When a protection visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 2,590 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the onshore permanent protection visa for people found to be refugees or owed protection. 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 2,590 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 77% of the time, set it aside 2% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 21% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 1980 | 76.4% |
| Remitted | 541 | 20.9% |
| Set aside | 44 | 1.7% |
| Affirmed | 25 | 1.0% |
Counts from 2,590 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 | 44 | 9% |
| 2025 | 777 | 2% |
| 2024 | 1769 | 1% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 35 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 7932026-05-14Set asideThe applicant was wanted for prosecution in China for alleged kidnapping and murder, and the Interpol notice was used as evidence that he may pose a risk to the…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a 53-year-old man from China, had his Protection Visa application refused under section 501(1) of the Migration Act due to an Interpol Red Notice issued in 2004.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was wanted for prosecution in China for alleged kidnapping and murder, and the Interpol notice was used as evidence that he may pose a risk to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
The character test under section 501(6)(h) of the Migration Act requires that it be reasonable to infer from an Interpol notice that a person would present a risk to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 11152026-05-14AffirmedThe review applicant's failure to attend the hearing and lack of reasonable excuse for doing so was in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The review applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and later applied for reinstatement of the application.
The question before the tribunal
The review applicant's failure to attend the hearing and lack of reasonable excuse for doing so was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
A decision to dismiss an application can be confirmed if the applicant fails to provide a reasonable excuse for not attending a hearing.
[2026] ARTA 7562026-05-04Set asideThe Applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and he sought revocation of the 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
The Applicant, a stateless person, had his Protection (Subclass 866) visa cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, and he sought revocation of the cancellation.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must cancel a non-citizen's visa if they do not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record.
[2026] ARTA 7112026-04-30Set asideWhether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether the mandatory cancellation should be revoked under Direction 110.
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 76‑year‑old UK male on an Absorbed Persons visa had his visa cancelled under s 501(3A) because of historic child sexual offences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether the mandatory cancellation should be revoked under Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
A person with a substantial criminal record does not pass the character test under s 501(3A) and a mandatory cancellation may only be revoked if the primary considerations in Ministerial Direction 110, especially community protection, are satisfied.
[2026] ARTA 11342026-04-29RemittedThe delegate refused to grant the visas, finding that state protection was available to the applicants in Malaysia.
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 family from Malaysia, applied for protection visas in Australia due to fears of harm from loan sharks and domestic violence.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant the visas, finding that state protection was available to the applicants in Malaysia.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 11202026-04-28AffirmedThe Tribunal found the applicant’s claims lacked detail and supporting evidence, rendering them not credible and insufficient to meet the refugee or complementary…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indonesian national who previously held several student visas claims fear of harm from a loan‑shark/triad after a gambling debt and seeks a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims lacked detail and supporting evidence, rendering them not credible and insufficient to meet the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be refused where the applicant does not satisfy the refugee criterion s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion s 36(2)(aa) because the claimed fear is not well‑founded or credible.
[2026] ARTA 8222026-04-27Set asideWhether, despite failing the character test, the visa cancellation under s 501(3A) could be revoked on an “another reason” ground under s 501CA(4)(b) applying Direction…
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
An Iranian protection‑visa holder convicted of large‑scale methamphetamine trafficking and serving a lengthy prison term sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether, despite failing the character test, the visa cancellation under s 501(3A) could be revoked on an “another reason” ground under s 501CA(4)(b) applying Direction 110.
What the tribunal established
A mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) may be revoked if the decision‑maker, applying Direction 110, finds that the balance of considerations – including protection of the community and humanitarian factors – outweighs the character failure.
[2026] ARTA 11422026-04-27AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Minister, leading to the refusal of her protection 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, an Indian national, claimed to be a victim of persecution due to a land dispute involving her family in Punjab, India.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Minister, leading to the refusal of her protection visa application.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.
