When a child visa (onshore) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 26 such decisions (2024 to 2025), covering the onshore permanent visa for a dependent child of an Australian sponsor. 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 26 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 69% of the time, set it aside 4% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 27% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 18 | 69.2% |
| Remitted | 7 | 26.9% |
| Set aside | 1 | 3.8% |
Counts from 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 6 | 17% |
| 2024 | 20 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 26 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.
[2025] ARTA 23402025-11-04Set asideThe central issue was whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was appropriate.
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 BT Subclass 802 Child Visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 following convictions for various offences.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was appropriate.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal can revoke a visa cancellation decision made under s 501 of the Migration Act.
[2025] ARTA 17872025-09-12UpheldThe central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s 501(3A) of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant's Class BT Subclass 802 Child visa was mandatorily cancelled due to convictions in Australia. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there were other reasons to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering the character test under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's ties to Australia, as outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 110.
[2025] ARTA 22472025-07-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement for full-time…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, over 24 years old, applied for a Subclass 802 (Child) visa, seeking to be a dependent child of an Australian relative. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was not studying full-time at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the requirement for full-time study at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 802 visa must be undertaking full-time study at an educational institution at the time of visa application unless they are incapacitated for work.
[2025] ARTA 11962025-07-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the full‑time study requirement under cl 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations (and s65 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
Miss Gia Ponce De Leon Andres, an onshore applicant over 18, sought a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa after completing a diploma and was not enrolled in full‑time study at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the full‑time study requirement under cl 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations (and s65 of the Migration Act).
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 802 visas must be undertaking full‑time study at the time of application; later enrolment does not meet the statutory requirement.
[2025] ARTA 1352025-01-30UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements of clause 802.214(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as the delegate was not…
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 PNG, applied for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa in 2019. The delegate refused the visa, and the applicant sought review of this decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements of clause 802.214(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as the delegate was not satisfied he met these requirements.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa must demonstrate they meet the study requirements at the time of the decision.
[2025] ARTA 5242025-01-09UpheldThe central issue was whether she satisfied the study requirement in Migration Regulations clause 802.214(1)(c) for applicants over 18, as required by the Migration Act…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Serena Basilone, an onshore applicant aged over 18, sought a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa while employed part‑time and not enrolled in a full‑time course at an educational institution.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she satisfied the study requirement in Migration Regulations clause 802.214(1)(c) for applicants over 18, as required by the Migration Act s65.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for subclass 802 visas must be undertaking a full‑time course at an educational institution at the time of decision to meet clause 802.214(1)(c).
[2024] ARTA 1392024-12-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 802 visa under Part 802 of Schedule 2 of 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, a Thai national, applied for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) (Subclass 802) visa while holding a Bridging A visa. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 802 visa under Part 802 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal will refer a visa application to the Minister if the applicant's departure would cause serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to a family member.
[2024] AATA 41912024-10-08RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the eligibility requirements for a Subclass 802 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, given her age and dependency status.
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 27‑year‑old woman, applied on 12 May 2022 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (Subclass 802) as a dependent child of an Australian citizen, and was later found to be over 18 and over 25 at the time of decision but incapacitated due to loss of bodily or mental functions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the eligibility requirements for a Subclass 802 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act, given her age and dependency status.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are over 18 but under 25 and are incapacitated can meet the Subclass 802 visa requirements by satisfying clauses 802.212, 802.214 and 802.221(2) of the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 36412024-10-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependent‑child requirements of subclass 802.212 and the full‑time study condition of subclass 802.214(1)(c)…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Chinese national born in July 1997, applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) subclass 802 visa as a dependent child of his Australian mother while undertaking part‑time study.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependent‑child requirements of subclass 802.212 and the full‑time study condition of subclass 802.214(1)(c) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must be engaged in full‑time study within six months of completing the Australian year 12 equivalent to meet the dependent‑child criteria for a subclass 802 visa.
