When a visitor visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 272 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 272 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 38% of the time, set it aside 6% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 56% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 153 | 56.2% |
| Upheld | 97 | 35.7% |
| Set aside | 16 | 5.9% |
| Affirmed | 6 | 2.2% |
Counts from 272 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-09-27. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 36 | 14% |
| 2025 | 59 | 7% |
| 2024 | 177 | 4% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 21 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 21462026-09-21Set asideThe applicant's application for a visitor visa was refused under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a past conviction for culpable homicide (manslaughter) 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
A 69-year-old Zimbabwean man sought to visit his daughter and grandchildren in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's application for a visitor visa was refused under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a past conviction for culpable homicide (manslaughter) in Zimbabwe 44 years prior.
What the tribunal established
While the safety of the Australian community is paramount, the specific circumstances of an applicant's case, including the nature and age of past offending and evidence of rehabilitation, must be carefully weighed.
[2026] ARTA 20482026-09-18RemittedWhether the Tribunal should exercise the discretion to refuse the Visitor visa under s 501(1) after finding the applicant fails the character test and breached PIC 4020.
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 Benjawan Sinta Lawson, a Thai national with a 2010 drug conviction and multiple false statements in earlier Visitor visa applications, sought a Visitor (subclass 600) visa to Australia with her Australian husband as sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should exercise the discretion to refuse the Visitor visa under s 501(1) after finding the applicant fails the character test and breached PIC 4020.
What the tribunal established
When s 501(1) is triggered, the decision‑maker must apply the character test and, if the discretion to refuse is enlivened, must consider the primary and other considerations set out in Ministerial Direction 110 before deciding whether to refuse the visa.
[2026] ARTA 19852026-09-08RemittedWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and should be refused a subclass 600 visitor visa.
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 66‑year‑old Chinese retiree with a 2005 smuggling conviction sought a short family visit to Australia to see his Australian citizen son and infant granddaughter.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and should be refused a subclass 600 visitor visa.
What the tribunal established
A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record under s 501(7), and the Minister may refuse a visa unless the Tribunal, applying Direction 110, finds sufficient counter‑vailing considerations to outweigh community protection.
[2026] ARTA 21132026-09-03RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had sufficient ties to India to ensure their return after the visit, thus failing to meet 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 applicant sought a Visitor (Class FA) visa to visit family in Australia, but the delegate refused on the grounds that the applicant did not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had sufficient ties to India to ensure their return after the visit, thus failing to meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
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 21062026-08-31RemittedWhether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting a Subclass 600 visa for a stay of more than 12 consecutive months under cl 600.215.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
An elderly Myanmar national with severe medical conditions including kidney failure and heart issues was hospitalised in Australia and required ongoing treatment, making travel unsafe.
The question before the tribunal
Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting a Subclass 600 visa for a stay of more than 12 consecutive months under cl 600.215.
What the tribunal established
Exceptional circumstances are unusual or out of the ordinary; severe, unanticipated medical conditions preventing safe travel can constitute such circumstances.
[2026] ARTA 19602026-08-27Set asideWhether the applicant satisfied the character test under s 501 and if the visa should be refused under s 501(1).
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 61‑year‑old UK citizen with a six‑year prison sentence for dangerous driving sought a Visitor (Class FA) visa to visit his daughter in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the character test under s 501 and if the visa should be refused under s 501(1).
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(1) the Minister may refuse a visa if the person fails the character test, and the Tribunal must apply Direction 110, giving primary consideration to protection of the Australian community and weighing the seriousness of conduct and risk to the community.
[2026] ARTA 21052026-08-21AffirmedThe applicant did not satisfy clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires exceptional circumstances for a grant of a Visitor visa if the applicant…
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 Visitor (Class FA) visa, subclass 600, to stay in Australia for up to 6 months to visit family, but had already been in Australia for six years.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant did not satisfy clause 600.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires exceptional circumstances for a grant of a Visitor visa if the applicant would be authorised to stay in Australia for more than 12 consecutive months.
What the tribunal established
Exceptional circumstances are those that are unusual or atypical, and not limited to specific situations like health matters.
[2026] ARTA 21072026-08-21AffirmedThe applicant failed to satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3004, which requires compelling reasons for granting the visa and that the lack of a substantive visa was due to…
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) visa (Subclass 600) because they did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant failed to satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3004, which requires compelling reasons for granting the visa and that the lack of a substantive visa was due to factors beyond the applicant's control.
What the tribunal established
Failure to hold a substantive visa due to agent oversight or personal carelessness, without compelling reasons, means Schedule 3 criterion 3004 is not met.
[2026] ARTA 18582026-07-24AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied special return criterion 5001 (SRC 5001) required by clause 600.214 for the Visitor (Class FA) visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Horome Morke, sought a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 tourist visa but had a previous visa cancelled under s 501 and therefore did not meet special return criterion 5001.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied special return criterion 5001 (SRC 5001) required by clause 600.214 for the Visitor (Class FA) visa.
What the tribunal established
A Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa may be granted only if the applicant satisfies clause 600.214, which requires meeting special return criterion 5001, and the Tribunal has no discretion to waive this requirement.
[2026] ARTA 11612026-06-29Set asideWhether the applicant’s failure to pass the character test under s 501 can be set aside in view of Direction 110 and compassionate factors.
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 65‑year‑old UK citizen with a substantial criminal record applied for a Visitor visa to stay up to 12 months to care for his elderly sister in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant’s failure to pass the character test under s 501 can be set aside in view of Direction 110 and compassionate factors.
What the tribunal established
Even where a person does not pass the character test under s 501(1), the Minister may refuse to refuse a visa if Direction 110 indicates that the risk to the Australian community is low and other primary considerations outweigh the character concerns.
[2026] ARTA 13622026-06-24AffirmedThe delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet 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 applicant, Mr Sheng Huang, is seeking a Visitor (Class FA) visa to travel around Australia for 12 months.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the 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 of the visa.
[2026] ARTA 11752026-06-02RemittedThe delegate refused to grant 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, a Palestinian, is seeking a Visitor visa to attend his sister's wedding in Australia and visit his family.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant 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 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 21472026-04-10RemittedThe applicant claimed to fear persecution in India as a divorced woman due to harm from her former parents-in-law and ex-husband, and general societal discrimination.
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, an Indian national, sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed to fear persecution in India as a divorced woman due to harm from her former parents-in-law and ex-husband, and general societal discrimination.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for specific reasons and there is a real chance of persecution, or face a real risk of significant harm if returned to their country.
[2026] ARTA 12782026-04-02AffirmedThe applicant's visa application was refused due to concerns that she does not meet the requirements for a Visitor visa, specifically the requirement that exceptional…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a widowed Bangladeshi woman, has been living in Australia since 2020, caring for her grandchildren and supporting her daughters, and is seeking a Visitor visa to remain in the country.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa application was refused due to concerns that she does not meet the requirements for a Visitor visa, specifically the requirement that exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of the visa.
What the tribunal established
The grant of a Visitor visa requires exceptional circumstances, which are defined as unusual or out of the ordinary circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
[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.
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.