When a partner visa (onshore, temporary) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 210 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the first 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 210 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 29% of the time, set it aside 4% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 67% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 141 | 67.1% |
| Upheld | 58 | 27.6% |
| Set aside | 8 | 3.8% |
| Affirmed | 3 | 1.4% |
Counts from 210 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 | 32 | 3% |
| 2025 | 54 | 7% |
| 2024 | 124 | 2% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 15 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 10072026-06-05AffirmedWhether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) should be revoked under s 501CA after applying Ministerial Direction 110.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A long‑resident non‑citizen with a substantial history of sexual offences against children had his Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa cancelled under the character test.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) should be revoked under s 501CA after applying Ministerial Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA the Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation only if the person passes the character test or another reason exists, and the Tribunal must apply Direction 110, giving primary weight to protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 10772026-06-02RemittedThe delegate refused to grant the visa, finding that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria for a spousal relationship as per cl 820.211(2) of the 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
The applicants, Mrs Heghnar Hambardzumyan and her son Mr Erik Melkonyan, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on Mrs Hambardzumyan's relationship with her sponsor, an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant the visa, finding that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria for a spousal relationship as per cl 820.211(2) of the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A person is the spouse of another where the two persons are in a married relationship, which must be genuine and continuing.
[2026] ARTA 9622026-05-19RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application.
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 Nepalese citizen, applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa based on her relationship with her Australian citizen sponsor, but the delegate refused the application due to insufficient evidence of a genuine de facto relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others.
[2026] ARTA 9922026-05-13Set asideWhether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A long‑term Portuguese resident with an extensive criminal record faced cancellation of his Class BF transitional permanent visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA(4) the Tribunal must first decide if the person passes the character test; if they do not, the Tribunal may only revoke the cancellation if it is satisfied that ‘another reason’ exists, taking into account Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 9392026-05-11RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy subclass 820 criteria, particularly the spouse definition under s 5F and cl 820.211(2)(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
A Thai man on a student visa married an Australian citizen and applied for a Subclass 820 Partner (Temporary) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy subclass 820 criteria, particularly the spouse definition under s 5F and cl 820.211(2)(a).
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 820 visa the applicant must satisfy cl 820.211(2)(a) and cl 820.221(1) by being the spouse of an Australian citizen or permanent resident, as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act, and must meet the genuine and continuing relationship requirements set out in reg 1.15A(3).
[2026] ARTA 8552026-04-30RemittedThe applicant's relationship with her sponsor was in dispute, including whether they were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship and whether the applicant had…
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 UK citizen, applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa based on her relationship with an Australian citizen, but the application was refused due to insufficient evidence of their spousal relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's relationship with her sponsor was in dispute, including whether they were in a genuine and continuing spousal relationship and whether the applicant had experienced family violence.
What the tribunal established
A person is the spouse of another if they are in a married relationship, with a mutual commitment to a shared life, and their relationship is genuine and continuing.
[2026] ARTA 7482026-04-28AffirmedWhether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4) after the applicant failed the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 63‑year‑old UK citizen who has lived in Australia since age four was convicted of serious domestic violence offences and had his Class BF transitional permanent visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A).
The question before the tribunal
Whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4) after the applicant failed the character test.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) can be revoked only if the person passes the character test or the Minister is satisfied there is another reason, applying the considerations in Ministerial Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 9412026-04-28AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied clause 820.211/820.221 by proving a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of the visa application.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Amit Mahata, claimed to be married to an Australian citizen sponsor but provided limited financial and residential evidence.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied clause 820.211/820.221 by proving a genuine and continuing spousal relationship at the time of the visa application.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 820 Partner visa the applicant must satisfy clause 820.211/820.221, which requires a valid marriage under s 5F and that the relationship be genuine, continuing, and supported by financial, household and social evidence as set out in reg 1.15A(3).
[2026] ARTA 6652026-04-01RemittedThe applicant's claim of family violence was not considered by the delegate due to doubts about the relationship's validity.
