When a subclass 786 visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 25 such decisions (2026 to 2026), covering the Subclass 786 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 25 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 56% of the time, set it aside 0% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 44% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmed | 14 | 56.0% |
| Remitted | 11 | 44.0% |
Counts from 25 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-10-25. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 25 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 25 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 24662026-07-21AffirmedThe applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse him a protection visa, arguing that he faced persecution in Malaysia due to his sexual orientation.
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 Malaysia, sought a protection visa claiming fear of persecution due to his homosexuality and subsequent rejection by family and society.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse him a protection visa, arguing that he faced persecution in Malaysia due to his sexual orientation.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 24072026-07-20AffirmedThe applicants' claims for protection visas were refused by the delegate because they were not substantiated with sufficient particulars or evidence, and the applicants…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, citizens of China, sought protection visas based on claims of political comments made online concerning China and Hong Kong, leading to a blocked social media account and a notification to report to a government department upon return.
The question before the tribunal
The applicants' claims for protection visas were refused by the delegate because they were not substantiated with sufficient particulars or evidence, and the applicants were not considered persons to whom Australia owes protection obligations.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they fear persecution for specific reasons and there is a real chance of persecution in their receiving country.
[2026] ARTA 24592026-07-17AffirmedThe applicant claimed he feared persecution in Malaysia due to his religion and a past relationship with a Muslim woman, alleging threats and coercion from her family.
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 citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Malaysia due to his religion and a past relationship with a Muslim woman, alleging threats and coercion from her family.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must provide sufficient evidence to establish claims for protection, and the Tribunal must be satisfied of a real chance of persecution or risk of significant harm.
[2026] ARTA 23312026-07-16AffirmedThe applicant's claims of political activism, FPI membership, and threats were found to be not credible or unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that Australia does…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indonesian national, applied for a protection visa claiming to be an activist critical of the government and a member of the FPI, alleging threats and a violent attack. The Tribunal affirmed the refusal decision.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of political activism, FPI membership, and threats were found to be not credible or unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that Australia does not owe her protection obligations.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa requires a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, which must be substantiated by credible evidence.
[2026] ARTA 22292026-07-02RemittedThe applicant's initial claims regarding financial difficulties and debt collection were found to be false, and the dispute centred on the credibility of her later…
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 China, applied for a protection visa after her student visa was cancelled. She later claimed to be a follower of Falun Gong and alleged her family home in China was visited by police due to her activities in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's initial claims regarding financial difficulties and debt collection were found to be false, and the dispute centred on the credibility of her later claims of persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must assess the applicant's claims for protection based on the evidence presented, considering country information and the applicant's credibility.
[2026] ARTA 23232026-07-01AffirmedThe applicant claimed he would face persecution in Nepal due to his religion and that his mental health issues would not be adequately treated, but the delegate refused…
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 Nepal and a member of the Tamang ethnic group, sought a protection visa based on claims of persecution due to his Christian faith and mental health issues.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he would face persecution in Nepal due to his religion and that his mental health issues would not be adequately treated, but the delegate refused the visa, finding no real risk of harm.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of 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.
[2026] ARTA 24692026-06-10AffirmedThe applicant's claims of fear of persecution were found to be vague, inconsistent, and lacking corroborative evidence, particularly the new claim involving a loan shark.
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, sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa, claiming fear of persecution due to socio-economic conditions and later, fear of a loan shark.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of fear of persecution were found to be vague, inconsistent, and lacking corroborative evidence, particularly the new claim involving a loan shark.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must provide sufficient evidence to establish claims, and vague or inconsistent claims, especially when raised late, may lead to adverse inferences.
