When a visitor visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 258 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the visa for tourism, business visitor activities or visiting family. 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 258 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 38% of the time, set it aside 5% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 57% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 147 | 57.0% |
| Upheld | 97 | 37.6% |
| Set aside | 13 | 5.0% |
| Affirmed | 1 | 0.4% |
Counts from 258 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 | 22 | 9% |
| 2025 | 59 | 7% |
| 2024 | 177 | 4% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 7 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 8662026-05-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visa application due to concerns that the visa applicant did not have sufficiently strong financial commitments in her home country to be…
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 visa applicant, a 46-year-old woman from Pakistan, applied for a Visitor visa to care for her sister, an Australian citizen, during her recovery from surgery.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa application due to concerns that the visa applicant did not have sufficiently strong financial commitments in her home country to be considered an incentive to return to Pakistan.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
[2026] ARTA 8052026-04-13RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant had established that the review applicant was her aunt, as required by cl 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the 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 visa applicant, Miss Airyse Joves Tuatis, applied for a Visitor visa, sponsored by her aunt, Mrs Carlota Joves Caldwell, but the application was refused due to insufficient evidence of their relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant had established that the review applicant was her aunt, as required by cl 600.232 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the visa applicant is sponsored by a close relative, as defined in Regulation 1.03, in order to meet the requirements of cl 600.232(2)(a).
[2026] ARTA 6762026-03-31RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet the genuine temporary entrant 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 visa applicant, Mrs Hongyan Liu, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa to visit her daughter and grandchildren in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted.
[2026] ARTA 6722026-03-30RemittedWhether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant requirement under clause 600.211 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
A 67‑year‑old retired Pakistani bank manager applied for a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa to visit his daughter and her family in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant requirement under clause 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily, taking into account compliance with previous visa conditions, intention to comply with the new visa conditions, and any other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 9152026-03-20AffirmedThe applicant's latest visitor visa application was refused by the delegate, and she is seeking review of this 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 Vietnamese citizen, is the mother of an Australian citizen child and has been living in Australia on a series of visitor visas while awaiting the outcome of her Permanent Parent visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's latest visitor visa application was refused by the delegate, and she is seeking review of this decision.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia and that exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of the visa.
[2026] ARTA 5892026-03-19RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211 – genuine temporary entrant 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
A Pakistani mother applied for a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa to travel to Australia to support her son and his family who have a child with severe autism.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 600.211 – genuine temporary entrant requirement.
What the tribunal established
Clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose of the visa, taking into account ties to the home country, compliance with visa conditions and any other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 6382026-03-12RemittedWhether the sponsor‑applicant relationship satisfies clause 600.232 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
Ms Nalyphouvanh Outhay applied for a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa sponsored by her sister Ms Singnary Outhay.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the sponsor‑applicant relationship satisfies clause 600.232 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The visa applicant must be sponsored by a settled Australian citizen or permanent resident who is a relative as defined in regulation 1.03 for the purpose of clause 600.232.
[2026] ARTA 5162026-03-04RemittedThe delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically that she did not genuinely…
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 600 (Visitor) visa to visit her daughter and grandchildren in Australia. The applicant had previously held a Subclass 600 visa and had stayed in Australia for eight months before departing.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically that she did not genuinely intend a temporary stay.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 2612026-02-26Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 when refusing the applicant's Partner visa.
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 Lebanese citizen, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa after arriving in Australia on a visitor visa. The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 when refusing the applicant's Partner visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering a visa application, the decision-maker must make a decision that is in accordance with the law, and the Tribunal can substitute a decision if the original decision was not correct.
[2026] ARTA 3702026-02-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should confirm the dismissal of the application under s 100 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, due to the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to proceed and comply with the ART Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should confirm the dismissal of the application under s 100 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, due to the applicant's failure to proceed and comply with s 56 of the ART Act.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant fails to proceed with their application and does not seek reinstatement within the specified timeframe after a dismissal, the Tribunal must confirm the dismissal decision.
[2026] ARTA 1782026-02-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised the discretion under subsection 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visitor visa, given 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, Mr. McLaughlin, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, which was refused because he did not pass the character test under s501(6) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised the discretion under subsection 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visitor visa, given the applicant's failure of the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering a visa refusal under s501(1) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the relevant considerations, including those in Ministerial Direction 110, to determine whether the discretion should be exercised.
