When a partner visa (onshore, permanent) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 75 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the second, permanent stage of the onshore partner 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 75 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 56% of the time, set it aside 36% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 8% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 37 | 49.3% |
| Set aside | 27 | 36.0% |
| Remitted | 6 | 8.0% |
| Affirmed | 5 | 6.7% |
Counts from 75 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 11 | 36% |
| 2025 | 27 | 37% |
| 2024 | 37 | 35% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 7 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 40 most recent decisions on this topic. Select a decision to read the full stored case story: the situation, the question before the tribunal, and what the tribunal established, straight from the record.
[2026] ARTA 9842026-06-04Set asideWhether the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked despite the applicant failing the character test.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
An Indian citizen on a Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa with a substantial criminal record and drug addiction faced mandatory cancellation on character grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
A visa cancellation under s 501(3A) may be revoked under s 501CA(4) if the decision‑maker is satisfied the applicant now passes the character test or another reason justifies revocation.
[2026] ARTA 9752026-06-03Set asideWhether the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
An Irish citizen holding a Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa with three Australian children was convicted of multiple serious offences, including ATM break‑ins and family violence.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled under s 501(2) if the Minister reasonably suspects the person does not pass the character test and the person cannot satisfy the Minister that they pass it.
[2026] ARTA 11182026-05-08AffirmedThe issue in dispute was whether the applicant was in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor at the time of decision, despite the history of domestic violence…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Filipino national, applied for a Partner (Residence) visa based on her relationship with her Australian sponsor, but the relationship had ceased due to domestic violence and the sponsor had withdrawn his sponsorship.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in dispute was whether the applicant was in a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor at the time of decision, despite the history of domestic violence and separation.
What the tribunal established
A person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship, with a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others.
[2026] ARTA 6942026-04-29AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the character test and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
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, had his partner (subclass 801) visa mandatorily cancelled after a conviction for money laundering and is detained pending review.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the character test and, if not, whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
What the tribunal established
s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act states a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, defined in s 501(7)(c), and s 501CA requires consideration of any other reason to revoke the cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 6602026-04-24AffirmedThe Applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) 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 45-year-old Irish citizen, had his Partner visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, including an offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death and common assault (domestic violence).
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant sought review of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 6492026-04-09AffirmedWhether the mandatory cancellation should be revoked despite the applicant’s failure to pass the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a partner visa holder, was convicted of large‑scale drug offences and had his subclass 801 visa mandatorily cancelled under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation should be revoked despite the applicant’s failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) the Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation if, after applying Direction 110, there is ‘another reason’ to do so, even when the applicant fails the character test.
[2026] ARTA 7402026-04-02AffirmedWhether, under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 45‑year‑old Egyptian citizen with a substantial criminal record, opioid dependency, mental health issues and severe spinal injury had his former spouse (subclass 801) visa cancelled.
The question before the tribunal
Whether, under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must apply s 501CA and Ministerial Direction 110, giving greatest weight to the protection of the Australian community, and will not revoke a mandatory character cancellation unless a separate, valid reason is identified.
[2026] ARTA 3062026-03-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, made under s 501CA(4) 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 citizen of the United Kingdom, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, was correct.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 2222026-02-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of 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 Vietnamese national, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa after it was cancelled due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958, given his criminal record.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the community, and the applicant's ties to the community.
[2026] ARTA 2232026-02-19Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, given the applicant's criminal record and failure to…
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 Vietnam, held a Class BC (Subclass 801) Partner Visa and had a substantial criminal record. The Minister had made a decision to mandatorily cancel the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, given the applicant's criminal record and failure to pass the character test.
What the tribunal established
When considering mandatory visa cancellation due to character concerns, the Tribunal may substitute a decision to revoke the cancellation if there are other compelling reasons.
[2026] ARTA 2192026-01-12Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant's failure to declare her adopted child in the Partner visa application constituted non-compliance with s101(b) of 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 held a Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa. The Minister sought to cancel the visa because the applicant failed to declare her adopted child in her initial application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's failure to declare her adopted child in the Partner visa application constituted non-compliance with s101(b) of the Migration Act 1958, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
What the tribunal established
A visa should not be cancelled where the non-disclosure of information was unintentional, the applicant has a genuine and ongoing relationship, and cancellation would cause significant hardship.
