When a protection visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 2,669 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 2,669 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 78% of the time, set it aside 2% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 21% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 1980 | 74.2% |
| Remitted | 554 | 20.8% |
| Affirmed | 91 | 3.4% |
| Set aside | 44 | 1.6% |
Counts from 2,669 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 | 123 | 3% |
| 2025 | 777 | 2% |
| 2024 | 1769 | 1% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 114 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 20182026-08-19RemittedWhether the applicant meets the protection‑visa criteria under s 36(2) of the Migration Act, i.e., whether he has a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A Chinese national who arrived in Australia on a Visitor visa in 2015 claims fear of persecution because his son photographed a Chinese military base, leading to a watchlist placement and threats of detention.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant meets the protection‑visa criteria under s 36(2) of the Migration Act, i.e., whether he has a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted if the applicant is a non‑citizen in Australia for whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee or faces a real risk of significant harm under s 36(2) of the Migration Act.
[2026] ARTA 21702026-08-14AffirmedThe applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, arguing he faced a real risk of harm from a politician and relatives in India.
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, sought protection in Australia due to claims of persecution related to a land dispute and political affiliations in India.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, arguing he faced a real risk of harm from a politician and relatives in India.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal may affirm a decision if the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims for protection, even if they requested a decision without a hearing.
[2026] ARTA 20912026-08-04AffirmedThe applicant's claims for protection were not substantiated, and they admitted their original claims were false and made solely to obtain work rights.
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 visa, but admitted to fabricating claims to gain work rights for medical expenses and family support in the Philippines.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims for protection were not substantiated, and they admitted their original claims were false and made solely to obtain work rights.
What the tribunal established
Economic hardship faced by the general population does not constitute a well-founded fear of persecution for protection visa purposes.
[2026] ARTA 20152026-07-23AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chinese national applied for a protection visa claiming economic hardship and lack of employment, which was refused by the delegate and affirmed by the Tribunal.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under the Migration Act to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant satisfies either the refugee criterion s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 13022026-07-08AffirmedThe Applicant sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision 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, a citizen of Afghanistan, had his Protection visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record after being convicted of drug trafficking.
The question before the tribunal
The Applicant sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958.
What the tribunal established
The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
[2026] ARTA 12572026-07-02AffirmedThe refusal of the Australian travel document was based on the inability to obtain consent from the child's father, who has parental responsibility for the child.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 13-year-old child, ZQTY, who holds a Nigerian passport and has been granted a Protection (Subclass 866) visa, applied for an Australian travel document, which was refused due to the inability to obtain consent from the child's father.
The question before the tribunal
The refusal of the Australian travel document was based on the inability to obtain consent from the child's father, who has parental responsibility for the child.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must not issue an Australian travel document to a child unless each person with parental responsibility for the child consents, or a court order permits it.
[2026] ARTA 11792026-06-12RemittedThe applicant's past violent conduct and risk of reoffending were in dispute.
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 51-year-old Burmese man, was convicted of family violence offences and had his refugee visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's past violent conduct and risk of reoffending were in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider whether the applicant poses a risk of harm to the Australian community, taking into account the seriousness and nature of the crimes committed.
[2026] ARTA 13862026-06-12AffirmedThe applicant's claims of membership and persecution were not substantiated with evidence, leading to doubts about their credibility.
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 Philippines, claimed to be a member of the New People's Army and feared persecution by the Philippine government.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of membership and persecution were not substantiated with evidence, leading to doubts about their credibility.
What the tribunal established
A person must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution to be considered a refugee under the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 14022026-06-09AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Tribunal due to inconsistencies in his evidence and lack of credibility.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Muslim man from India, claimed to have experienced physical and verbal abuse from Hindus for selling beef and feared persecution if he returned to India.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution and fear of harm were disputed by the Tribunal due to inconsistencies in his evidence and lack of credibility.
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 15002026-06-05AffirmedWhether the Tribunal should reinstate the applicant's protection visa application after dismissal due to the applicant being outside Australia, despite the applicant's…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Colombian national, applied for reinstatement of a protection visa application after being dismissed for being outside Australia, and remains outside Australia at the time of the Tribunal's decision.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should reinstate the applicant's protection visa application after dismissal due to the applicant being outside Australia, despite the applicant's request for reinstatement based on personal circumstances and efforts to comply with immigration law.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a protection visa must be in Australia to satisfy the criterion for the visa, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to reinstate an application where the applicant remains outside Australia and thus cannot meet the essential criterion for the visa.