[2026] ARTA 1982026-02-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.212, regarding adequate means of support, and cl 600.215, concerning exceptional circumstances…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an independent worker, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) to extend his stay in Australia beyond October 2024, seeking to satisfy the Tourist stream criteria.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.212, regarding adequate means of support, and cl 600.215, concerning exceptional circumstances for a stay exceeding 12 months.
What the tribunal established
Exceptional circumstances for a visa extension, as per cl 600.215, require more than just a desire to remain in Australia with a partner; they must involve unanticipated and extraordinary changes beyond the applicant's control.
[2026] ARTA 3752026-02-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the visa applicant to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, sponsored by his brother, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the visa applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the genuine temporary entrant requirement for a Visitor visa, the applicant must demonstrate sufficient incentive to comply with visa conditions and return to their home country.
[2026] ARTA 3882026-01-28RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether she genuinely…
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 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream to assist her sister, a single mother of newborn triplets, with childcare. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances, including compassionate reasons and family ties, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 2502026-01-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely…
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 Visitor (Class FA) visa (subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream to visit his wife in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 672026-01-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the residential requirements for disability support pension under the Social Security Act 1991, specifically focusing on…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, who had previously held a visitor visa and a bridging visa, was receiving disability support pension but had it suspended after departing Australia. The central issue was whether she met the residential requirements for the pension at the time of suspension.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the residential requirements for disability support pension under the Social Security Act 1991, specifically focusing on s94(1)(e)(ii) and s94(1)(e)(iii) regarding qualifying Australian residence or exemption.
What the tribunal established
A person's eligibility for disability support pension is determined by whether they meet the residential requirements outlined in the Social Security Act 1991 at the time of suspension or cancellation of the payment.
[2026] ARTA 1172026-01-21RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely…
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 Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) to visit his mother in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend a temporary stay.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely intended a temporary stay in Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa must demonstrate a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia, considering all relevant factors including ties to their home country.
[2026] ARTA 1252026-01-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 600.211 and cl 600.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding genuine intention to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr. Binggan, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) in the Tourist stream. The applicant had been in Australia for over two years and had a de facto relationship in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 600.211 and cl 600.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding genuine intention to stay temporarily and having sufficient funds.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia and demonstrate sufficient funds to support themselves for the duration of their stay.
[2026] ARTA 2182026-01-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian citizen, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) to visit his brother and niece in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirement to genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirement of genuinely intending to stay temporarily, an applicant must demonstrate sufficient incentives to return to their home country that outweigh the incentives to remain in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 3472026-01-14RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by cl 600.211 of Schedule 2…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, elderly parents, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream to visit their children and grandchildren in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, as required by cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the decision-maker must consider all relevant factors to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 1282026-01-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements for a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and cl 600.215 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, an 89-year-old US citizen, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa under the Sponsored Family stream, seeking to extend her stay in Australia after holding multiple temporary and bridging visas for over three years.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements for a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and cl 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will affirm a decision not to grant a visa if the applicant does not meet the requirements of the relevant visa subclass.
[2026] ARTA 852026-01-08RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether they genuinely…
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 Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream. The applicant's visa application was refused by the delegate of the Minister.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether they genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the genuine intention requirement for a Visitor visa, the Tribunal considers all relevant matters, including family ties, financial circumstances, and the consistency of the applicant's evidence.
[2025] ARTA 28982025-12-16RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether they genuinely…
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, citizens of Liberia, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa to attend the funeral of their mother and assist with her estate. The review applicant is the brother of one applicant and the nephew of the other, and is in gaol.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether they genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia.
[2025] ARTA 29212025-12-12RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely…
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, a citizen of Ghana, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa to assist her sister in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa may satisfy the genuine intention requirement if their circumstances demonstrate a clear intention to stay temporarily, even if they have significant ties to their home country and a compelling reason to visit Australia.
[2025] ARTA 26502025-12-07Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, considering a spent conviction for rape in the UK and the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a 62-year-old UK national, applied for a Class FA Subclass 600 Visitor visa. The Minister refused the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act due to the applicant's criminal history.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, considering a spent conviction for rape in the UK and the application of Direction no. 110.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's character under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider all relevant factors, including the nature of the offending, the applicant's ties to Australia, and the potential impact on the Australian community, as guided by relevant Ministerial Directions.
