When a carer visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 21 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the permanent visa for someone caring for an Australian relative with a medical need. 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 21 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 52% of the time, set it aside 0% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 48% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 11 | 52.4% |
| Remitted | 10 | 47.6% |
Counts from 21 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 | 2 | 0% |
| 2025 | 7 | 0% |
| 2024 | 12 | 0% |
Recent decisions
The 21 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 4852026-03-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 836 visa, specifically clause 836.227 of the Migration Regulations, which requires an…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically Subclass 836 (Carer). The applicant's sponsor had withdrawn their sponsorship, and the delegate refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Subclass 836 visa, specifically clause 836.227 of the Migration Regulations, which requires an approved and current sponsorship.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 836 visa must have an approved and current sponsorship to meet the visa criteria.
[2026] ARTA 2762026-02-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the primary applicant met the requirements of clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the definition…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants sought Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, specifically Subclass 836 (Carer) visas, to care for an Australian resident. The delegate refused the visas because the primary applicant did not meet the definition of a carer at the time of decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the primary applicant met the requirements of clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically the definition of 'carer' under regulation 1.15AA.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Subclass 836 visa, an applicant must meet the definition of 'carer' under regulation 1.15AA of the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of the decision.
[2025] ARTA 16992025-07-28UpheldThe central issue was the Tribunal's dismissal of the application under s.99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 due to the applicant's non-appearance at the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) Subclass 836 visa. The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant did not appear at the hearing.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the Tribunal's dismissal of the application under s.99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 due to the applicant's non-appearance at the hearing.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing and does not seek reinstatement within the specified timeframe, the Tribunal must confirm the original decision.
[2025] ARTA 15032025-07-15RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 836.213 and cl 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding her ability 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 sought an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, and the Tribunal considered whether she met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, specifically in relation to providing care for her de facto partner.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 836.213 and cl 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically regarding her ability to provide substantial and continuing assistance to her partner.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements of a carer visa, an applicant must be both willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance to the Australian relative.
[2025] ARTA 13302025-07-03RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the impairment rating and related requirements of Regulation 1.15AA(1)(b) and (c) for clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 under…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a Filipino national, had applied onshore for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU visa and was later considered for a Subclass 836 Carer visa, providing a Carer Visa Assessment Certificate (CVAC).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the impairment rating and related requirements of Regulation 1.15AA(1)(b) and (c) for clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 under the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the impairment rating and associated criteria in reg 1.15AA to be eligible for a Subclass 836 carer visa, and a tribunal may remit the matter if those criteria are later met.
[2025] ARTA 8082025-04-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clauses 836.212…
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 sought Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, specifically a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, after a delegate of the Minister refused their application. The applicants were the daughter and family of an Australian citizen.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa under the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically clauses 836.212, 836.213, and 836.221 of Schedule 2.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Carer visa, an applicant must demonstrate that they are willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance to an Australian citizen or permanent resident who has a medical condition requiring care, and that such care cannot reasonably be provided by others.
[2025] ARTA 3932025-03-25RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the Subclass 836 visa criteria, specifically cl.836.212 and cl.836.311(a) 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 applicants, a married couple with three children, were onshore family members who applied for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa seeking to be granted Subclass 836 (Carer) visas.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants satisfied the Subclass 836 visa criteria, specifically cl.836.212 and cl.836.311(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, after a refusal under s65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who are members of the family unit of a primary applicant for an Other Family (Residence) visa can satisfy the Subclass 836 carer visa criteria cl.836.311(a) and therefore the decision may be remitted for further consideration.
[2025] ARTA 4262025-03-03UpheldThe central issue was that the applicants failed to satisfy the time‑of‑application requirement under cl 836.213 and the secondary time‑of‑decision requirement under cl…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, Fiji nationals, applied on 21 December 2020 for Subclass 836 (Carer) visas while residing offshore and were seeking to be sponsored by a partner who was not an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was that the applicants failed to satisfy the time‑of‑application requirement under cl 836.213 and the secondary time‑of‑decision requirement under cl 836.321, as the sponsor did not meet the necessary citizenship or residency status.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 836 visas must meet the time‑of‑application and sponsor‑eligibility criteria; failure to do so bars the visa regardless of other circumstances.
[2025] ARTA 4342025-02-20RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 836.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the sponsor was…
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 Malaysian national, applied for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa, specifically a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, and the delegate refused it because they were not satisfied the sponsor was a relative of the applicant.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 836.213 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether the sponsor was a relative of the applicant.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the requirements of a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, an applicant must demonstrate a qualifying family relationship with their sponsor, supported by appropriate evidence such as birth certificates and DNA testing.
[2024] AATA 40082024-10-07UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the carer criterion under Regulation 1.15AA(1)(c), which requires the relative’s impairment rating to be at least…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Sharmila Devi applied onshore for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, seeking to be the carer of an Australian relative with a medical impairment.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the carer criterion under Regulation 1.15AA(1)(c), which requires the relative’s impairment rating to be at least 30.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 836 carer visa must meet the impairment rating threshold set out in Regulation 1.15AA(1)(c) to satisfy the carer requirement.
