Introduction
Receiving a visa refusal or cancellation can be a distressing experience, but it is not necessarily the final word on your application. Australia’s legal framework provides two distinct pathways to challenge a negative decision: a merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) or a judicial review in the federal courts. These options are fundamentally different, and understanding their purpose and scope is the first critical step in choosing the most effective appeal strategy.
This guide will clarify the key differences between these two avenues. A merits review involves a fresh look at the facts and evidence of your case to determine the “correct or preferable” decision. A judicial review is a more limited process where a court examines whether the decision was made lawfully and free from legal error. Making an informed choice between them depends entirely on whether the refusal was based on a factual issue or a flaw in the legal process.
What is the ART Merits Review?
The Scope & Purpose of a Merits Review
A merits review conducted by the ART is a fresh assessment of your case, often referred to as a ‘de novo’ review. This process involves the ART stepping into the shoes of the original decision-maker to determine what the “correct or preferable” decision is based on the facts and law at the time of the review.
Rather than simply checking for errors, the ART conducts a complete re-examination of your application. This thorough approach ensures your case receives full consideration under current circumstances.
A significant advantage of this process is the ability to present new evidence and arguments that were not available or submitted with your initial application. The ART can consider any new information you provide to strengthen your case, allowing you to address any factual or evidentiary deficiencies from the original decision. This makes the merits review an opportunity to have your case fully reconsidered with updated and more comprehensive documentation.
ART Jurisdiction & Reviewable Decisions
The ART, established under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), has the authority to review a wide range of migration decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. The jurisdiction of the ART is extensive, covering many common types of visa refusals and cancellations.
Decisions that are typically reviewable by the ART include:
- Migration visa refusals or cancellations, which covers categories like partner, skilled, student, and work visas
- Protection (refugee) visa refusals or cancellations, providing an avenue for appeal for those seeking asylum
- Character-related visa decisions, such as those made under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), although some mandatory cancellations are excluded
- Australian citizenship refusals or cancellations
- Sponsorship and nomination decisions, including refusals or cancellations related to sponsoring workers
The ART cannot review decisions made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs or Immigration. Your decision notification letter will state whether the decision is reviewable by the ART.
Potential Outcomes from an ART Review
When the ART finalises its review, there are several possible outcomes. Each outcome has a distinct implication for your visa status and the future of your application.
The ART can make one of the following decisions:
- Affirm: The tribunal agrees with the Department of Home Affairs’ original decision. This means the refusal or cancellation is upheld, and your appeal is unsuccessful.
- Vary: The tribunal decides to change the original decision in some respect, altering certain conditions or aspects of it.
- Set Aside: The ART disagrees with the original decision and overturns it. The tribunal may then substitute its own, more favourable decision, which could lead to your visa being granted.
- Remit: The tribunal sets aside the Department’s decision and sends the case back to the Department of Home Affairs for reconsideration, often with specific instructions or directions on how to reassess the application according to law.
Request Your Free 15-Min Consultation
How Do Judicial Review Proceedings Work in Federal Courts?
Judicial Review’ Focus on Jurisdictional Errors
Judicial review is a court-based process that examines the lawfulness of a decision made by a government body, such as the ART. Unlike a merits review, which involves a fresh look at the facts and evidence of your case, a judicial review does not reconsider the merits of your visa application. Instead, its focus is strictly on whether the decision-maker acted within their legal authority and followed the correct legal procedures.
The central question in a judicial review is whether a “jurisdictional error” occurred. This type of error happens when a decision-maker acts outside the limits of the power granted to them by law, rendering their decision legally invalid.
It’s important to understand that the court’s role is not to determine if the “correct or preferable” decision was made, but only to assess if the decision was made lawfully. Therefore, a judicial review is not an opportunity to present new evidence or re-argue the facts of your case.
Common Grounds for Judicial Review
An application for judicial review must be based on one or more specific legal errors. These grounds, often referred to as jurisdictional errors, are well-established and focus on the decision-making process. While the list is not exhaustive, some of the most common grounds for challenging a migration decision in the Federal Court include:
| Ground for Review | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Procedural Unfairness | The decision-maker failed to provide a fair hearing, such as not allowing comment on adverse information. |
| Incorrect Interpretation of the Law | The decision-maker misunderstood or misapplied a provision of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or other relevant laws. |
| Failure to Consider Relevant Information | The decision-maker was legally required to consider certain information but failed to do so. |
| Taking Irrelevant Information into Account | The decision was based on considerations that were not relevant to the matter. |
| Illogical or Irrational Decision | The decision is so unreasonable or lacking in logic that no sensible person could have reached it. |
| Actual or Apprehended Bias | The decision-maker was not impartial, or a fair-minded observer would reasonably suspect a lack of impartiality. |
The Limited Outcomes of a Successful Judicial Review
It is crucial to understand that a successful judicial review application does not result in the court granting you a visa. The powers of the Federal Court in these proceedings are limited. The court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the ART or the Department of Home Affairs.