[2025] ARTA 25362025-11-27Set asideThe central issue was whether the visa applicant passed the character test under s501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering past criminal offending in Singapore.
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 sought review of a decision refusing a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa. The applicant and the visa applicant were married and the visa applicant wished to visit the applicant in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant passed the character test under s501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering past criminal offending in Singapore.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's character, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110 to determine whether the discretion to grant the visa should be exercised.
[2025] ARTA 28112025-11-25RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, specifically cl 600.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a UK national, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa to join her husband who was working temporarily in Australia. The delegate refused the visa due to insufficient evidence of her financial and personal situation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa, specifically cl 600.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, regarding her financial and personal circumstances.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 600 visa must provide sufficient evidence of their financial and personal circumstances to demonstrate they are a genuine temporary entrant.
[2025] ARTA 31312025-11-25RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine intention to…
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 600 (Visitor) visa to visit her brother and other family in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirement to genuinely intend a temporary stay.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa satisfies the genuine intention requirement if they have significant ties to their home country that provide a strong incentive to return.
[2025] ARTA 27882025-11-24RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether he genuinely intended to stay…
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, a 30-year-old male from Lebanon, applied for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream. The delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal will consider all relevant circumstances, including compassionate factors and the applicant's intentions, to determine if the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay.
[2025] ARTA 28082025-11-18UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should reinstate the application after the applicant's failure to attend the hearing, considering the applicant's claims of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa. The applicant failed to attend the Tribunal hearing after a postponement, leading to the dismissal of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should reinstate the application after the applicant's failure to attend the hearing, considering the applicant's claims of health issues and lack of supporting medical evidence.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will not reinstate an application if the applicant fails to provide supporting evidence for their claims of medical issues preventing their attendance at a hearing, despite multiple opportunities to do so.
[2025] ARTA 29122025-11-18UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Morocco, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream to visit his Australian citizen son. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia, and the Tribunal will consider all relevant circumstances to assess this.
[2025] ARTA 23692025-11-06UpheldThe delegate was not satisfied the visa applicant passed the character test under s 501(1) 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 sought review of a decision to refuse a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa for her father, who was a citizen of China.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied the visa applicant passed the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider the best interests of any minor children and the expectations of the Australian community.
[2025] ARTA 28092025-11-06RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant…
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 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream. The applicant was employed as an accountant in Vietnam and sought to visit Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant met cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia, considering factors such as family ties and employment in their home country.
[2025] ARTA 23632025-11-03Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his past membership in the Irish…
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 65-year-old citizen of the Republic of Ireland, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa. The delegate of the Minister refused the visa under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his past membership in the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's character under section 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the risk of future harm and the applicant's ties to Australia, to determine whether the discretion to refuse the visa should be exercised.
[2025] ARTA 27942025-10-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether she genuinely…
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 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically, whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Visitor visa must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia, considering factors such as family and financial ties to their home country.
[2025] ARTA 30382025-10-15RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the genuine temporary entrant…
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 600 (Visitor) visa to visit family in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the primary applicant did not meet the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, specifically the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances, including financial and family ties, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily.
[2025] ARTA 26152025-10-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the visa applicant to…
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 600 (Visitor) visa to visit Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirement to genuinely intend a temporary stay.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the visa applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances to determine if the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia.
[2025] ARTA 26192025-10-13UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of the Migration Regulations, specifically the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, Indian citizens, applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream to visit the primary applicant's brother in Australia. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the requirements of cl 600.211 of the Migration Regulations, specifically the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 600 visa, applicants must genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia, as per cl 600.211 of the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 30372025-10-10RemittedThe central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to…
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 Visitor (Class FA) visa (Subclass 600) under the Sponsored Family stream to visit his sister in Australia. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the requirement to genuinely intend to stay temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirement of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa applicant's genuine intention to stay temporarily, the Tribunal will consider all relevant circumstances, including financial and family ties, travel history, and any proposed security bond.
[2025] ARTA 21352025-09-26RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely…
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 600 (Visitor) visa under the Sponsored Family stream. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 600.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visitor visa application, the Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily 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.