[2026] ARTA 22532026-06-05AffirmedThe applicant's claims of harassment and threats from the NPA were disputed, leading to the delegate's refusal to grant a 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, a national of the Philippines, applied for a protection visa in 2019, claiming fear of persecution by the New People's Army (NPA) due to his past business dealings.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of harassment and threats from the NPA were disputed, leading to the delegate's refusal to grant a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 23162026-06-02RemittedThe applicant claimed he feared persecution in South Sudan due to his ethnicity, his status as a returnee from a western country, and his need for ongoing drug…
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 male of Dinka ethnicity born in Egypt, sought a protection visa after his previous refugee visa was cancelled on character grounds due to a history of criminal offending and drug abuse.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he feared persecution in South Sudan due to his ethnicity, his status as a returnee from a western country, and his need for ongoing drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment, which he argued were not available there.
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 24092026-06-02RemittedThe applicant's claims of fear of harm from her husband, family violence, and threats from loan sharks were disputed, with the delegate finding her claims not credible.
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 Indonesian woman, sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa, claiming fear of harm from her husband and others in Indonesia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of fear of harm from her husband, family violence, and threats from loan sharks were disputed, with the delegate finding her claims not credible.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and there is a real chance of persecution.
[2026] ARTA 23092026-05-31RemittedThe applicant's claims for a protection visa were initially refused, and the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration after the applicant presented new claims…
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 citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa, initially claiming fear of persecution due to political criticism, but later revealing his primary fear was related to his homosexual identity in Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for a protection visa were initially refused, and the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration after the applicant presented new claims regarding his homosexual identity and fear of persecution 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 23952026-05-29AffirmedThe applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, arguing that his claims of persecution were misconstrued as political rather than religious.
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 national, sought a protection visa claiming persecution due to his religious beliefs and activities supporting Jagat Guru Rampal Ji Maharaj.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, arguing that his claims of persecution were misconstrued as political rather than religious.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 24052026-05-18AffirmedThe dispute concerned whether the applicant's fear of societal discrimination and psychological impacts due to her ethnicity in Indonesia met the criteria for 'refugee'…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indonesian national of Chinese ethnicity, sought a protection visa claiming fear of discrimination and racism upon return to Indonesia.
The question before the tribunal
The dispute concerned whether the applicant's fear of societal discrimination and psychological impacts due to her ethnicity in Indonesia met the criteria for 'refugee' or 'complementary protection' under the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
A well-founded fear of persecution requires a fear of harm that is serious and linked to a protected convention ground.
[2026] ARTA 24302026-05-18AffirmedThe applicant's claims for a protection visa were disputed, with the delegate finding the environmental pollution was not a valid reason for fear of harm, and 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 a protection visa, initially claiming fear of harm due to severe pollution in China and associated health risks, and later adding claims of political opinion related to opposition to COVID-19 policies and political repression.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for a protection visa were disputed, with the delegate finding the environmental pollution was not a valid reason for fear of harm, and the Tribunal needing to assess both original and new claims, including a sur place claim.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must specify all particulars of their claim for protection obligations and provide sufficient evidence to establish it; the Tribunal is not responsible for making the applicant's case.
[2026] ARTA 23502026-05-15RemittedThe dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning well-founded fears of persecution and the availability of…
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 the Philippines, sought protection visas after the primary applicant's relationship with her partner, the original primary applicant, ceased and their applications were separated.
The question before the tribunal
The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning well-founded fears of persecution and the availability of state protection in the Philippines.
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 24252026-05-14RemittedThe applicants claimed they feared persecution in Malaysia due to their relationship and marriage, citing severe violence from the second applicant's father and police…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Two applicants, who are step-siblings by marriage and later legally married in Australia, sought protection visas due to fear of harm from the second applicant's father in Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicants claimed they feared persecution in Malaysia due to their relationship and marriage, citing severe violence from the second applicant's father and police inaction.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they are outside their country of nationality and fear persecution for specific reasons, and there is a real chance of persecution in all areas of that country.