[2025] ARTA 27062025-12-18Set asideThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA of the Migration Act, considering his…
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 the United Kingdom, had his Class BS (Subclass 801) Partner visa mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal conviction.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s501CA of the Migration Act, considering his criminal record and other factors.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s501CA, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the Australian community against other factors, such as the applicant's rehabilitation, community ties, and mental health.
[2025] ARTA 30962025-12-08Set asideThe central issue was whether Mrs Buchanan met the requirements for special benefit under section 729 of the Social Security Act 1991, specifically paragraph 729(2)(e)…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
Mrs Buchanan, a permanent resident under a subclass 801 visa, claimed special benefit (SpB) on 21 August 2025, but her claim was rejected due to ineligibility for most social security payments during a four-year period.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether Mrs Buchanan met the requirements for special benefit under section 729 of the Social Security Act 1991, specifically paragraph 729(2)(e), which requires the person to be unable to earn a sufficient livelihood.
What the tribunal established
A person may be eligible for special benefit if they are unable to earn a sufficient livelihood due to age, disability, or domestic circumstances, even if they are otherwise ineligible for other income support payments.
[2025] ARTA 23292025-11-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the original visa cancellation under section 501CA (4) of the Migration Act should be revoked, considering the applicant's criminal record…
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 his Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa. The visa was cancelled because the applicant did not pass the character test due to a criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the original visa cancellation under section 501CA (4) of the Migration Act should be revoked, considering the applicant's criminal record and the application of Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s501CA, the Tribunal must consider the relevant Ministerial Direction and the circumstances of the case, including the applicant's criminal history and any relevant mitigating factors.
[2025] ARTA 24472025-09-26RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because Mr Awuah did not satisfy the requirements of cl 801.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically Public…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Awuah, a Ghanaian national, applied onshore for a Subclass 801 (Partner) visa after being granted a Subclass 820 visa. The delegate refused the 801 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because Mr Awuah did not satisfy the requirements of cl 801.226 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically Public Interest Criterion 4020.
What the tribunal established
If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the delegate's decision, it can set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration.
[2025] ARTA 18022025-09-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the original visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) should be revoked, considering the applicant's criminal record and the application 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 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Partner (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa. The visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act because he did not pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the original visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) should be revoked, considering the applicant's criminal record and the application of Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled if the holder does not pass the character test, and the decision to cancel will be affirmed if the Tribunal finds the applicant does not meet the character test.
[2025] ARTA 20062025-08-14Set asideThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s501 of 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 citizen of Vietnam, had his subclass 801 Partner visa cancelled due to criminal offending. The delegate decided not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s501 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Directions, to determine if there are other reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 16232025-08-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, specifically concerning incorrect information provided…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Thai national, had his Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa cancelled. He was seeking review of the decision to cancel his visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the ground for cancellation under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 was made out, specifically concerning incorrect information provided in the visa application and failure to notify changes.
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled if the visa holder provided incorrect information that was significant to the assessment of the visa criteria, or failed to notify changes in circumstances.
[2025] ARTA 22482025-08-07Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant had provided a bogus document, specifically a statement from the sponsor, which would have allowed the Minister to cancel 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 Nepalese national, held a Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa, which the Minister sought to cancel due to alleged non-compliance with s 103 of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had provided a bogus document, specifically a statement from the sponsor, which would have allowed the Minister to cancel the visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be positively satisfied that a ground for cancellation exists before a visa can be cancelled, and the onus is on the Minister to establish the facts.
[2025] ARTA 19212025-07-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, specifically concerning their compliance with s 101 of 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 [Country 1] national, held a Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa, granted in 2020. The delegate cancelled the visa due to concerns about the applicant's compliance with s 101 of the Migration Act in relation to previous Working Holiday visas.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in their visa application, specifically concerning their compliance with s 101 of the Migration Act in relation to previous Working Holiday visas.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may cancel a visa if the visa holder has not complied with the Act, and the Tribunal will affirm the decision if the Minister's decision was made correctly.