[2026] ARTA 6562026-04-24AffirmedWhether there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant committed a serious non‑political crime before entering Australia under s 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chinese citizen with a conviction for large‑scale methamphetamine importation and alleged gang involvement sought a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant committed a serious non‑political crime before entering Australia under s 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A person is ineligible for a protection visa if the Minister has serious reasons for considering that the person committed a serious non‑political crime before entering Australia (s 36(2C)(a)(ii) Migration Act 1958).
[2026] ARTA 4702026-04-01RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant was a danger to the Australian community, as per s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which would render them ineligible…
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 review of a decision refusing a Class XA – Protection visa (subclass 866) visa. The applicant was a citizen of Ethiopia and had been convicted of a serious crime.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant was a danger to the Australian community, as per s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which would render them ineligible for a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a protection visa who has been convicted of a serious crime may still be granted a visa if they are not a danger to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 5222026-03-31UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Fijian national, arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in February 2020 and applied for a Protection visa in May 2022. The applicant sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Protection visa must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on the criteria outlined in the Migration Act and Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 11442026-03-11AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection were disputed, with the delegate finding her claims not credible and the Tribunal needing to assess the evidence and decide on the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Filipino national, applied for a protection visa in Australia due to fears of persecution in the Philippines related to her husband's involvement in drug activities and her own health issues.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection were disputed, with the delegate finding her claims not credible and the Tribunal needing to assess the evidence and decide on the protection visa application.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 11472026-03-11AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Tribunal, which found inconsistencies and deficiencies in his evidence.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of Timor-Leste, applied for a protection visa, claiming fear of persecution due to his involvement with the Democratic Party and false accusations of theft.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Tribunal, which found inconsistencies and deficiencies in his evidence.
What the tribunal established
A person must have a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons in s 5J(1)(a) to meet the refugee criterion for protection.
[2026] ARTA 6482026-03-06AffirmedWhether the mandatory cancellation of the protection visa should be revoked under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Iranian citizen holding a Protection (Class XA) visa has a long history of serious criminal offences, including a 12‑month imprisonment for driving while disqualified and multiple violent and drink‑driving convictions.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the mandatory cancellation of the protection visa should be revoked under s 501CA(4) despite the applicant failing the character test.
What the tribunal established
Section 501CA(4) permits revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation only if the applicant passes the character test or if another reason of sufficient weight exists, with decision‑makers required to apply the primary considerations in Direction 110.
[2026] ARTA 11492026-03-06AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution due to his political opinion and debt problems were in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vietnamese national, applied for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution due to his anti-government views and debt problems.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution due to his political opinion and debt problems were in dispute.
What the tribunal established
A person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 3112026-03-02UpheldThe central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering…
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 Iraq, had his Temporary Protection visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to a criminal conviction and sought review of the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, considering factors such as risk of reoffending, family violence, and ties to the Australian community.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA, the Tribunal must weigh all relevant considerations, including the seriousness of the conduct, risk of reoffending, and the best interests of any minor children, to determine if there are compelling reasons to revoke the cancellation.
[2026] ARTA 11462026-02-27AffirmedThe applicant failed to attend a directions hearing and did not provide a reasonable excuse for their non-attendance.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a refugee from Thailand, had their protection visa application dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence to substantiate their claims.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant failed to attend a directions hearing and did not provide a reasonable excuse for their non-attendance.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider whether reinstatement is 'appropriate' under s 368C of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 11452026-02-24RemittedWhether the applicant satisfies the protection visa criteria as a member of a particular social group and has a well‑founded fear of serious harm.
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 Malaysian gay Muslim man claims he would face persecution if returned to Malaysia because of his sexual orientation and religion.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the protection visa criteria as a member of a particular social group and has a well‑founded fear of serious harm.
What the tribunal established
A person is a member of a particular social group if they share an innate or fundamental characteristic, and if they have a well‑founded fear of persecution for that reason, the fear must be real, serious and not avoidable by modifying behaviour that would require renouncing that characteristic.
