When a partner visa (onshore, temporary) decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 229 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 229 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 28% of the time, set it aside 4% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 68% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Remitted | 156 | 68.1% |
| Upheld | 58 | 25.3% |
| Set aside | 9 | 3.9% |
| Affirmed | 6 | 2.6% |
Counts from 229 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-09-27. 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 | 51 | 4% |
| 2025 | 54 | 7% |
| 2024 | 124 | 2% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 34 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 19622026-09-09Set asideWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501(6) and whether the discretion to refuse the visa under s 501(1) 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
Yuk Kau Heung, a Hong Kong national with multiple convictions in Hong Kong, sought a Partner (subclass 820) visa in Australia but was refused on character grounds.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501(6) and whether the discretion to refuse the visa under s 501(1) should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(1) the Minister may refuse a visa if the person fails the character test, but the discretion must be exercised in accordance with Direction 110, giving primary weight to protection of the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 19092026-08-18AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 regarding bogus documents and false or misleading information and whether any waiver applied.
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 subclass 820 partner visa but was found to have provided a bogus senior secondary certificate and failed to disclose a prior marriage, leading to a refusal.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 regarding bogus documents and false or misleading information and whether any waiver applied.
What the tribunal established
PIC 4020 requires a visa applicant not to provide a bogus document or false/misleading information; if breached the visa must be refused unless a waiver is granted, which does not apply to identity requirements.
[2026] ARTA 19122026-08-13RemittedWhether the first applicant satisfied the spouse criteria under cl.820.211(2)(a) and would have continued to be the spouse under cl.820.221(2)(b), and whether the second…
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 married couple and their child applied for a Subclass 820 Partner visa after the sponsor died, but the delegate refused on the basis that the spouse relationship was not sufficiently proven.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the first applicant satisfied the spouse criteria under cl.820.211(2)(a) and would have continued to be the spouse under cl.820.221(2)(b), and whether the second applicant met the dependent child criteria under cl.820.311(a).
What the tribunal established
A person is a spouse for a Subclass 820 visa if they are married under a marriage valid for the Act and the relationship is genuine, continuing, and meets the criteria in s 5F(2)(a‑d) and the relevant Regulation clauses.
[2026] ARTA 19172026-08-13RemittedWhether the applicant gave false or misleading information in a material particular, triggering PIC 4020, and whether a waiver under PIC 4020(4) applies.
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 Pham applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa but was refused on the basis that she allegedly provided false or misleading information under Public Interest Criterion 4020.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant gave false or misleading information in a material particular, triggering PIC 4020, and whether a waiver under PIC 4020(4) applies.
What the tribunal established
Under s 65 of the Migration Act and PIC 4020 (cl 820.226), an applicant must not provide false or misleading information in a material particular, and a waiver under PIC 4020(4) is only available for compassionate circumstances and does not apply to identity requirements.
[2026] ARTA 19142026-08-11RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 820.226 of 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
Ms Palasit applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa but was refused on the basis that she allegedly failed to disclose previous relationships and provided false information.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4020 under clause 820.226 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A visa applicant must not provide false or misleading information or a bogus document in a material particular and must satisfy PIC 4020(1) and (2) unless the requirements are waived on compassionate or compelling grounds.
[2026] ARTA 18352026-07-20RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the de facto relationship and Schedule 3 criteria required for the Subclass 820 visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Irish citizen Amy O’Shaughnessy applied for a Subclass 820 Partner visa as the de facto partner of her Australian permanent‑resident sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the de facto relationship and Schedule 3 criteria required for the Subclass 820 visa.
What the tribunal established
A person must satisfy s 5CB(2) and the relevant Schedule 2 criteria, including a genuine and continuing de facto relationship and, if lacking a substantive visa, the Schedule 3 criteria unless compelling reasons exist.
[2026] ARTA 19552026-07-17RemittedWhether the applicant gave false or misleading information about the secondary applicant’s employment and dependency, triggering PIC 4020, and whether a compassionate…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mrs Rania Soboh applied for a subclass 820 partner visa with her son as a secondary applicant, but was found to have provided false information about the son's employment and financial dependency.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant gave false or misleading information about the secondary applicant’s employment and dependency, triggering PIC 4020, and whether a compassionate waiver applies.
What the tribunal established
Under PIC 4020(1) of the Migration Regulations, an applicant must not provide false or misleading information in a material particular, and the provision applies even if the misinformation was supplied by a third party.
[2026] ARTA 14212026-07-16RemittedThe delegate refused the visa, finding that the applicant and sponsor were not spouses or de facto partners 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 32-year-old Chinese woman, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on her relationship with her Australian citizen sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa, finding that the applicant and sponsor were not spouses or de facto partners at the time of application.