[2024] AATA 36472024-10-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependency requirements of the Migration Regulations, specifically reg 1.05A (definition of dependent child)…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Changco Jr Quelino, aged over 24, was an onshore applicant for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) subclass 802 visa, claiming to be a financially dependent child of his Australian citizen father after completing his studies and obtaining full‑time employment.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependency requirements of the Migration Regulations, specifically reg 1.05A (definition of dependent child) and the related subclass 802 criteria.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must meet the explicit financial dependence test in regulation 1.05A to qualify as dependent children for subclass 802 visas.
[2024] AATA 36462024-10-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the study, work and relationship requirements of clause 802.214 (and related clause 802.221) of the Migration Regulations…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Fijian national born in March 1995, applied on‑shore on 18 March 2020 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa while caring for two young children after ceasing full‑time study and work.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the study, work and relationship requirements of clause 802.214 (and related clause 802.221) of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who do not satisfy the study, work and relationship criteria in clause 802.214/802.221 of the Migration Regulations are ineligible for a Subclass 802 Child (Residence) visa and no compassionate or compelling grounds waiver exists.
[2024] AATA 36582024-10-01UpheldThe central issue was whether she satisfied the study requirement in clause 802.214(1)(c) of 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
Ms Wulandari, an Indonesian national born in 1998, applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa as a dependent child of her Australian mother while caring for her father.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she satisfied the study requirement in clause 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 802 child visas must demonstrate continuous full‑time study from age 18 or within six months of completing secondary school, and personal circumstances do not excuse a gap in study.
[2024] AATA 42712024-09-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the age‑related requirement in clause 802.214 of the Migration Regulations, which applies to applicants over 18 who are…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 21‑year‑old Filipino national at the time of application, sought a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa onshore in Australia and was caring for her younger siblings while her family lived in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the age‑related requirement in clause 802.214 of the Migration Regulations, which applies to applicants over 18 who are not in full‑time work or study, together with the relevant s65 refusal ground.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must satisfy clause 802.214 of the Migration Regulations, including the full‑time work or study test, to be eligible for a Subclass 802 Child visa.
[2024] AATA 38312024-09-24UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements of subclass 802 under clause 802.214(1)(c) and the related incapacity‑for‑work test in clause…
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 born in February 1999, applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) subclass 802 visa after turning 18 and was not engaged in full‑time study at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the study requirements of subclass 802 under clause 802.214(1)(c) and the related incapacity‑for‑work test in clause 802.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for subclass 802 Child (Residence) visas must be engaged in full‑time study at the time of decision and cannot satisfy the incapacity‑for‑work requirement through unpaid work alone.
[2024] AATA 39922024-09-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the study requirement of clause 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required under s65 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 UK national born in September 2000, applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) subclass 802 visa on 25 October 2019 while not engaged in any formal study and was working full‑time.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the study requirement of clause 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, as required under s65 of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for subclass 802 Child (Residence) visas must be enrolled in full‑time study at the time of application; failure to do so results in ineligibility.
[2024] AATA 31322024-08-29UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child definition under Migration Regulations 1994 schedule 2 class 802.212(1)/(1A) and s65 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an adult over 18, was the child of an Australian sponsor and applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the dependent child definition under Migration Regulations 1994 schedule 2 class 802.212(1)/(1A) and s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must satisfy the dependent child criteria in reg 802.212(1A) to be eligible for a Subclass 802 visa.
[2024] AATA 31932024-08-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Migration Regulation 1994 clause 802.214(1)(c) requiring continuous full‑time study since turning 18, and whether…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Wellane Bato Bajora, an onshore applicant over 18, sought a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa while not engaged in full‑time work and with intermittent full‑time study due to caring responsibilities.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Migration Regulation 1994 clause 802.214(1)(c) requiring continuous full‑time study since turning 18, and whether clause 802.214(2) for incapacity applied.
What the tribunal established
Applicants over 18 must demonstrate continuous full‑time study since turning 18 unless they can provide evidence of incapacity, and breaks in study are not deemed reasonable.
[2024] AATA 28772024-07-18RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4007(1)(aa) under clause 802.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Miss Angeley Mae Suico applied on 19 July 2023 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (Subclass 802) as a child applicant onshore in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4007(1)(aa) under clause 802.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
A minister may waive the health requirements of PIC 4007 where the applicant meets all other visa criteria and the grant is unlikely to cause undue cost or prejudice to the Australian community.