[2026] ARTA 2382026-02-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criterion for a Protection visa under s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether they engaged s…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was refused a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. The refusal was based on a finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criterion for a Protection visa under s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether they engaged s 36(2C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Protection visa may be refused if they have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and are considered a danger to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 9222026-02-20AffirmedThe applicant's failure to attend the hearing and provide adequate explanation or evidence to support their protection claims was in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a refugee, failed to attend a scheduled Tribunal hearing for their Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa application review.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's failure to attend the hearing and provide adequate explanation or evidence to support their protection claims was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may dismiss an application if the applicant fails to attend a scheduled hearing and does not provide a reasonable explanation or evidence to support their claims.
[2026] ARTA 11132026-02-18RemittedWhether the applicant meets the protection visa criteria under the refugee or complementary protection provisions.
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 Malaysian woman, a single mother and former convert to Islam who has returned to Christianity, fears persecution if returned to Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant meets the protection visa criteria under the refugee or complementary protection provisions.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected ground under s 5J(1) and meets the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 2252026-02-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to refuse to grant the Protection visa, considering the applicant's character and past sexual…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a national of Sierra Leone, applied for a Protection visa after having previously held a Partner visa and entered Australia in 2011. The Minister refused to grant the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to refuse to grant the Protection visa, considering the applicant's character and past sexual offending against a minor, as per Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering a visa refusal based on character grounds, the Tribunal must weigh the protection of the community and community expectations against the applicant's ties to Australia and the potential impact of removal.
[2026] ARTA 10382026-02-17RemittedThe delegate refused his protection visa claim, finding he did not meet the refugee criteria under s 65 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
A Pakistani man who converted to Jehovah's Witnesses feared death and persecution after being accused of blasphemy in Pakistan.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused his protection visa claim, finding he did not meet the refugee criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) by showing a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected attribute such as religion.
[2026] ARTA 10402026-02-17AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection were disputed due to lack of detail and evidence, and the Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Vietnamese national, applied for a protection visa in Australia after experiencing financial difficulties and threats from loan sharks in Vietnam.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection were disputed due to lack of detail and evidence, and the Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
A person is a refugee if they have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 11162026-02-17AffirmedThe Tribunal needed to decide whether the applicants’ claims of political persecution were credible and met the well‑founded fear requirement.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indian married couple, both Sikh, applied for protection visas claiming persecution for political opinion as supporters of the Aam Aadmi Party.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal needed to decide whether the applicants’ claims of political persecution were credible and met the well‑founded fear requirement.
What the tribunal established
Under s 5J(1) the applicant must prove a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected reason, and the Tribunal may not assist in specifying or establishing the claim (s 5AAA).
[2026] ARTA 10312026-02-16AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Lebanese Alawi Muslim who arrived on a student visa and claims he would face persecution or serious harm in Lebanon because of his religion and imputed political opinion.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant meets the refugee definition in s 5H(1) or the complementary protection test in s 36(2)(aa), requiring a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.
[2026] ARTA 9812026-02-13AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Vanuatu national who arrived as a seasonal worker claims economic hardship, political crisis and a land dispute as reasons to seek a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution on a protected ground or a real risk of significant harm; economic hardship or general political instability alone does not meet s 5H or s 36(2)(aa).
[2026] ARTA 5212026-02-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether her fear of harm was…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Chinese national, arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in 2019 and applied for a Protection visa (subclass 866). She claimed fear of harm due to pollution in China, including the potential development of lung cancer.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether her fear of harm was for one of the reasons specified in the Act.
What the tribunal established
A person is not entitled to a protection visa if the risk of harm they face is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non-citizen personally.
[2026] ARTA 10292026-02-05AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria for a protection visa as a refugee under s 5H or for complementary protection under s 36.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chilean national who is Mapuche and gay claims fear of imprisonment, rape or death if returned to Chile because of his ethnicity and sexual orientation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria for a protection visa as a refugee under s 5H or for complementary protection under s 36.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may only be granted if the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of s 5H(1) or meets the statutory test for complementary protection under s 36, requiring proof of a real risk of significant harm.
