Skip to content

2021

Thota (Migration) [2020] AATA 4222

More than 28 days had passed since this applicant's last substantive visa expired. Is he still eligible to apply for a partner visa during this time?

Juma (Migration) [2020] AATA 4573

Did the AAT find that this Kenyan hairdresser was likely to overstay her visitor visa to Australia?

Conti (Migration) [2020] AATA 4706

The AAT needed to decide if the applicant and sponsor were genuine in providing companionship and emotional support to each other and if they saw their relationship as long-term.

Ghelichkhani (Migration) [2020] AATA 4572

Is a pensioner from Iran genuine in her desire to visit her family in Australia, or is she likely to stay longer than her visa allows?

Bayah (Migration) [2020] AATA 4876

In this decision, the AAT had to decide if a couple are genuine spousal partners.

1905524 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3908

In this case, the AAT had to decide whether a Romanian man applying onshore for a partner visa had good reasons for doing so.

Song (Migration) [2020] AATA 4014

A family, trying to migrate to Australia, claimed they were victims of an organised migration scam with no knowledge their agent applied for an employer nominated visa, or that it had been rejected.

Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 2078

The AAT needed to decide whether an applicant was a genuine temporary entrant for the purposes of a student visa, or whether he was attempting to use the visa program to live here indefinitely.


2020

1836727 (Migration) [2020] AATA 4349

The AAT had to decide whether the case of an applicant, who failed to meet the primary criteria for a visa, should be referred to the Minister.

Huynh (Migration) [2020] AATA 4332

The AAT had to decide whether an applicant seeking a tourist visa had unfinished business here and intended to remain indefinitely

Chowdhury (Migration) [2020] AATA 3811

The AAT had to decide whether it was reasonable for the elderly husband of an applicant to refuse to have tests assessing his health.

Ca De Vin Pty Ltd (Migration) [2020] AATA 534

The applicant sought a review of a refusal for a skilled visa. The AAT set aside this decision as it accepted the applicant meet the essential criteria for an employer nomination.

1910423 (Migration) [2020] AATA 641

The AAT found the applicant had a substantial reason for travelling and remitted this decision to refuse him a bridging visa.

Hansen (Migration) [2020] AATA 234

The AAT considered if the applicant in this case met the requirements for a distinguished talent visa.

APR Healthcare Services Pty Ltd (Migration) [2020] AATA 263

In this decision, the AAT assessed whether there was a need for a nominated position and whether the employer nomination application should be approved by the Department.

Durante (Migration) [2020] AATA 262

The Tribunal examined the nature of the applicant’s relationship to determine if a partner visa application should have been granted by the Department.

Chao (Migration) [2020] AATA 181

The AAT affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa because they had made false statements in an earlier visa application.

Jamshaad (Migration) [2020] AATA 96

The applicant was a three-year old with significant disabilities and care needs. The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted it to the Department of Home affairs for reconsideration.

Dynamic Education Group Pty Ltd (Migration) [2019] AATA 4576

The applicant’s employer nomination visa application was refused because the Immigration Department was not satisfied it met requirements. The applicant provided additional information to the AAT at review. The AAT set aside the decision and approved the nomination.

Raja (Migration) [2019] AATA 4046

The applicant sought a review of a Department of Home Affairs decision refusing him a temporary student visa on the grounds of inadequate health insurance evidence.

The AAT reviewed evidence and remitted the application to the Department for reconsideration.

Chen (Migration) [2019] AATA 4282

The applicant sought a review of a Department of Immigration and Border Protection decision refusing her a temporary student visa. She applied for the visa on the basis of being in a de facto relationship with the primary student visa holder.

Du (Migration) [2019] AATA 4289

The Department of Home Affairs refused the applicant a temporary student visa on the basis she was not enrolled in a course of study. The applicant sought an AAT review. While the AAT was satisfied that, at the time of the decision, she was enrolled in a course, there was no evidence enrolment was maintained or that she was currently enrolled.


2019

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 3490

The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s visa because he breached his visa conditions by not being enrolled in a registered course. The Department relied on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS)  database to find that the applicant had “not completed any registered course for which he had been enrolled in” since his arrival in Australia in 2015. However, due to an error in the system the applicant’s full study history was not recorded on PRISMS. The AAT found that the applicant was enrolled in a registered course and complied with the conditions of his student visa.

Hans (Migration) [2019] AATA 3234

The Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas because the primary visa applicant was not subject of an approved nomination. The AAT found that the approved position was the same as the one in the applicants’ original visa application. Therefore the business sponsor who would employ the applicant was the same person who nominated the position for approval.  