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 Filipino citizen, was in a relationship with an Australian citizen and applied for a Partner visa, but the application was refused due to concerns about the genuineness of the relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim of family violence was not considered by the delegate due to doubts about the relationship's validity.
What the tribunal established
A person is taken to have experienced family violence if there is evidence tested before a court or a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
[2026] ARTA 11032026-03-31RemittedThe delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy time of application criteria and was not in a genuine and continuing…
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, Ms Thi Hoang Truong, is in a married relationship with her sponsor, Mr Tony Crocaris, and has applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not satisfy time of application criteria and was not in a genuine and continuing relationship with her sponsor.
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 11192026-03-24RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the first named applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, a married couple, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, which was refused by the Department due to insufficient evidence of their relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the first named applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsoring partner.
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 6882026-03-18RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa due to insufficient evidence of her relationship with her sponsor and the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant's relationship with her sponsor had ceased due to family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa due to insufficient evidence of her relationship with her sponsor and the family violence she experienced.
What the tribunal established
A person is taken to have experienced family violence if there is evidence tested before a court or a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
[2026] ARTA 8402026-03-13RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the de facto relationship criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A South Korean man in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen applied for a Subclass 820 Partner visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the de facto relationship criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Under s 5CB(2) of the Migration Act and reg 1.09A, a de facto relationship is established by assessing all circumstances – financial, social, household and commitment – to determine if the couple have a genuine, continuing partnership.
[2026] ARTA 6402026-03-12RemittedWhether the applicant met the spouse relationship requirements of cl 820.211/820.221 and whether compelling reasons existed to waive Schedule 3 criteria.
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 Saad Ali applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa as the spouse of an Australian citizen but was refused on the basis that he did not satisfy cl 820.211 and Schedule 3 criteria.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant met the spouse relationship requirements of cl 820.211/820.221 and whether compelling reasons existed to waive Schedule 3 criteria.
What the tribunal established
A partner visa applicant must satisfy the spouse relationship requirements of s 5F and cl 820.211/820.221, and Schedule 3 criteria may be waived only if compelling reasons exist that outweigh the applicant’s non‑compliance.
[2026] ARTA 4292026-03-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically whether she was in a spousal or de facto relationship with her…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820). The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant was not in a spousal or de facto relationship with the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically whether she was in a spousal or de facto relationship with her sponsor, as required by cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, to determine if the relationship is genuine and continuing.
[2026] ARTA 6992026-03-04RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the Subclass 820 visa criteria, including proof of a genuine spousal relationship and a non‑judicially determined claim of family…
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 married to the sponsor, the relationship has ceased, and he alleges family violence by the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the Subclass 820 visa criteria, including proof of a genuine spousal relationship and a non‑judicially determined claim of family violence.
What the tribunal established
A Subclass 820 visa may be granted only if the applicant meets the primary criteria in cl 820.211 and cl 820.221, and any claim of family violence must satisfy the requirements of reg 1.23‑1.25, including a statutory declaration and supporting expert reports.
[2026] ARTA 3842026-02-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically whether she had demonstrated a genuine and continuing de facto…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 820.211 and cl 820.221.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically whether she had demonstrated a genuine and continuing de facto relationship with her sponsor, as required by cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial aspects, household nature, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment between the partners.
[2026] ARTA 2642026-02-26UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the good character requirement under s. 21(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, considering his past offending…
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, applied for Australian citizenship by conferral, which was refused due to concerns about his character. The applicant had previously held a Partner visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the good character requirement under s. 21(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, considering his past offending history.
What the tribunal established
To be of good character for citizenship, an applicant must demonstrate conformity with Australian values, an ability to distinguish right from wrong, and a willingness to behave ethically.
