When a student visa decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 691 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the visa for people studying a registered course in Australia. 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 691 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 48% of the time, set it aside 9% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 42% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 296 | 42.8% |
| Remitted | 292 | 42.3% |
| Set aside | 65 | 9.4% |
| Affirmed | 38 | 5.5% |
Counts from 691 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-07-05. 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 | 135 | 9% |
| 2025 | 290 | 9% |
| 2024 | 266 | 11% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 88 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 11992026-06-16AffirmedThe applicant's change of intention from tourism to study and lack of evidence of economic ties to her home country raised concerns about her genuine temporary entrant…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Ms Floriana Epifani, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under subclass 500 to undertake study in Australia, but was refused due to not meeting the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's change of intention from tourism to study and lack of evidence of economic ties to her home country raised concerns about her genuine temporary entrant status.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 12062026-06-16RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, citing concerns about his knowledge of the proposed course of study and the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a 36-year-old man from Mongolia, applied for a Student visa to study in Australia, but the decision was refused due to concerns about his genuine temporary entrant intention.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, citing concerns about his knowledge of the proposed course of study and the value of the course to his future.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances, immigration history, and other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 11912026-06-15AffirmedThe applicant's failure to attend the Tribunal hearing and her subsequent failure to seek reinstatement of her application within the 28-day period 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, Mrs Hong Zhang, had her Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 500 visa application refused and she did not attend the scheduled Tribunal hearing.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's failure to attend the Tribunal hearing and her subsequent failure to seek reinstatement of her application within the 28-day period were in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application if the applicant does not seek reinstatement within the 28-day period.
[2026] ARTA 12012026-06-12RemittedThe applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was 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
A 28-year-old Colombian man applied for a Student visa to study in Australia, but the application was refused due to concerns he was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 12052026-06-12RemittedThe delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 due…
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 27-year-old single male from Nepal, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to undertake study in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 due to insufficient evidence of funds.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must demonstrate financial capacity to meet the costs and expenses of their stay in Australia, including living costs, course fees, and travel expenses.
[2026] ARTA 12072026-06-12RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
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 40-year-old man from the Philippines, applied for a Student visa to study automotive mechanics in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 12102026-06-12RemittedThe issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets PIC 4020 as required by cl 500.217(1) for the grant of the visa, specifically regarding the provision of…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicants, Mr Saksham Shrestha and Mrs Janaki Shrestha, applied for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas, but the application was refused due to the first named applicant not meeting Public Interest Criterion 4020.
The question before the tribunal
The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets PIC 4020 as required by cl 500.217(1) for the grant of the visa, specifically regarding the provision of false or misleading information.
What the tribunal established
PIC 4020 requires that there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.
[2026] ARTA 12002026-06-10RemittedThe applicant's change in study pathway and potential incentives to remain in Australia 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 24-year-old Indian male, applied for a Student visa but was refused due to concerns about his genuine temporary entrant intention.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's change in study pathway and potential incentives to remain in Australia were in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires consideration of the applicant's circumstances, immigration history, and intentions.
[2026] ARTA 12042026-06-10RemittedThe delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide evidence of meeting the minimum required English language test score.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a Thai passport holder, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to undertake study in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not provide evidence of meeting the minimum required English language test score.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must achieve a level of English language proficiency that meets the requirements specified in an instrument.
[2026] ARTA 12132026-06-10Set asideThe applicant was not maintaining enrolment in a registered course that would provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the same level as…
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 student visa holder, had her visa cancelled due to not being enrolled in a course of study at the required level.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was not maintaining enrolment in a registered course that would provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the same level as, or higher than, the course for which the visa was granted.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may cancel a visa if the visa holder has not complied with a condition of the visa, but must consider all relevant circumstances.
[2026] ARTA 11972026-06-09RemittedThe applicant provided inconsistent information about her employment, stating she was a Sales Manager in her visitor visa application and a General Manager in her…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, which was refused due to discrepancies in her employment information.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant provided inconsistent information about her employment, stating she was a Sales Manager in her visitor visa application and a General Manager in her student visa application.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider whether the applicant has given false or misleading information in a material particular, as defined in PIC 4020(5) of the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 12022026-06-09RemittedThe delegate refused the visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
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 Colombian citizen, applied for a Student visa to study automotive courses in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must consider the applicant's circumstances as a whole in determining whether they intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 12082026-06-05RemittedThe applicant was found not to meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a 26-year-old Brazilian woman, applied for a Student visa to study in Australia, but was refused due to concerns she was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was found not to meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances, immigration history, and other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 10832026-06-05AffirmedThe applicant was found to have provided a counterfeit Leave Approval Memo, which led to the refusal of his Student visa application.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Ahmad Firdaus Mohd Jamadi, had his Student visa application refused due to providing a bogus document with his previous visitor visa application.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was found to have provided a counterfeit Leave Approval Memo, which led to the refusal of his Student visa application.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020, which requires that they have not provided a bogus document or false information.
[2026] ARTA 12032026-06-04RemittedThe applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was 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 student from India, had her Student visa application refused due to concerns she was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to intend to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances and immigration history.