[2026] ARTA 11572026-05-18RemittedThe applicant's claims of facing harm from loan sharks and her former husband were in dispute.
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 national, claimed to face harm from loan sharks due to outstanding debts and from her former husband due to family violence.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of facing harm from loan sharks and her former husband were in dispute.
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 14452026-05-18AffirmedThe applicant's protection visa application was refused due to a lack of detail and evidence in support of their claims.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Thai national, claimed to have converted from Buddhism to Christianity and was threatened and harmed by their local community in Thailand.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's protection visa application was refused due to a lack of detail and evidence in support of their claims.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that an applicant's protection claims are well-founded and that they face a real chance of serious harm if returned to their home country.
[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 14462026-05-07AffirmedThe Tribunal had to decide whether to reinstate the application after dismissal for non‑appearance, based on whether the applicant provided a reasonable excuse for…
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 seeking a Protection (subclass 866) visa, failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not provide a reasonable explanation for non‑appearance.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal had to decide whether to reinstate the application after dismissal for non‑appearance, based on whether the applicant provided a reasonable excuse for failing to attend the hearing.
What the tribunal established
Under s 368C of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal must first decide whether it is appropriate to reinstate a dismissed application, which requires the applicant to show a reasonable or acceptable excuse for failing to attend the hearing; absent such excuse, reinstatement is not appropriate and the dismissal is affirmed.
[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 11582026-05-04AffirmedThe Tribunal found the applicant's claims lacked credibility and did not satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chinese national in Australia claimed Christian persecution and threats from a business partner, seeking a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
The Tribunal found the applicant's claims lacked credibility and did not satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
What the tribunal established
Under s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) the applicant must prove a well‑founded fear of persecution or significant harm and provide credible evidence; without credibility the protection visa must be refused.
[2026] ARTA 20942026-05-03AffirmedThe applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, as the delegate did not accept the applicant's claims of persecution, including alleged…
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, sought a protection visa, claiming persecution based on his Muslim faith and membership in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM).
The question before the tribunal
The applicant disputed the delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa, as the delegate did not accept the applicant's claims of persecution, including alleged attacks by BJP supporters and threats due to his religion and political affiliation.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable explanation for not presenting claims or evidence before the primary decision was made to avoid an unfavourable inference.
[2026] ARTA 14482026-05-01AffirmedThe applicant's claims of persecution were found to lack substance and detail, and were considered inconsistent and implausible by the delegate.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, an Indonesian national, claimed to have been persecuted by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) due to his refusal to join the group.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of persecution were found to lack substance and detail, and were considered inconsistent and implausible by the delegate.
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 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 20432026-04-30AffirmedWhether the applicant has a real chance of persecution or significant harm if returned to Taiwan/China.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A gay man of Chinese origin, residing in Australia, sought a Protection (subclass 866) visa claiming persecution in Taiwan because of his sexuality and economic hardship.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant has a real chance of persecution or significant harm if returned to Taiwan/China.
What the tribunal established
Under s 65 of the Migration Act, a protection visa may be granted only if the applicant shows a real chance of persecution for a protected ground under s 5H(1) and Australia has a protection obligation under s 36; the Tribunal must assess credibility and may infer an adverse inference under s 367A for new claims not raised earlier.
[2026] ARTA 14522026-04-29AffirmedThe applicant's claims of domestic violence and fear of harm were disputed, and the Tribunal had to determine whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution.
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, claimed to have suffered domestic violence and feared harm from her husband if she returned to China.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claims of domestic violence and fear of harm were disputed, and the Tribunal had to determine whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution.
What the tribunal established
The applicant has the responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it.
[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 20452026-04-29AffirmedWhether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa given the lack of credible evidence of a well‑founded fear of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Sikh Indian man who arrived in Australia as a minor with his father sought a protection visa based on alleged political persecution and family threats linked to his father's alleged involvement with the Khalistan movement.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa given the lack of credible evidence of a well‑founded fear of persecution.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) refugee criterion or s 36(2)(aa) complementary protection criterion, requiring a well‑founded fear of persecution under s 5J(1) and no contrary evidence.
[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 21682026-04-28AffirmedThe applicant's claim of religious persecution based on Guanyin Famen was disputed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence, particularly concerning 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 national of China, applied for a protection visa claiming to be a Buddhist, but later changed their claim to being a follower of Guanyin Famen.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim of religious persecution based on Guanyin Famen was disputed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence, particularly concerning the timing and nature of their alleged involvement with the religion and their fear of harm upon return to China.