[2026] ARTA 10162026-02-05AffirmedWhether the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution or substantial grounds for significant harm that satisfy the protection visa criteria.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indian Muslim who was a low‑level member of the Congress Party gave a media interview criticizing the Babri Masjid verdict and now claims he will be harmed by the RSS if returned to India.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution or substantial grounds for significant harm that satisfy the protection visa criteria.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant meets s 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or s 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection) and, under s 5J(1), there must be a real chance of persecution for a protected ground.
[2026] ARTA 1362026-02-04UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's protection visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class XA Subclass 866 protection visa due to failing the character test and having a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's protection visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must weigh the risk to the Australian community against other relevant factors, including family violence and community ties.
[2026] ARTA 10242026-02-04AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the protection visa criteria under s 65 for a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A young Pakistani national who was a PTI party worker claims fear of persecution if returned to Pakistan.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the protection visa criteria under s 65 for a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted where the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected attribute, such as political opinion, under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 10142026-02-03AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the protection‑visa criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act and the delegate’s refusal under s 65 should be upheld.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indo‑Fijian Muslim man claims he would face persecution and significant harm in Fiji because of his ethnicity, religion and past experiences.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the protection‑visa criteria under s 36 of the Migration Act and the delegate’s refusal under s 65 should be upheld.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected reason or faces a real risk of significant harm, as required by s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 2442026-02-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the harm the applicant feared met the criteria under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether he could access state protection.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Brazilian national, sought a protection visa after his initial application was refused. He claimed to fear harm from a money lender and a criminal gang.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the harm the applicant feared met the criteria under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether he could access state protection.
What the tribunal established
To be considered a refugee, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 9972026-02-02RemittedThe applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the Minister, prompting her to apply for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
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 lesbian woman, fled her home country due to fear of persecution and sought protection in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim for a protection visa was refused by the Minister, prompting her to apply for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
What the tribunal established
A person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
[2026] ARTA 9982026-02-02AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indonesian national who was a political activist claims fear of persecution, kidnapping and torture if returned to Indonesia and seeks a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a protected reason under s 5H(1) and s 5J(1) or faces a real risk of significant harm under s 36(2)(aa) to grant a protection visa.
[2026] ARTA 8872026-01-31AffirmedWhether the Tribunal should reinstate the dismissed application after the applicant missed the hearing and gave reasons deemed unreasonable.
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 Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa but failed to attend a scheduled hearing and applied for reinstatement.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should reinstate the dismissed application after the applicant missed the hearing and gave reasons deemed unreasonable.
What the tribunal established
A dismissal under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act may be affirmed where the applicant fails to appear at a properly notified hearing and does not provide reasonable grounds for the absence.
[2026] ARTA 9942026-01-23AffirmedWhether the applicants satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Fijian nationals who fled political coups and union activity applied for protection visas in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicants satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must meet one of the criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act – a well‑founded fear of persecution (s 5H, s 5J) or a real risk of significant harm (s 36(2A)) – and the risk must be substantial, not remote or speculative.
[2026] ARTA 9962026-01-19AffirmedWhether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A single Fijian woman in Australia, now in a relationship with a Fijian national and with children, sought protection from alleged persecution and gender discrimination in Fiji.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must be satisfied that there is a real chance of persecution (s 36(2)(a)) or a real risk of significant harm (s 36(2)(aa)) for a protection visa to be granted.
[2026] ARTA 622026-01-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, as the Tribunal considered the exercise of discretion under Ministerial 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 the Islamic Republic of Iran, had their Protection Visa refused due to multiple convictions in Australia, including attempted arson.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant passed the character test, as the Tribunal considered the exercise of discretion under Ministerial Direction No. 110.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an applicant's character, the Tribunal must consider all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offenses and the potential risk to the Australian community, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 110.
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.