[2024] AATA 30742024-08-19RemittedThe central question was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e., whether he was a carer of an Australian…
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 Yiqiang Huang, a Chinese national, applied for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU visa and a Subclass 836 Carer visa with his partner and child, having previously been refused in 2018.
The question before the tribunal
The central question was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, i.e., whether he was a carer of an Australian relative.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate substantial and continuing assistance to an Australian relative may satisfy clause 836.221 for a Subclass 836 Carer visa, even if they have not worked in Australia.
[2024] AATA 28722024-07-16UpheldThe delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy cl 836.213 and the regulatory requirements r 1.12 (family‑unit…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Mari Kamel Farag Salib, an Egyptian national born in 1946, applied onshore for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU Subclass 836 carer visa sponsored by the brother of the person requiring care.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy cl 836.213 and the regulatory requirements r 1.12 (family‑unit definition) and r 1.15AA (medical impairment thresholds).
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Subclass 836 carer visas must demonstrate that the person needing care is a member of the sponsor’s family unit as defined by regulation r 1.12 and must meet the medical impairment thresholds set out in r 1.15AA.
[2024] AATA 26712024-07-01UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(c) under the health requirements of subclass 836, as required by cl 836.332 of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The Sudanese family applied on 2 July 2018 for Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas, including a 20‑year‑old dependent child as a subclass 836 applicant, and were offshore with no independent income.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(c) under the health requirements of subclass 836, as required by cl 836.332 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for subclass 836 visas must meet Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(c) health requirements, and a compliant medical officer’s opinion is determinative.
[2024] AATA 21832024-06-11UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be a dependent…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Quang Thai Pham applied onshore for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU Subclass 836 (Carer) visa as the dependent child of his mother, seeking to provide care to a relative in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be a dependent child of the main applicant.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 836 carer visa must meet clause 836.321, meaning they must be a dependent child of the sponsoring resident to be eligible.
[2024] AATA 15272024-05-27RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 836.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and the associated Public Interest…
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 Vu, an onshore applicant, sought an Other Family (Residence) Class BU visa by applying for a Subclass 836 Carer visa to care for her sponsor’s son who has a serious medical condition.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not satisfy clause 836.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations and the associated Public Interest Criterion 4009.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 836 Carer visa must satisfy clause 836.223 and Public Interest Criterion 4009 by demonstrating the resident’s need for care that cannot be reasonably provided by other services.
[2024] AATA 14432024-05-22UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.227 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the sponsor to have the capacity and understanding…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Kim Loan Nguyen, a Vietnamese national born in 1960, was onshore in Australia and applied for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU Subclass 836 carer visa, relying on her brother as sponsor.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.227 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the sponsor to have the capacity and understanding to meet sponsorship obligations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must have a living sponsor who meets the capacity and understanding requirements of clause 836.227 for a Subclass 836 carer visa.
[2024] AATA 11902024-05-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, a requirement under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Norhan Daknach was an onshore applicant seeking an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa as a dependent child of her father who holds a Subclass 836 visa, and she was employed at the time of the decision.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied clause 836.321 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, a requirement under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, by remaining a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must continue to be a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder at the time of decision, as defined by regulation 1.03 and 1.05A, to meet the requirements of clause 836.321.
[2024] AATA 3662024-02-21RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa, specifically cl 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding…
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 Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, having applied for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa. The applicant's application was refused by the delegate.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 836 visa, specifically cl 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, regarding the care the sponsor requires.
What the tribunal established
To satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, the applicant must demonstrate that the care required by the sponsor cannot reasonably be provided by relatives in Australia or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing, or community services.
[2024] AATA 6742024-01-30RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, specifically addressing the requirements outlined in 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 applicants sought review of a decision regarding Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visas. The Tribunal considered whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicants met the criteria for a Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, specifically addressing the requirements outlined in the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may remit a decision for reconsideration if the applicant meets the criteria for a different visa, or refer the matter to the Minister for consideration of the Minister's power under section 351 of the Act.
[2024] AATA 5442024-01-15RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria to be considered a 'carer' under the Migration Regulations, specifically whether the care could reasonably…
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 Subclass 836 (Carer) visa, having applied for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa. The applicant's mother, who was an Australian permanent resident, required care.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria to be considered a 'carer' under the Migration Regulations, specifically whether the care could reasonably be provided by other relatives or through community services.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Carer visa must demonstrate that the required care cannot reasonably be provided by other specified relatives or through available community services.
[2024] AATA 222024-01-03UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the carer visa criteria under Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 clauses 836.212 and 836.221, particularly that…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Bassam Sabbagh, was onshore in Australia and applied for an Other Family (Residence) Class BU Subclass 836 carer visa to care for his sister and brother‑in‑law.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the carer visa criteria under Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 clauses 836.212 and 836.221, particularly that no other relative or Australian welfare service could reasonably provide the required care.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 836 carer visa must prove that no other Australian relative or welfare, hospital, nursing or community service can reasonably provide the required care.
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.