying English but had not provided any test results.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement in clause 485.212(1)(a) of the Migration Regulations, as required under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide evidence that meets the specific English language criteria in clause 485.212 at the time of application, otherwise the visa can be refused.
[2024] AATA 39592024-09-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement under clause 485.212 of the Migration Regulations, which requires a test result…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Dr Sahana Nandakumar, a medical doctor, applied onshore for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa on 1 March 2023 and needed to meet English language requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the English language requirement under clause 485.212 of the Migration Regulations, which requires a test result obtained within 36 months prior to the application, pursuant to s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must provide evidence of an English language test undertaken within the 36 months before lodging a Subclass 485 visa application; later test results cannot satisfy clause 485.212.
[2024] AATA 34752024-09-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the English language proficiency requirements outlined in clause 485.212 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 applied for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa, which includes the Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, and was refused due to not meeting the English language proficiency requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the English language proficiency requirements outlined in clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 485 visa must provide evidence of English language proficiency as specified in the relevant instrument.
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.