[2026] ARTA 10882026-06-02AffirmedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily, and thus found that the applicant did not satisfy 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 26-year-old Indian national, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under subclass 500 to undertake study in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily, and thus found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 10872026-06-02RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant requirement under cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A 30‑year‑old Colombian architect applied for a Subclass 500 student visa to study project management in Australia and was refused on the basis that she was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant requirement under cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must satisfy cl 500.212(a) by genuinely intending to stay temporarily, assessed against all relevant factors in Direction 108, not merely as a checklist.
[2026] ARTA 10902026-06-01AffirmedThe applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was in dispute, as well as her enrolment in a registered course of study.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a 52-year-old Taiwanese citizen, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to study in Australia but was refused due to not meeting the genuine temporary entrant requirement.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was in dispute, as well as her enrolment in a registered course of study.
What the tribunal established
To be granted a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, an applicant must be enrolled in a registered course of study and genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 10932026-05-28RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, citing concerns about her immigration history and the value of the course 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
A married couple from India applied for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas to study in Australia, but their applications were refused due to concerns about their genuine temporary entrant status.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, citing concerns about her immigration history and the value of the course to her future.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily and comply with visa conditions.
[2026] ARTA 11962026-05-27RemittedThe applicant was alleged to have provided a bogus bank statement in support of her visitor visa application.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, applied for a student visa after being granted a visitor visa, but the application was refused due to concerns about a bogus document.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant was alleged to have provided a bogus bank statement in support of her visitor visa application.
What the tribunal established
A bogus document is one that is counterfeit, altered without authority, or obtained through a false statement.
[2026] ARTA 10802026-05-27AffirmedThe applicant's inability to provide sufficient evidence of financial capacity and genuine access to funds 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, Ms Srijana Rana, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under subclass 500, but was refused due to not meeting the financial requirements.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's inability to provide sufficient evidence of financial capacity and genuine access to funds was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must meet the financial requirements for the visa, including demonstrating sufficient funds to meet their costs and expenses during their intended stay in Australia.
[2026] ARTA 10812026-05-26AffirmedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, prompting the applicant to appeal the decision.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Mr Khaja Zameeruddin, applied for a Student (Temporary) visa to study in Australia but was refused due to concerns he was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, prompting the applicant to appeal the decision.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate they intend to stay in Australia temporarily, considering their circumstances, immigration history, and other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 10502026-05-25AffirmedThe applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily as a genuine student is in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Nepalese husband's application for a Student visa is under review after his wife, the primary applicant, passed away.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily as a genuine student is in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 10842026-05-25AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant requirement under cl 500.212(a).
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Colombian applicant on a student visa studied English, attempted to enrol in Painting and Decorating and later Carpentry, but his further student visa was refused.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant requirement under cl 500.212(a).
What the tribunal established
A student visa applicant must satisfy cl 500.212(a) by genuinely intending to stay temporarily, considering personal circumstances, immigration history and other relevant matters, guided by Direction No 69.
[2026] ARTA 9702026-05-21Set asideWhether the breach of condition 8202 (full‑time enrolment) justified cancellation of the visa.
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 was a student on a Subclass 500 visa who had not been enrolled full‑time due to ill health and course changes.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the breach of condition 8202 (full‑time enrolment) justified cancellation of the visa.
What the tribunal established
Under s 116(1)(b) a visa may be cancelled for non‑compliance with a condition, but the decision‑maker must have regard to all relevant circumstances prescribed in s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A.
[2026] ARTA 10952026-05-21Set asideThe applicant changed her field of study from leadership and management to hospitality and cookery, and did not maintain enrolment in a course at the required level…
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 31-year-old Philippines woman, had her Subclass 500 (Student) visa cancelled due to breaching condition 8202 by not maintaining enrolment in a registered course at the same or higher level as the course for which the visa was granted.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant changed her field of study from leadership and management to hospitality and cookery, and did not maintain enrolment in a course at the required level, leading to the cancellation of her visa.
What the tribunal established
The decision-maker must consider all relevant circumstances, including prescribed matters, in determining whether to cancel a visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958.
[2026] ARTA 11932026-05-19AffirmedThe primary applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily 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 applicants, a family of four, applied for a Student (Temporary) visa but were refused due to concerns they did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
The question before the tribunal
The primary applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
[2026] ARTA 9682026-05-15AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the enrolment requirement and the genuine temporary entrant criterion for a Subclass 500 student visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Ms Nguyen, a 32‑year‑old Vietnamese national, has been in Australia since 2015 undertaking a series of unrelated courses and is currently not enrolled in a registered course of study.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the enrolment requirement and the genuine temporary entrant criterion for a Subclass 500 student visa.
What the tribunal established
A Subclass 500 visa is only grantable if the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study (cl 500.211(a)) and is a genuine temporary entrant (cl 500.212(a)) under the Migration Regulations 1994.
[2026] ARTA 9672026-05-13RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, citing concerns about his immigration history, family ties…
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 22-year-old Nepalese citizen, applied for a Student visa to study in Australia, but the application was refused due to concerns about his genuine temporary entrant status.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, citing concerns about his immigration history, family ties, and economic incentives to return to Nepal.