[2025] ARTA 10342025-07-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501 could be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 despite the applicant not passing the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Thi Kim Loan Lo, held a Class BS (subclass 801) Partner visa that was subject to mandatory cancellation after failing the character test, and she was onshore in Australia at the time of review.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501 could be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 despite the applicant not passing the character test.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visas are subject to mandatory cancellation under s 501 cannot have that cancellation revoked under s 501CA(4) unless a separate statutory reason to revoke is established.
[2025] ARTA 17442025-07-15UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant's provision of bogus documents with a previous visitor visa application constituted non-compliance under s.103 of 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 cancel her Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa. The delegate cancelled the visa because the applicant provided bogus documents with a previous visitor visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant's provision of bogus documents with a previous visitor visa application constituted non-compliance under s.103 of the Migration Act 1958, which is a ground for cancellation under s.109(1).
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may affirm a decision to cancel a visa if the applicant provided bogus documents in a previous visa application, even if the applicant was unaware of the agent's actions.
[2025] ARTA 9862025-07-09Set asideThe central issue was whether the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked under subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's character and…
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 Fiji, had his Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked under subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's character and the relevant Ministerial Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s501CA(4), the Tribunal must balance the protection of the Australian community with the applicant's rehabilitation, family circumstances, and the best interests of any children involved.
[2025] ARTA 9742025-07-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act could be revoked in the absence of another statutory ground.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 54‑year‑old Vietnamese‑born Icelandic citizen, held a Class BS (subclass 801) Partner visa that was subject to mandatory cancellation under the character test provisions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act could be revoked in the absence of another statutory ground.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose visa is subject to mandatory cancellation under s501CA(4) can only avoid revocation if a distinct statutory reason exists to override the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 21182025-07-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant had failed to comply with s 101 of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information and bogus documents, justifying…
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 Indonesia, had her Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa cancelled after providing incorrect information in her visa application. She had previously overstayed a visa and used a different identity.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant had failed to comply with s 101 of the Migration Act 1958 by providing incorrect information and bogus documents, justifying the cancellation of her visa under s 109(1).
What the tribunal established
A visa may be cancelled if the visa holder has failed to comply with the requirements of the Migration Act, such as providing correct information and not providing bogus documents.
[2025] ARTA 8202025-06-25UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 37‑year‑old Indian citizen, held a Partner (subclass 801) visa that was subject to mandatory cancellation under s501CA because he failed the character test due to serious driving offences, and he was onshore in Melbourne.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory visa cancellation under s501CA can only be revoked if the Tribunal identifies a separate reason under s501CA(4); otherwise the cancellation remains in force.
[2025] ARTA 8252025-06-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked, considering the criteria set out in Ministerial Direction…
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 34‑year‑old Romanian citizen who was onshore holding a Class AS Subclass 801 Spouse visa that had been mandatorily cancelled under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act could be revoked, considering the criteria set out in Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose spouse visas have been mandatorily cancelled for character reasons will not obtain revocation where Ministerial Direction No 110 finds no other reason to override the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 8222025-06-06Set asideThe central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the partner visa under s501(3A) should stand despite the applicant’s alleged character failure 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 38‑year‑old Ghanaian citizen, held a Class BS Subclass 801 Partner (permanent) visa and faced mandatory cancellation under s501(3A) of the Migration Act. He was onshore in Australia with a partner and minor children.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the mandatory cancellation of the partner visa under s501(3A) should stand despite the applicant’s alleged character failure and the existence of Direction No 110 considerations.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory visa cancellation under s501(3A) may be set aside where the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s strong ties to Australia and the best interests of Australian‑resident children outweigh the character concerns.
[2025] ARTA 6282025-05-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the good‑character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, given his 2006…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
John Anochie, a 55‑year‑old Nigerian citizen, arrived on a Subclass ZA 941 visa in 2000 and now holds a Permanent Partner (subclass 801) visa; he lodged an application for Australian citizenship on 27 September 2023.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the good‑character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, given his 2006 drug‑importation conviction.
What the tribunal established
Applicants with convictions for serious drug‑trafficking offences are unlikely to be found of good character under s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act, even after many years have passed.
[2025] ARTA 22712025-03-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(6)(a) taken with s 501(7)(c) and s 501(6)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, born in Nigeria, had been in Australia since 2014. The decision concerned the non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Partner (Class BS) (Subclass 801) Visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test under s 501(6)(a) taken with s 501(7)(c) and s 501(6)(d)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
What the tribunal established
When assessing the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Directions, to determine whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 5182025-03-24Set asideThe Minister sought to cancel the visa under s 109 of the Migration Act 1958, alleging non‑compliance with s 107 for failing to notify a change in circumstances.