[2026] ARTA 24122026-05-13AffirmedThe applicant's claims of fearing persecution were disputed due to inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his activities, his association with his cousin, and the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of India, sought a protection visa, claiming he would face persecution upon return due to his support for a Sikh political party and association with a cousin involved in political altercations.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of fearing persecution were disputed due to inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his activities, his association with his cousin, and the timeline of events.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and evidence, considering country information and any inconsistencies, to determine if Australia owes protection obligations.
[2026] ARTA 22332026-05-12AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection were not accepted by the delegate and subsequently by the Tribunal, as there was insufficient evidence of a real chance of serious…
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, applied for a protection visa after arriving in Australia in 2011, claiming fear of her ex-husband who was involved in loan sharking and drug use.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection were not accepted by the delegate and subsequently by the Tribunal, as there was insufficient evidence of a real chance of serious harm or persecution upon return to Malaysia.
What the tribunal established
A well-founded fear of persecution requires a genuine fear, a real chance of persecution for specific reasons, and that the chance relates to all areas of the receiving country.
[2026] ARTA 24272026-05-08RemittedThe delegate refused the protection visa, finding the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy claims of being homosexual or experiencing harm 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, a Malaysian citizen, sought a protection visa based on claims of being homosexual and fearing persecution in Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa, finding the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy claims of being homosexual or experiencing harm 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 24242026-05-07RemittedThe delegate refused the protection visa application, finding the applicant was not a refugee and not at real risk of significant harm if returned to Saudi Arabia.
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 Saudi Arabia, applied for a protection visa after expressing opposition to the Saudi regime and fearing persecution upon return.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa application, finding the applicant was not a refugee and not at real risk of significant harm if returned to Saudi Arabia.
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 22542026-05-01AffirmedThe applicant failed to provide sufficient detail and evidence to substantiate her claims of fear of harm from an ex-boyfriend or the general 'state of chaos' in…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indonesian national, applied for a protection visa claiming fear of harm from an ex-boyfriend and the general 'state of chaos' in Indonesia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant failed to provide sufficient detail and evidence to substantiate her claims of fear of harm from an ex-boyfriend or the general 'state of chaos' in Indonesia, and requested a decision without a hearing.
What the tribunal established
It is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish that claim.
[2026] ARTA 21892026-04-29AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection were found to be not credible and fabricated due to significant similarities with 39 other applications, and the applicant failed…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, claiming to be a Malaysian national, applied for a protection visa after arriving in Australia on a visitor visa, alleging fear of persecution due to social media comments against Rohingya refugees in Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection were found to be not credible and fabricated due to significant similarities with 39 other applications, and the applicant failed to provide further evidence or respond to adverse information.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements for a protection visa are met, and the Tribunal is not required to make the applicant's case for them or accept allegations uncritically.
[2026] ARTA 22312026-04-29RemittedThe applicant claimed he faced threats and attacks from Muslim extremists and his family due to his conversion and public practice of Christianity, which the delegate…
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 Indonesian citizen, sought a protection visa after claiming to fear persecution in Indonesia due to his conversion from Islam to Christianity and his intention to evangelise.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he faced threats and attacks from Muslim extremists and his family due to his conversion and public practice of Christianity, which the delegate did not accept.
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 21972026-04-16RemittedThe applicants claimed they would face persecution in Malaysia due to their lesbian identity, including from family, community, and authorities.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Two Malaysian women, one Christian and one Muslim, who are in a same-sex marriage in Australia, sought protection visas.
The question before the tribunal
The applicants claimed they would face persecution in Malaysia due to their lesbian identity, including from family, community, and authorities.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 23072026-03-25RemittedThe delegate refused protection visas, finding the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Bangladesh…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, a Bangladeshi national and his Nepalese wife, sought protection visas due to claims of persecution in Bangladesh stemming from the applicant's marriage to a non-Muslim and his atheist beliefs.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused protection visas, finding the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Bangladesh, particularly regarding his claims of family threats due to his inter-religious marriage and atheist beliefs.
What the tribunal established
A well-founded fear of persecution requires a real chance of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
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.