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 18702026-07-16RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the spouse criteria in cl 820.211(2)(a) and the related ongoing criteria in cl 820.221 for the Partner (Temporary) visa.
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 Nigerian man married to an Australian citizen applied for a Subclass 820 Partner visa which was refused on the basis that he was not the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the spouse criteria in cl 820.211(2)(a) and the related ongoing criteria in cl 820.221 for the Partner (Temporary) visa.
What the tribunal established
Under s 5F of the Migration Act, a spouse is a person in a valid marriage who demonstrates a genuine, continuing relationship, mutual commitment and cohabitation, assessed using the factors in reg 1.15A(3).
[2026] ARTA 14222026-07-13RemittedThe delegate refused the visa, citing insufficient evidence of a de facto relationship between the applicant and the sponsor.
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 Kenyan national, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on her relationship with her Australian sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa, citing insufficient evidence of a de facto relationship between the applicant and the sponsor.
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 and the relationship is genuine and continuing.
[2026] ARTA 20212026-07-06RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the identity requirements and PIC 4020 criteria for the partner visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mrs Naureen Yacoob, a Pakistani national, applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa but was refused due to alleged identity fraud and bogus documents.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the identity requirements and PIC 4020 criteria for the partner visa.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must satisfy PIC 4020(2A) by proving their true identity through reliable documents, biometrics and a consistent life story, and cannot rely on false or misleading information.
[2026] ARTA 11632026-06-29AffirmedThe applicant's visa was cancelled due to his conviction for three counts of sexual penetration without consent, and the issue was whether there was another reason to…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 33-year-old Pakistani citizen, had his subclass 820 Partner visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record, and the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's visa was cancelled due to his conviction for three counts of sexual penetration without consent, and the issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 13402026-06-26AffirmedThe applicant claimed she was unable to obtain the police certificate due to an ongoing criminal investigation related to a financial dispute with her former business…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ms Lanxiang Min, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa but was refused due to not providing a police certificate from China.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant claimed she was unable to obtain the police certificate due to an ongoing criminal investigation related to a financial dispute with her former business partner.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must provide a statement from an appropriate authority about their criminal history, as required by reg 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2026] ARTA 13392026-06-26RemittedThe delegate refused the visa, citing concerns that the applicant and sponsor were not in a genuine and continuing relationship.
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 Vietnamese citizen, applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa based on his relationship with his Australian sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa, citing concerns that the applicant and sponsor were not in a genuine and continuing relationship.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider all circumstances of the relationship to determine if the applicant meets the criteria for a Partner visa.
[2026] ARTA 19012026-06-18RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied cl 820.211(2), cl 820.221 and reg 2.03A requirements for a genuine and continuing de‑facto relationship.
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 Thai national on a student visa, sought a Partner (Temporary) subclass 820 visa as the de facto partner of an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied cl 820.211(2), cl 820.221 and reg 2.03A requirements for a genuine and continuing de‑facto relationship.
What the tribunal established
A de‑facto partner must meet s 5CB(2) of the Migration Act and the relevant criteria in cl 820.211(2), cl 820.221 and the additional requirement of reg 2.03A to be granted a subclass 820 visa.
[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 13842026-04-13RemittedThe delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of 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, a 58-year-old Sri Lankan national, applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa, which was refused by the delegate of the Minister, and the decision was later remitted by the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 820.211(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically that the applicant and the sponsor did not have a genuine and continuing married relationship.
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, and the relationship is genuine and continuing.
[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 11762026-03-27RemittedThe delegate considered there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor.
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 and her child were refused Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visas due to insufficient evidence of a genuine spousal relationship with the sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate considered there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of the sponsor.
What the tribunal established
A person is taken to have experienced family violence if there is evidence tested before a court.
[2026] ARTA 12752026-03-24RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant mother had sole parental responsibility for the applicant daughter or that the non-migrating parent had consented to…
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 mother and her daughter applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, which was refused by the delegate due to concerns about the applicant daughter's parental responsibility and the non-migrating parent's consent.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant mother had sole parental responsibility for the applicant daughter or that the non-migrating parent had consented to the grant of the visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider the factors in reg 1.15A of the Regulations to determine if a spousal relationship exists.
[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 12762026-03-10RemittedThe applicant's claim of family violence was in dispute, and the Tribunal had to determine whether she had experienced family violence committed by her former sponsor.
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 female from Country 1, was in a spousal relationship with an Australian permanent resident, but the relationship has ceased due to family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim of family violence was in dispute, and the Tribunal had to determine whether she had experienced family violence committed by her former sponsor.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider the evidence and apply the relevant regulations, including reg 1.23, to determine whether the applicant has experienced family violence.
[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.
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.