Samuel (Migration) [2019] AATA 1079

In order to be eligible for a Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa the applicant is given a score based on how well the applicant meets certain prescribed attributes. The AAT assessed the applicant against the points criteria which considers factors including; age, English language qualifications, overseas employment experience, Australian employment experience, education, and partner skill qualifications.

Choo (Migration) [2019] AATA 1556

In its review, the AAT was concerned that the applicant was seeking a further student visa in order to maintain residence in Australia. In making a decision the AAT also placed weight on the fact that the applicant had previously applied for a Residence visa, with intent to reside in Australia permanently, and was not satisfied that his intention had changed.

Gecaite (Migration) [2019] AATA 940

The AAT was asked to review the Department’s decision to refuse the applicant a visa for her achievement and contributions to the arts. The Distinguished Talent (Residence) visa requires the applicant to have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in a profession, sport, the arts or academia.

Lu (Migration) [2019] AATA 374

The AAT was asked to review a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to grant a Partner visa to the applicant. The AAT was satisfied that the applicant and sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, that the relationship is genuine and continuing and that they live together.

Yassa (Migration) [2019] AATA 1078

The applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs for a visa extension. However, the applicant needed to establish exceptional circumstances. The Department refused to grant the visa. The AAT also found the applicant’s reasons did not form ‘an exception’ and affirmed the Department's decision.

Offord (Migration) [2019] AATA 921

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) visas. The issue before the AAT was the requirement that the applicants’ business and personal assets in Australia had certain net values. The AAT remitted the decision under review to the Department for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicants met the requirement in question.

Meda (Migration) [2019] AATA 1039

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs decision to cancel the applicant’s Student visa. The applicant remained in Australia working part-time for 15 months after his University enrolment was cancelled.

Tommi (Migration) [2019] AATA 355

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Student visa. The AAT was not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. 

Ju (Migration) [2019] AATA 652

The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s Student visa because they were satisfied the applicant was not, or was likely not to be, a genuine student. The AAT was not satisfied the applicant was not a genuine student and set aside the decision, substituting a decision not to cancel the visa. 

Darwish (Migration) [2019] AATA 625

The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s Partner visa because they were not satisfied as to his identity. The AAT affirmed the decision finding there were  a number of concerns surrounding the applicant's identity.

V D NGUYEN & T T HOANG (Migration) [2019] AATA 293

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse approval of the applicant’s nomination of a baker for a subclass 457 visa. The primary issue was about the requirement that the terms and conditions of employment of a nominee are no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an equivalent Australian citizen worker. 

KRISHNA KANT PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR THE DNP TRUST (Migration) [2019] AATA 304

The AAT set aside the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse approval of the applicant's nomination of a CafĂ© or Restaurant Manager position for one of their restaurants. The AAT found the applicant satisfied all the requirements for approval of the nomination. 

CHOI (Migration) [2019] AATA 275

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 186 visa. The primary issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement to have vocational English. 

Rodrigues (Migration) [2019] AATA 290

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse to grant a Skilled Independent (Permanent) visa to the applicant. The AAT considered the applicant’s attributes against the points test and found he did not reach the qualifying score of 60.

Schofield (Migration) [2018] AATA 4828

The AAT affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa. The applicant, a citizen of New Zealand who had been in Australia for 50 years, was convicted of multiple offences and the AAT found that the seriousness of the offences and the risk to the health and safety of individuals in Australia outweighed the factors against cancellation of the visa.

Maksoud (Migration) [2018] AATA 4833

The AAT affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant’s Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The AAT was not satisfied the applicant would comply with the conditions set for the visa.

BOBADILLA ALARCON (Migration) [2018] AATA 4856

The AAT remitted the decision to refuse the applicant’s Distinguished Talent (Residence) (Class BX) Subclass 858 visa. The AAT found the applicant had an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 4496

The AAT affirmed the department’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant’s Partner visa, finding she was not in a genuine and continuing relationship.

Kaur (Migration) [2018] AATA 4539

The Department cancelled the applicant’s subclass 457 visa because she had breached the condition of her visa to go no more than 90 consecutive days without an approved nomination by an approved sponsor. The AAT set aside the decision.


2018

Myung (Migration) [2018] AATA 4063

The Department refused to grant the applicant a Student visa because there was insufficient evidence that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. The AAT concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily and affirmed the Department’s decision. 

Burton (Migration) [2018] AATA 4220

This matter concerned the cancellation of a visa where the visa holder was a New Zealand citizen but a long-standing resident of Australia and had been charged with, but not yet convicted of, serious offences. The AAT set aside the decision and substituted a decision not to cancel the visa, which would allow any decision about visa cancellation to be considered after the outcome of a criminal trial was known.

