When a subclass 785 visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 21 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the Subclass 785 visa. 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 21 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 | 12 | 57.1% |
| Affirmed | 6 | 28.6% |
| Upheld | 2 | 9.5% |
| Set aside | 1 | 4.8% |
Counts from 21 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-10-25. 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 | 17 | 6% |
| 2025 | 2 | 0% |
| 2024 | 2 | 0% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 17 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 21 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 24432026-07-24AffirmedThe applicant claimed fear of economic hardship, witchcraft, and harm from a land dispute upon return to Timor Leste.
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 Timor Leste, sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed fear of economic hardship, witchcraft, and harm from a land dispute upon return to Timor Leste.
What the tribunal established
A well-founded fear of persecution requires a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason, and the risk must relate to all areas of the country.
[2026] ARTA 24642026-07-24RemittedThe applicant claimed he would face societal harm, including ostracism, employment discrimination, and pressure to marry, due to his sexuality if returned to East Timor.
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 gay man from East Timor, sought a protection visa after experiencing discrimination and fearing harm if he returned to his home country.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he would face societal harm, including ostracism, employment discrimination, and pressure to marry, due to his sexuality if returned to East Timor.
What the tribunal established
Societal harm amounting to persecution can arise from familial and community pressure, leading to serious mental or physical harm, even without state persecution.
[2026] ARTA 23302026-07-01AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection, including fears of gender-based violence and harm from individuals involved in a past murder, were assessed against the criteria…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a minor child and Brazilian citizen, sought a protection visa due to fears of harm in Brazil.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection, including fears of gender-based violence and harm from individuals involved in a past murder, were assessed against the criteria for a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they are outside their country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 24232026-07-01RemittedThe dispute concerned the applicant's nationality and whether Afghanistan was his 'receiving country' for the purposes of protection obligations, given he was born in…
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, who initially claimed to be a Pakistani citizen, later claimed to be an Afghan citizen and sought a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The dispute concerned the applicant's nationality and whether Afghanistan was his 'receiving country' for the purposes of protection obligations, given he was born in Pakistan to Afghan refugee parents.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and there is a real chance of persecution relating to all areas of the country.
[2026] ARTA 24412026-06-10AffirmedThe dispute concerned whether the applicant genuinely feared harm from loan sharks in Malaysia, and if Australian protection was owed, given his claims were largely…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Malaysian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from loan sharks due to his brother's debts.
The question before the tribunal
The dispute concerned whether the applicant genuinely feared harm from loan sharks in Malaysia, and if Australian protection was owed, given his claims were largely abandoned and new claims raised at review.
What the tribunal established
Protection is owed if the applicant fears serious harm and cannot obtain protection from the Malaysian state, considering the effectiveness of police and available non-state remedies.
[2026] ARTA 24422026-06-09RemittedThe applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the delegate, leading to an application for review by the Tribunal.
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 Burundian national of Tutsi ethnicity, sought a protection visa based on past political involvement and fear of persecution in Burundi.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the delegate, leading to an application for review by the Tribunal.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they are outside their country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 24222026-06-02AffirmedThe applicant's protection claims were found to lack credibility due to insufficient detail regarding the alleged persecution, the circumstances of her departure from…
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 China, applied for a protection visa claiming fear of persecution due to her online activism critical of the Chinese government, alleging assault by police and threats from an underground society.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's protection claims were found to lack credibility due to insufficient detail regarding the alleged persecution, the circumstances of her departure from China, and the delay in applying for protection after arriving in Australia.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted if the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion and faces a real chance of persecution in their country of nationality.
[2026] ARTA 24042026-06-01AffirmedThe applicant's claims of political persecution and facing criminal charges in Bangladesh were found to be inconsistent and not credible by the Tribunal.
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 Bangladesh, sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa, claiming fear of harm due to political involvement with the BNP.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of political persecution and facing criminal charges in Bangladesh were found to be inconsistent and not credible by the Tribunal.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, with a real chance of persecution relating to all areas of the country.
[2026] ARTA 24632026-05-20RemittedThe applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the delegate, who did not accept she faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return 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, a Syrian national of Alawite faith and a widow, sought protection in Australia due to fears of persecution based on her religion, gender, and imputed political opinion.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the delegate, who did not accept she faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Syria.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons.
[2026] ARTA 22512026-05-13AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution in Vietnam were disputed due to inconsistencies in his statements, lack of documentary evidence, a history of multiple 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 national of Vietnam, applied for a protection visa claiming fear of persecution due to political opinion, ethnicity, and religion, alleging anti-government activities and threats.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution in Vietnam were disputed due to inconsistencies in his statements, lack of documentary evidence, a history of multiple visa applications and returns to Vietnam, and the timing of his protection visa application after other avenues were exhausted.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion, with a real chance of persecution in all areas of the receiving country.