[2026] ARTA 2402026-02-24RemittedThe central issue was whether the Minister should exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa on character grounds, considering…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of China, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa. The delegate refused the visa application under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, finding the applicant did not meet the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister should exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa on character grounds, considering the applicant's criminal history and failure to declare a conviction.
What the tribunal established
When considering the exercise of discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act, the decision-maker must weigh the considerations for and against refusal, taking into account relevant Ministerial Directions and the best interests of any minor children.
[2026] ARTA 3452026-02-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether the relationship with the sponsor still existed, and whether 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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on her relationship with her sponsor, but the delegate refused the visa. The Tribunal reviewed the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether the relationship with the sponsor still existed, and whether the applicant could rely on a claim of family violence.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements for a Partner visa, the applicant must demonstrate a continuing relationship with their sponsor, or provide sufficient evidence of family violence.
[2026] ARTA 2982026-02-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and Direction no. 110.
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, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class UK Subclass 820 Partner visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly applied the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and Direction no. 110.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a visa cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider the relevant Ministerial Direction and weigh the various considerations to determine if the cancellation should be revoked.
[2026] ARTA 3862026-02-10RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and her partner were in a genuine de facto relationship, as required by the Migration Regulations, specifically cl 820.211(2)…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Ms Hsin-Ying Tsai, a citizen of Taiwan, applied for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa to remain in Australia based on her relationship with her de facto partner, an Australian citizen. The Minister refused the application, not being satisfied that the relationship was genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and her partner were in a genuine de facto relationship, as required by the Migration Regulations, specifically cl 820.211(2) and cl 820.221(1) of Schedule 2.
What the tribunal established
A genuine de facto relationship, for the purposes of a Partner visa, is established by demonstrating a commitment to each other in an exclusive, genuine, and continuing basis, supported by evidence of shared life and mutual support.
[2026] ARTA 4862026-02-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was still in a de facto…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on his relationship with his sponsor. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant was no longer in a de facto relationship with the sponsor at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he was still in a de facto relationship with his sponsor at the time of the decision.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, an applicant must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor, unless specific exceptions apply.
[2026] ARTA 2432026-02-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing relationship and the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on her relationship with her sponsor, but the visa was refused. The applicant's student visa had expired, and she was in breach of a condition.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing relationship and the compelling reasons for not applying within the required timeframe, as per cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the Tribunal must consider all aspects of the relationship, including financial, household, and social aspects, and give weight to compelling reasons for any delays in application.
[2026] ARTA 5142026-02-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of 'spouse' under s 5F of the Migration Act 1958, as required by cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, based on her marriage to her sponsor. The delegate initially refused the visa, finding the applicant was not the spouse of the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the definition of 'spouse' under s 5F of the Migration Act 1958, as required by cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, to determine if the relationship is genuine and ongoing.
[2026] ARTA 4172026-01-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 820 visa, specifically clauses 820.211 and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration…
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 Greek national, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Subclass 820) visa based on a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen. The relationship ceased due to family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 820 visa, specifically clauses 820.211 and 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, considering the cessation of the relationship due to family violence.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Partner visa may still be eligible if the relationship has ceased due to family violence, provided the applicant can demonstrate they experienced relevant family violence committed by the sponsor.
[2026] ARTA 2282026-01-28RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically concerning the genuineness of the relationship and the impact of…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on her relationship with her sponsor, which at the time was a Subclass 820 visa. The Tribunal considered the genuineness of the relationship and the impact of the sponsor's infidelity and alleged family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically concerning the genuineness of the relationship and the impact of family violence, as per Part 820 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a partner visa application, the Tribunal must consider all aspects of the relationship, including evidence of family violence, to determine if the relationship is genuine and continuing.
[2026] ARTA 3732026-01-28UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 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 sought a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on his relationship with his sponsor, but the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was in a spousal relationship at the time of application.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, an applicant must demonstrate a genuine and continuing spousal relationship, considering financial, household, social, and commitment aspects.