[2024] AATA 26392024-07-10RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not meet the time‑of‑application requirement in regulation cl 802.213 of Schedule…
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 national, applied on 1 October 2019 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (subclass 802) after being adopted by an Australian citizen while she was 16 years old, and at the time of the decision she was 21 and the adoptive parents had been residing overseas for more than 12 months.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not meet the time‑of‑application requirement in regulation cl 802.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants adopted overseas by an Australian citizen who have lived abroad for more than 12 months can satisfy the subclass 802 time‑of‑application requirement if the Minister is satisfied the residence was not contrived and compassionate circumstances exist.
[2024] AATA 22372024-06-14UpheldThe central issue was whether she met the definition of a dependent child under Regulation 1.03(b)(ii) and 1.05A(1)(b) required by clause 802.212 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Miss Abigail Olay Ocampo applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa after turning 18 and claimed to be a dependent child of her sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether she met the definition of a dependent child under Regulation 1.03(b)(ii) and 1.05A(1)(b) required by clause 802.212 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who have turned 18 must satisfy the dependency requirements in Reg 1.05A and Reg 1.03 to be classified as a dependent child for Subclass 802 visas.
[2024] AATA 21852024-06-13RemittedThe key issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependent child requirement under cl 802.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Isaiah Soekadar applied on 25 October 2019 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (Subclass 802) as the dependent child of his sponsor, Mr Du’aine Adetokumbo Ladejo.
The question before the tribunal
The key issue was whether the applicant satisfied the dependent child requirement under cl 802.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 802 child visa must satisfy the dependent child criteria set out in cl 802.212 and cl 802.221(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2024] AATA 15312024-05-28UpheldThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was subject to s 48 of the Migration Act and did not satisfy clause 802.211 of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Samoan national born in February 2019, applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) subclass 802 visa as an adopted dependent child of her Australian sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was subject to s 48 of the Migration Act and did not satisfy clause 802.211 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are subject to section 48 and have not become a dependent child of an Australian citizen or permanent resident since their last substantive visa application cannot satisfy clause 802.211 and are ineligible for a subclass 802 visa.
[2024] AATA 16162024-04-26RemittedThe Minister refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy cl 802.221 of the Migration Regulations, which requires proof 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
Mr Weihang Ni, a Chinese national, applied on 25 February 2019 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (Subclass 802) while residing in Australia as a dependent child of the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The Minister refused the visa under s65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy cl 802.221 of the Migration Regulations, which requires proof of dependent child status and meeting study requirements.
What the tribunal established
Tribunals may remit a refusal to the Minister when the applicant meets the substantive visa criteria but the decision-maker failed to consider them.
[2024] AATA 9072024-04-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 802 visa, specifically cl 802.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
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 the Republic of Korea, applied for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa (Subclass 802). The Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 802 visa, specifically cl 802.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider all relevant information and make a decision based on the law and the specific circumstances of the case, including whether the applicant meets the criteria for the visa.
[2024] AATA 11152024-03-25RemittedThe central issue was whether the 12‑month overseas residence requirement in migration regulation clause 802.213(5) was met or could be waived on compassionate or…
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 is a young child adopted overseas who applied onshore for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa, with the adoptive parent as sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the 12‑month overseas residence requirement in migration regulation clause 802.213(5) was met or could be waived on compassionate or compelling grounds.
What the tribunal established
Applicants adopted overseas can satisfy clause 802.213(5) despite not meeting the 12‑month overseas residence requirement if the Minister is satisfied that compelling or compassionate circumstances exist and the residence was not contrived.
[2024] AATA 24752024-03-20UpheldThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant was subject to the operation of s 48 of the Migration Act and did not satisfy regulation clause 802.211.
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 US‑born child born in December 2015 who applied onshore on 1 October 2019 for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) Subclass 802 visa as the dependent of an Australian citizen parent.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was subject to the operation of s 48 of the Migration Act and did not satisfy regulation clause 802.211.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are subject to the s 48 bar and fail to meet the regulatory requirement cl 802.211 are not eligible for a Subclass 802 visa unless the Minister exercises discretion under s 351.
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.