When a subclass 790 visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 20 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the Subclass 790 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 20 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 65% of the time, set it aside 20% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 15% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 8 | 40.0% |
| Affirmed | 5 | 25.0% |
| Set aside | 4 | 20.0% |
| Remitted | 3 | 15.0% |
Counts from 20 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-11-08. 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 | 8 | 25% |
| 2025 | 8 | 12% |
| 2024 | 4 | 25% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 5 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 20 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 14962026-08-03AffirmedWhether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given the applicant does not…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant is a 40-year-old Iranian citizen who arrived in Australia in 2013 and was granted a Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa in 2017, which was mandatorily cancelled in 2020 due to criminal convictions.
The question before the tribunal
Whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given the applicant does not pass the character test and failed to pay the prescribed fee.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must not revoke a mandatory visa cancellation if the applicant does not pass the character test and there is no other reason to revoke the cancellation, having regard to Direction No 110 and the protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 25372026-07-01AffirmedThe applicant claimed he feared persecution due to a land dispute with a construction company and local government, leading to harassment, damage to his property, and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of China, sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa, claiming persecution related to a land dispute and forced demolition of his home.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he feared persecution due to a land dispute with a construction company and local government, leading to harassment, damage to his property, and police inaction, but the delegate found his claims lacked detail and evidence.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they are outside their country of nationality and fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion, and there is a real chance of persecution in all areas of that country.
[2026] ARTA 24282026-05-20AffirmedThe applicant's claims regarding fear of persecution from an ex-boyfriend and the genuineness of her relationship with a Muslim man were found to lack credibility and…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse her a protection visa, initially claiming fear of an ex-boyfriend and later claiming fear of family disapproval and pressure to convert to Islam due to a relationship with a Muslim man.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims regarding fear of persecution from an ex-boyfriend and the genuineness of her relationship with a Muslim man were found to lack credibility and supporting evidence.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant's claims are genuine and credible, supported by sufficient evidence, to grant a protection visa.
[2026] ARTA 24112026-05-08AffirmedThe dispute concerned whether the applicant and her child would face harm if returned to Malaysia, specifically from the applicant's former husband who had a history 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 to refuse a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from her former husband upon return to Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
The dispute concerned whether the applicant and her child would face harm if returned to Malaysia, specifically from the applicant's former husband who had a history of domestic violence and threats.
What the tribunal established
A person is owed protection if there are substantial grounds for believing they would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to their country of nationality.
[2026] ARTA 21452026-04-01AffirmedThe applicant claimed he would face serious harm if returned to Bangladesh due to his political activities and threats from the ruling Awami League and internal BNP…
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 him a protection visa, claiming fear of harm due to his past involvement with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and ongoing political factional fighting.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed he would face serious harm if returned to Bangladesh due to his political activities and threats from the ruling Awami League and internal BNP factions, but the delegate did not accept his claims of detention, extortion, or a profile that would engender persecution.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant has a real chance of suffering significant harm if returned to their country of nationality.
[2026] ARTA 2732026-02-27Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its…
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 citizen of Iran, sought review of a decision refusing to grant him a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa. The Tribunal considered whether to exercise discretion to refuse the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under s 501(1) to refuse the visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa refusal under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the considerations for and against refusal, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 110, to determine whether to exercise its discretion.
[2026] ARTA 2542026-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given…
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 Iran, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given their serious drug offending.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 602026-01-09Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly refused to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant held a Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa, which had been cancelled. The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly refused to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to the community.
[2025] ARTA 18902025-08-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the well-founded fear 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 a protection visa with his wife and daughter, after applying for a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa. The delegate refused the visas.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, specifically concerning the well-founded fear of persecution.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a protection visa, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, such as race or political opinion.
[2025] ARTA 9692025-06-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled on the basis of failing the good character test under s501(2) of the Migration Act, with no other valid reason…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant LJMH, a stateless Rohingya, held a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) subclass 790 visa onshore in Australia and had been convicted of a domestic violence choking offence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the visa could be cancelled on the basis of failing the good character test under s501(2) of the Migration Act, with no other valid reason to set aside the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose subclass 790 visa is cancelled under s501(2) for failing the good character test cannot rely on an alternative reason to overturn the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 12142025-05-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate could refuse to revoke the cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act in light of Direction No 110 and the character…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa that had been cancelled and sought a revocation of that cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate could refuse to revoke the cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act in light of Direction No 110 and the character test.