What the tribunal established
If an applicant raises a new claim or evidence in review, the Tribunal may draw an unfavourable inference if there is no reasonable explanation for why it was not presented earlier.
[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 19292026-04-16AffirmedWhether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa given the alleged debt liability and lack of corroborative evidence.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Taiwanese national living in Australia claims she is liable for her deceased father's debts and fears severe financial hardship if she returns to Taiwan.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa given the alleged debt liability and lack of corroborative evidence.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant is a refugee under s 5H(1) or faces a real risk of significant harm under s 36(2)(aa), and the decision must be based on credible evidence of such risk (s 36, s 5J, s 65).
[2026] ARTA 19032026-04-16AffirmedWhether the Tribunal should reinstate the applicants' review applications after they failed to attend the hearing.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicants, seeking Protection (Subclass 866) visas, missed a scheduled hearing because their son suffered an asthma episode and later applied for reinstatement of their review.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the Tribunal should reinstate the applicants' review applications after they failed to attend the hearing.
What the tribunal established
Under s 368C(3) of the Migration Act the Tribunal may only reinstate a dismissed review if it considers it appropriate, meaning the applicant has a reasonable excuse for non‑attendance and their conduct in progressing the application is satisfactory.
[2026] ARTA 19052026-04-16RemittedWhether she meets the refugee criterion of a well‑founded fear of persecution that relates to all areas of Malaysia for a protection 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 Malaysian Muslim woman who is a lesbian and presents masculinely fears persecution, violence and discrimination if she returns to Malaysia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether she meets the refugee criterion of a well‑founded fear of persecution that relates to all areas of Malaysia for a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
A well‑founded fear of persecution must relate to all areas of the country under s 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 20162026-04-16AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion under s 36 of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chinese national claims his family home was demolished, he was detained and beaten by police for petitioning, and he fears persecution if returned to China.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion under s 36 of the Migration Act.
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 criterion, requiring a well‑founded fear of persecution and credible evidence.
[2026] ARTA 18782026-04-13AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Thai national seeking a protection visa claims she faces domestic violence from her ex‑husband if returned to Thailand.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria for a protection visa.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant is a refugee under s 5H(1) or meets the complementary protection criterion s 36(2)(aa), requiring a real risk of significant harm if returned.
[2026] ARTA 18812026-04-09RemittedWhether the primary applicant is a Bangladeshi citizen or a stateless Rohingya, which determines eligibility for a protection visa under s 36(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 Rohingya family, stateless and holding fraudulently obtained Bangladeshi passports, applied for subclass 866 protection visas fearing persecution if returned to Bangladesh.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the primary applicant is a Bangladeshi citizen or a stateless Rohingya, which determines eligibility for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a).
What the tribunal established
Under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, a person who is stateless must have their protection claim assessed against their former habitual residence, and possession of travel documents does not alone prove citizenship.
[2026] ARTA 14532026-04-07AffirmedThe applicant's claim of facing serious harm in Malaysia due to his apostasy and biracial status was disputed by the delegate, who found that the applicant would not…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, applied for a protection visa in Australia due to fears of persecution based on his atheism and Chinese-Malaysian heritage.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's claim of facing serious harm in Malaysia due to his apostasy and biracial status was disputed by the delegate, who found that the applicant would not face serious harm.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal applied the principle that a person must face a real chance of serious harm to be considered a refugee.
[2026] ARTA 19922026-04-07AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied the refugee or complementary protection criteria and credibility requirements for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Chinese national with a hearing impairment claimed workplace hazards, threats and discrimination and sought a protection visa, but the Tribunal found his claims not credible and refused the visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the refugee or complementary protection criteria and credibility requirements for a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act and satisfies the credibility requirements of s 5H and s 5J.
[2026] ARTA 19702026-04-04AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act despite credibility concerns and alleged government…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ugandan national who served as a community liaison officer for the NRM, later opposed the government, faced arrests, threats and alleged harm, and seeks a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee or complementary protection criteria under s 65 of the Migration Act despite credibility concerns and alleged government employment.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted only if the applicant meets the refugee or complementary protection criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act and the decision‑maker is satisfied of a well‑founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
[2026] ARTA 18712026-04-02RemittedWhether the applicant satisfies the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) 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 single gay Indonesian man fears persecution and serious harm in Indonesia because of his sexual orientation and seeks a protection visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
A protection visa may be granted if the applicant is a non‑citizen in Australia for whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee, i.e., has a well‑founded fear of persecution for a particular social group under s 5J(1).
[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.
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.