Yigzaw (Migration) 2018 AATA 3006

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant Child visas to two nationals of Ethiopia. The applicants claimed, among other things, that they were under the age limit. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Labra Rodillo (Migration) 2018 AATA 2603

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination visa. The applicant claimed that he had the relevant qualifications and relevant work experience required for the visa. The AAT affirmed the decision under review.

Khan (Migration) [2018] AATA 2395

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the applicant’s Student visa because the applicant had breached a condition of his visa to remain enrolled in a registered course. The AAT found that the applicant had failed to maintian an enrolled status and affirmed the decision.

Javanmardi Rahat Abad (Migration) [2018] AATA 2433

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Visitor visa because it was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Droguett Fredes (Migration) [2018] AATA 2390

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the applicant’s Student visa because the applicant had breached a condition of his visa to remain enrolled in a registered course. The AAT found  that the applicant's enrolment status had been incorrectly recorded. The AAT set aside the original decision to cancel the visa.

B&G Green Trading Pty Ltd (Migration) [2018] AATA 3190 [Guidance decision]

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's nomination of an occupation visa. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Due to the case's circumstances and recent legislative amendments the AAT issued a guidance order. A guidance order means that future decisions with similar criteria should follow the example of this decision. 

L E Dias Electrical Contracting Pty Ltd (Migration) [2018] AATA 1778

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused the business' nomination of an accountant for a Subclass 457 visa because they were not satisfied the position was genuine. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Tran (Migration) [2018] AATA 1925

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused the visa applicant a Child visa. The visa applicant, who was 18 years old and living in Vietnam, was seeking the visa because she was dependent on her mother, an Australian permanent resident. The Tribunal set aside the decision.

Kapene Te Amo (Migration) [2018] AATA 2214

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant’s Subclass 444 visa. At the time of the decision the applicant had serious convictions, as well as serious charges standing against him. The AAT affirmed the decision.

Luong (Migration) [2018] AATA 1491

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Other Family visa. The applicant was from Vietnam and claimed her only remaining relatives were in Australia, except for her father whose whereabouts was unknown. The Tribunal had to consider whether the father was a 'remaining relative'. The Tribunal affirmed the decision. 

Sheikh (Migration) [2018] AATA 1056

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the visa applicant's Student visa. The visa applicant was a child residing in Somalia and both of his parents were deceased. His maternal aunt, an Australian citizen, was his carer and was attempting to return home to Australia to her family with the child. The Tribunal set aside the decision. 

BM SYDNEY BUILDING MATERIALS PTY LTD (Migration) [2018] AATA 502

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's nomination of an occupation for a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant operated a building materials supply business and had nominated the visa applicant for a position. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the position required by the business was the nominated occupation and affirmed the decision. 

Paudel (Migration) [2018] AATA 600

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant’s Student visa. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily for the purposes of study. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision.

Li (Migration) [2018] AATA 587

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant a Subclass 820 (Partner) visa because he was not the holder of a substantive visa and did not meet the criteria in Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 . The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision.

FU (Migration) [2018] AATA 732

A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the applicant’s Student visa. The applicant was a 30 year old Chinese citizen who had manslaughter charges against her at the time of the decision. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside the decision and replaced it with one not to cancel the visa.

Manash (Migration) [2018] AATA 180

The review applicant sought two Orphan Relative visas for his younger siblings on the basis that their only existing carer, their mother, was incapacitated and could not care for them. The applications were refused by a delegate under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 and the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration with the direction they met the criteria for the visas.

Huang (Migration) [2018] AATA 263

The applicant’s Prospective Marriage (Temporary) visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The sponsor had successfully sponsored three previous partners for similar visas. The Migration Regulations 1994 sets a limit on the number of people that a person can sponsor in a lifetime and a minimum time that must lapse between each sponsor of no less than five years. The Tribunal affirmed the decision. 

Dalla (Migration) [2018] AATA 128

The applicant’s  visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. after he provided incorrect information on a passenger card, prohibited by the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal affirmed this decision.

Rhee (Migration) [2017] AATA 2800

The applicant’s visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal. The visa was cancelled because the applicant failed to disclose his previous visa history.

Buckley (Migration) [2018] AATA 7

The applicant’s skilled visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection who found the applicant provided false information and bogus documents in his application. The Tribunal substituted the delegate's decision with one not to cancel the visa.

Javoric (Migration) [2017] AATA 2627

Applications for a carer visa were refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and this decision was affirmed by the Tribunal. The review applicant was the sponsor, an Australian resident, for the visas sought by his sister as his carer and her husband and their child as dependants.

Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 26

The applicant’s visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Tribunal affirmed this decision. The refusal was due to the failure of the applicant to attach an AFP criminal check to his application in time.