What the tribunal established
A cancellation under s501CA(4) can only be revoked if the delegate is satisfied there is another valid reason consistent with Direction No 110.
[2025] ARTA 4932025-04-29RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy section 36(1C) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires that a person convicted of a…
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 was onshore holding a bridging visa and applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) Subclass 790 visa; he is married with four children overseas, employed in a dry‑cleaning business, and listed on a child protection register until 2026.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy section 36(1C) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires that a person convicted of a serious crime not be a danger to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
Applicants convicted of a serious offence may still be granted a Safe Haven Enterprise visa if the tribunal is satisfied they do not present a danger to the Australian community.
[2025] ARTA 14352025-03-27RemittedThe delegate refused the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, raising the question whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for a protection visa under…
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 arrived in Australia in October 2023 as an unauthorised air arrival using a false Sri Lankan passport and is currently detained in immigration detention; he applied for a Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise (protection) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, raising the question whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for a protection visa under s36(2)(a).
What the tribunal established
Applicants who meet the requirements of s36(2)(a) of the Migration Act can have a refused protection visa decision remitted for reconsideration.
[2025] ARTA 1972025-03-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was correct, 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 to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The cancellation was made due to the applicant's substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was correct, considering the applicant's criminal history and the relevant provisions of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the cancellation of a visa under section 501 of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must consider all relevant matters, including the protection of the Australian community and the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 1832025-03-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister was correct in deciding not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's failure to pass 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 citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran, held a Class XE (Subclass 790) Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The Minister had made a decision to cancel the visa due to the applicant's substantial criminal record, which included convictions for kidnapping, blackmail, and drug possession.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister was correct in deciding not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's failure to pass the character test under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A decision to cancel a visa due to character grounds will be affirmed if the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not pass the character test and there are no other compelling reasons to not cancel the visa.
[2025] ARTA 1282025-02-24Set asideThe central issue was the cancellation of the visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
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 arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival and was holding a Class XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa with a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the cancellation of the visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may revoke a visa cancellation under s 501CA where mitigation factors and primary considerations outweigh the risk to the community.
[2024] ARTA 142024-11-15Set asideThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under r.2.43(oa) of the Migration Regulations 1994 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be…
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 citizen of [Age], held a Subclass 790 (Safe Haven Enterprise Visa) visa. The delegate decided to cancel the visa under s 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under r.2.43(oa) of the Migration Regulations 1994 was made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the seriousness of the offending against the hardship to the applicant and their family, especially when a protection finding has been made.
[2024] AATA 40312024-10-10RemittedThe central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, based on alleged imputed political opinion and association with…
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 Sri Lankan national who arrived by boat in 2010, was seeking a Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise (protection) visa and had a history of mental health treatment and past detention.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the protection visa under s65 of the Migration Act, based on alleged imputed political opinion and association with the LTTE.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who meet the requirements of s36(2)(a) must have their protection visa applications reconsidered rather than automatically refused.
[2024] AATA 25762024-07-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the brief period of administrative detention counted as a period of unlawful non‑citizen status, thereby breaching the four‑year residence…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Pakistani national who arrived as an unauthorized maritime arrival, held a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa, later received a Former Resident (subclass 151) visa and was detained administratively for about two and a half hours before applying for Australian citizenship by conferral.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the brief period of administrative detention counted as a period of unlawful non‑citizen status, thereby breaching the four‑year residence requirement under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
What the tribunal established
A short period of administrative detention does not constitute unlawful non‑citizen status for the purpose of the citizenship residence requirement.
[2024] AATA 28822024-07-10UpheldThe central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the visa under section 65 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, a Vietnamese citizen who arrived in Australia by sea as an unauthorised maritime arrival, applied onshore for a Class XE Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa on 23 August 2020.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the delegate's refusal to grant the visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who arrived as unauthorised maritime arrivals may still be granted a subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa if they satisfy the substantive criteria of section 65 of the Migration Act.
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.