[2026] ARTA 2022026-01-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, specifically concerning the genuineness and continuation of the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, sponsored by her deceased Australian citizen husband. 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 820 (Partner) visa, specifically concerning the genuineness and continuation of the relationship at the time of application, as per the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, as outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 3012026-01-27RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, specifically concerning the nature and genuineness of the de facto…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically Subclass 820 (Partner), based on her relationship with her Australian citizen sponsor. The application was refused by the Minister's delegate.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, specifically concerning the nature and genuineness of the de facto relationship with her sponsor, as per the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, social, and commitment aspects, to determine if the relationship meets the requirements of a de facto partnership.
[2026] ARTA 562026-01-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, as…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on their relationship with an Australian citizen. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 820 visa, specifically regarding the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship, as per the Migration Act and Regulations.
What the tribunal established
In assessing a Partner visa application, the Tribunal must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, as outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 842026-01-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, finding the relationship was not genuine.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant and sponsor were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by cl 820.211 and cl 820.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
In assessing a genuine and continuing relationship, the Tribunal considers the duration of the relationship, the degree of companionship and emotional support, and whether the parties see the relationship as long term.
[2025] ARTA 27192025-12-17UpheldThe 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 Nigeria, sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class UK Subclass 820 Partner visa.
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 revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including the seriousness of the offending and the public interest.
[2025] ARTA 28102025-12-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she was in a…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, not being satisfied that the applicant was the de facto partner of the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether she was in a de facto relationship with her sponsor.
What the tribunal established
In assessing a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social aspects, and the nature of the commitment.
[2025] ARTA 29232025-12-15RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the genuine…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (Subclass 820) based on her relationship with her sponsor. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a genuine and ongoing relationship.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding the genuine and ongoing nature of the relationship.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the decision-maker must consider all circumstances of the relationship, including financial, household, social, and commitment aspects, to determine if the relationship is genuine and ongoing.
[2025] ARTA 26532025-12-08Set asideThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, given his substantial criminal record, and whether the cancellation of his visa 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, a citizen of Tonga, had his partner visa cancelled under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, given his substantial criminal record, and whether the cancellation of his visa should be revoked.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including Ministerial Directions, to determine whether to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 25752025-12-04UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's delegate correctly decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501 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, a citizen of China, had a permanent partner visa which was mandatorily cancelled due to his criminal convictions for intentionally sexually touching a child. The AAT reviewed the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.
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 501 of the Migration Act, considering the character test and Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s 501, the decision-maker must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, and the decision will be upheld if the risk to the Australian community outweighs the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2025] ARTA 27722025-11-27RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor, failing to meet cl 820.211(a). The delegate also assessed that…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically a Subclass 820 visa, based on his relationship with his sponsor. The delegate initially refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant was the spouse of the sponsor, failing to meet cl 820.211(a). The delegate also assessed that the applicant did not meet Schedule 3 Criterion 3001.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Partner visa, applicants must demonstrate a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor, satisfying the relevant criteria outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 29112025-11-21RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant, being over 23, qualified as a dependent child under cl 309.321(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, despite her…
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, aged 23 at the time of application and 31 at the time of the decision, sought a secondary Partner visa as the daughter of the primary visa applicant. The applicant's parents had arrived in Australia as unauthorised maritime arrivals.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant, being over 23, qualified as a dependent child under cl 309.321(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, despite her age at the time of application.
What the tribunal established
A person can be considered a dependent child for the purposes of a Partner visa if they meet the criteria for dependency under the Migration Regulations, regardless of their age at the time of the application.
[2025] ARTA 28972025-11-19RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the relationship met the definition of spouse or de facto partner under s 5F or s 5CB of the Migration Act…
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 (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, specifically a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa, based on his relationship with his sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the relationship met the definition of spouse or de facto partner under s 5F or s 5CB of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Partner visa application, the Tribunal must consider all evidence to determine if the relationship meets the definition of spouse or de facto partner.
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.