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 Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa onshore and was temporarily residing in a rented room due to safety concerns while maintaining a genuine relationship with her sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister sought to cancel the visa under s 109 of the Migration Act 1958, alleging non‑compliance with s 107 for failing to notify a change in circumstances.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who remain in a genuine ongoing spousal relationship and have not failed to notify the Department of a relevant change are not subject to visa cancellation under s 109 based on s 107 non‑compliance.
[2025] ARTA 3082025-03-20Set asideThe central issue was whether the delegate was correct in cancelling the applicant's Subclass 801 visa under s 109(1) 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, a Mexican national, had his Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa cancelled due to providing incorrect information in previous visa applications and not declaring convictions and overstay. He was in a relationship with his Australian partner and cared for her and her children.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate was correct in cancelling the applicant's Subclass 801 visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering the incorrect information provided and the applicant's character.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the Tribunal must weigh the seriousness of the non-compliance against the hardship to the applicant and their family, including the best interests of any children involved.
[2025] ARTA 4462025-03-18UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 801.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether a genuine and continuing relationship…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa (Subclass 801) based on his relationship with his former sponsor. The applicant had previously been granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 801.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether a genuine and continuing relationship existed between the applicant and his former sponsor.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Partner visa, an applicant must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor, unless specific exceptions such as family violence apply.
[2025] ARTA 2172025-03-13Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to not revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 was…
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 BS subclass 801 Partner visa was cancelled due to a drug offence, and the Tribunal reviewed the decision to not revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to not revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider the protection of the Australian community and the interests of any minor children involved.
[2025] ARTA 4182025-03-03Set asideThe Minister sought to cancel the visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act for alleged non‑compliance with s 104 (failure to inform the Department of changes 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
The applicant, a Vietnamese national, held a Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa granted in August 2020 and was onshore in Australia with his wife and child.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister sought to cancel the visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act for alleged non‑compliance with s 104 (failure to inform the Department of changes in circumstances).
What the tribunal established
Applicants whose Subclass 801 visa was granted without an ongoing dependence requirement cannot be cancelled solely for later failure to comply with s 104 where the visa was not based on that information.
[2025] ARTA 3682025-02-17RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.801.221(6)(b) and (c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding family violence 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 applicant sought a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa (Subclass 801) based on her relationship with her sponsor, but the delegate refused the visa. The applicant claimed to be a victim of family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.801.221(6)(b) and (c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding family violence and the cessation of the relationship.
What the tribunal established
Where an applicant for a Partner visa has experienced family violence and the relationship with the sponsor has ceased, the applicant may still meet the requirements for the visa.
[2025] ARTA 1442025-02-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant was in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship with her sponsor, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994…
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 Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa (Subclass 801) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, being unsatisfied that the applicant was in a genuine and ongoing relationship with the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant was in a genuine and continuing de facto relationship with her sponsor, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 801.221.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner visa, the applicant must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor, including a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others.
[2025] ARTA 1422025-02-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically cl 801.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, given 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 Partner (Residence) (Class BS) Subclass 801 visa, but the delegate refused it because the relationship with the sponsor had ended. The applicant claimed family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically cl 801.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, given the relationship had ended and a family violence claim was made.
What the tribunal established
Evidence from a psychologist, without a professional opinion about a family violence claim, is not sufficient to establish a non-judicially determined family violence claim under the Migration Regulations.
[2024] ARTA 2722024-12-23Set asideThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked.
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, holding a Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa, faced visa cancellation due to a substantial criminal record and family violence concerns.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501CA, the Tribunal must weigh the primary and other considerations to determine whether cancellation is warranted.
[2024] ARTA 62024-12-19UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's criminal history and the application of…
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 Vietnam, had a Class BS (Subclass 801) Spouse Visa. The applicant had previously entered Australia using a false passport and name and had a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the applicant's criminal history and the application of Ministerial Direction no. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including Ministerial Directions, the applicant's criminal history, and any protection obligations.
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.