[2026] ARTA 22552026-05-11RemittedThe applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused, and the Tribunal had to determine if he met the criteria for refugee status or complementary protection based on…
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 Pakistani national of Pashtun ethnicity and a member of the Awami National Party (ANP), sought protection in Australia due to threats and violence from the Taliban in Pakistan, stemming from his family's political activities and involvement in peace committees.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused, and the Tribunal had to determine if he met the criteria for refugee status or complementary protection based on his fear of persecution in Pakistan.
What the tribunal established
Australia has protection obligations if there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal, considering the applicant's vulnerability and lack of protection or reasonable relocation options in the home country.
[2026] ARTA 21692026-05-05RemittedThe applicant's claims were initially made up by an agent, and the delegate refused the protection visa. The applicant later provided more detailed claims about…
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 national of China, applied for a protection visa claiming fear of persecution due to her religious beliefs as a member of an unregistered 'local church' (Shouters).
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims were initially made up by an agent, and the delegate refused the protection visa. The applicant later provided more detailed claims about persecution of her religious group and her father's detention and assault in China.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons.
[2026] ARTA 22262026-05-01RemittedThe delegate refused the protection visa application, finding adverse credibility in the applicant's claims of persecution based on religion, political opinion, and…
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, nationals of Yemen, sought protection visas due to fears of persecution from various groups including the Houthis and the Yemeni government.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa application, finding adverse credibility in the applicant's claims of persecution based on religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must determine if there are substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of significant harm exists if the applicant is removed to Yemen.
[2026] ARTA 21932026-04-28RemittedThe applicant's protection visa application was refused because the delegate was not satisfied Australia owed him protection obligations, partly due to a failure 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, a national of Pakistan and an Ahmadi Muslim, sought protection in Australia due to claimed persecution in his home country.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's protection visa application was refused because the delegate was not satisfied Australia owed him protection obligations, partly due to a failure to provide requested information.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they are outside their country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 21432026-04-14RemittedThe applicant's claim of conversion to Christianity, made after the initial refusal, was the central issue in dispute, alongside her earlier claims of racial…
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 Malaysian national, sought review of a decision to refuse her a protection visa, claiming fear of harm due to racial issues, economic hardship, and a recent conversion to Christianity.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim of conversion to Christianity, made after the initial refusal, was the central issue in dispute, alongside her earlier claims of racial discrimination and economic hardship in Malaysia.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons.
[2026] ARTA 22172026-04-07RemittedThe applicant disputed the delegate's refusal of a protection visa, arguing he faced persecution in Bangladesh due to his religion and a fabricated charge.
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 Buddhist from Bangladesh, sought a protection visa after claiming fear of harm due to his religion and a fabricated court case.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant disputed the delegate's refusal of a protection visa, arguing he faced persecution in Bangladesh due to his religion and a fabricated charge.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons.
[2026] ARTA 192026-01-08Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the visa cancellation under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958, considering the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant's Class XD Subclass 785 Protection (Temporary) visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958. The applicant sought revocation of the visa cancellation, but the Minister's delegate decided not to revoke the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the visa cancellation under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958, considering the applicant's representations and relevant considerations.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must balance all relevant considerations, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 110, to determine whether revocation is warranted.
[2025] ARTA 27652025-12-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly applied the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and Direction no. 110, considering the applicant's…
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 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class XD Subclass 785 Temporary Protection visa. The decision was made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly applied the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and Direction no. 110, considering the applicant's criminal history and potential risk to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, including the risk the applicant poses to the Australian community.
[2025] ARTA 652025-02-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, which led to the refusal of their protection visa.
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 Temporary Protection (Class XD) (Subclass 785) visa because they did not pass the character test under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, which led to the refusal of their protection visa.
What the tribunal established
When assessing character under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the community, as outlined in Direction 110.
[2024] ARTA 512024-11-13RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning 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, a national of Afghanistan, applied for a Temporary Protection visa (Subclass 785) in 2016. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria for protection obligations under the Migration Act.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the well-founded fear of persecution.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a protection visa must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution to be granted protection obligations under the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 20992024-04-09RemittedThe applicant's claims of being personally targeted for harm due to tribal conflict and other threats were disputed by the delegate and the Tribunal.
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 national of Papua New Guinea, sought a protection visa based on claims of tribal conflict and fear of harm from his partner's ex-husband.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of being personally targeted for harm due to tribal conflict and other threats were disputed by the delegate and the Tribunal.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted if Australia has protection obligations due to a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.
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.