What the tribunal established
The genuine temporary entrant criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances, immigration history, and other relevant matters.
[2026] ARTA 9662026-05-12RemittedWhether the primary applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A Malaysian couple applied for Subclass 500 student visas after arriving on tourist visas, claiming the primary applicant intends to study a Diploma of Business and return home.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the primary applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant must satisfy cl 500.212(a)‑(c) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, assessed in accordance with Direction No 108, to be a genuine temporary entrant for a Subclass 500 visa.
[2026] ARTA 9142026-05-11AffirmedWhether the breach of condition 8202(2)(a) justified the Minister’s discretion to cancel the student visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Bangladeshi student on a subclass 500 visa failed to maintain enrolment in a full‑time registered course and did not meet condition 8202(2)(a).
The question before the tribunal
Whether the breach of condition 8202(2)(a) justified the Minister’s discretion to cancel the student visa.
What the tribunal established
s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act gives the Minister discretion to cancel a visa for non‑compliance, and that discretion must be exercised reasonably.
[2026] ARTA 9382026-05-11RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
An Indian national living in Adelaide, enrolled in a Diploma of Community Services, applied for a Subclass 500 student visa to complete his studies.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212.
What the tribunal established
A student visa applicant must satisfy cl 500.212(a)-(c) of Schedule 2, meaning they must genuinely intend to stay temporarily, comply with visa conditions, and have no other adverse matters, assessed in accordance with Direction No 108.
[2026] ARTA 8102026-05-08AffirmedWhether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion (cl 500.212) for a Subclass 500 student visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indonesian applicant has been undertaking a series of VET courses in Australia for about 14 years and seeks another student visa to continue studying, claiming he will return to open a restaurant in Indonesia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion (cl 500.212) for a Subclass 500 student visa.
What the tribunal established
A student visa applicant must be a genuine temporary entrant, intending to stay in Australia only temporarily, assessed against the factors in Direction No 108 and clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 9022026-05-08RemittedWhether the applicant satisfied the genuine access to funds and financial capacity requirements of cl 500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A 26‑year‑old single Chinese woman applied for a Subclass 500 student visa to study a series of courses in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfied the genuine access to funds and financial capacity requirements of cl 500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Subclass 500 visa must meet cl 500.214(1)‑(3), proving sufficient funds for living costs, course fees and travel and demonstrating genuine access to those funds.
[2026] ARTA 8622026-05-07RemittedThe delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, leading to the refusal of the visa application.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, an Indian citizen, applied for a Student visa to study in Australia, but the application was refused due to concerns about his genuine temporary entrant status.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, leading to the refusal of the visa application.
What the tribunal established
The applicant must be a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student to meet the criteria for a Subclass 500 visa.
[2026] ARTA 9402026-05-07AffirmedThe delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant requirement under clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Indian former teacher applied for a Subclass 500 student visa to study business qualifications and later start a tuition centre or e‑commerce business in India.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant requirement under clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
A student visa applicant must be a genuine temporary entrant, satisfying clause 500.212 and the factors in Direction No 108, otherwise the decision to refuse may be affirmed.
[2026] ARTA 9452026-05-07AffirmedWhether the breach of visa condition 8202 (enrolment) justified cancellation of the subclass 500 visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Bangladeshi student who failed to maintain enrolment in a full‑time registered course for over ten months and had multiple course cancellations.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the breach of visa condition 8202 (enrolment) justified cancellation of the subclass 500 visa.
What the tribunal established
Under s 116(1)(b) the Minister may cancel a visa for non‑compliance with a condition, and must consider the matters prescribed in s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A before exercising that power.
[2026] ARTA 9512026-05-06AffirmedWhether the applicant gave, or caused to be given, bogus documents and therefore failed to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020(1).
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Veronica Chepngetich, a Kenyan citizen, applied for a Subclass 500 student visa but was refused because documents supporting her application were found to be bogus.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant gave, or caused to be given, bogus documents and therefore failed to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020(1).
What the tribunal established
Under s 5(1) of the Migration Act and PIC 4020(1), a visa applicant fails the criterion if a bogus document is given or caused to be given, regardless of the applicant’s knowledge or intent.
[2026] ARTA 8642026-05-05RemittedThe delegate refused the visa on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A Colombian applicant previously held a student visa and applied for a Subclass 500 visa to continue her studies in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl 500.212.
What the tribunal established
A student visa applicant must satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion in cl 500.212 of Schedule 2, applying the factors set out in Direction No 108, to be granted a Subclass 500 visa.
[2026] ARTA 8612026-05-04Set asideWhether the breach of student visa condition 8202(2)(a) justified cancellation of the Subclass 500 visa.
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 24‑year‑old Bangladeshi student, was not enrolled in a full‑time registered course from October 2024 and faced visa cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the breach of student visa condition 8202(2)(a) justified cancellation of the Subclass 500 visa.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may cancel a visa under s 116(1)(b) for non‑compliance with a condition, but the discretion must be exercised reasonably and the decision‑maker must have regard to s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A.
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.