If the court finds that a jurisdictional error has occurred, its primary remedy is to issue a constitutional writ. This typically involves:
- Quashing (invalidating) the flawed decision
- Remitting (sending back) the case to the original decision-maker, usually the ART, to be heard again according to law
In essence, a successful judicial review acts as a “reset button,” giving you another opportunity to have your case lawfully determined by the tribunal, but it does not guarantee a favourable outcome in that subsequent hearing.
Comparing ART Merits Review & Judicial Review
Scope of Review & Use of New Evidence
A fundamental difference between an ART merits review and a judicial review lies in their scope and evidence handling approach:
- ART Merits Review: Functions as a de novo process, where the tribunal takes a fresh look at your case. It re-examines all facts, evidence, and relevant policies to determine the “correct or preferable” decision.
- Judicial Review: Focuses strictly on whether the decision-maker committed a “jurisdictional error” or an error of law. The court examines only the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of your visa application.
The most significant advantage of a merit review is the ability to introduce new evidence. This allows you to strengthen your case by submitting documents or information that were not available during the initial application. For instance, if a partner visa was refused due to insufficient evidence of a shared life, you could provide updated bank statements, photos, and witness statements to the ART.
In contrast, new factual evidence is generally not permitted in a judicial review, as the court’s assessment is confined to the information that was before the original decision-maker when the decision was made.
Application Timelines & Costs
The timeframes and costs associated with each appeal pathway differ significantly, making these practical considerations crucial for any applicant:
- ART Merits Review:
- Strict time limit of 28 days to lodge an application for most visa refusal decisions
- Even shorter deadlines for certain decisions, such as those made on character grounds (as little as 9 days)
- More accessible with a standard application fee that is significantly lower than court filing fees
- Potential for a partial refund of the application fee if your review is successful
- Judicial Review:
- Typically 35 days from the date of the decision you are challenging
- Far pricier, involving higher court filing fees and substantial legal costs
- Greater financial risk, as unsuccessful applicants may be ordered to pay the government’s legal costs
Bridging Visas & Maintaining Your Lawful Status
A critical distinction between the two appeal pathways is how they affect your bridging visa and lawful status in Australia:
- ART Merits Review: Your associated bridging visa mostly remains in effect automatically, allowing you to stay in the country lawfully while awaiting the tribunal’s decision. This provides crucial stability during a stressful period.
- Judicial Review: Your existing bridging visa will cease and is not automatically extended. You must proactively apply for a new bridging visa to maintain lawful status while court proceedings are underway. This creates an additional administrative burden and a point of risk, as failure to secure a new bridging visa in time could result in you becoming unlawful in Australia, jeopardising your entire case regardless of its legal merits.
Request Your Free 15-Min Consultation
What’s The Role of a Migration Lawyer in Your Appeal?
Case Assessment & Strategic Advice
Following a visa refusal, a migration lawyer’s first critical step is to conduct a meticulous analysis of the decision record and refusal letter. This assessment is essential to diagnose whether the refusal stems from a factual deficiency or a legal error, which determines the most effective appeal pathway.
An experienced lawyer will determine if your case is better suited for a merits review or a judicial review by considering several factors:
- Nature of the Error: If the decision was based on insufficient evidence or a misinterpretation of your circumstances, an ART merits review is often the best path. This allows you to submit new evidence to correct the factual record.
- Legal Flaws: If the decision-maker misunderstood or misapplied the law, breached procedural fairness, or made an illogical decision, a judicial review in the Federal Court may be the more appropriate route.
- Strategic Considerations: Your lawyer will also weigh the costs, timelines, and potential outcomes of each option, providing clear advice on the strategy that offers the highest prospect of success for your specific situation.
The strategy ultimately hinges on understanding the core reason for the negative outcome.
Representation Before the ART & Federal Courts
A migration lawyer provides experienced representation across both appeal forums, tailoring their approach to the unique demands of each.
In an ART merits review, which is a less formal process, your lawyer will:
- Help gather and present new evidence
- Prepare compelling written submissions
- Advocate on your behalf during the hearing to persuade the tribunal member of the merits of your case
Representation in a judicial review is a more formal and complex legal proceeding. This process involves:
- Identifying Legal Errors: Your lawyer, often working with a barrister, will scrutinise the tribunal’s decision to identify a “jurisdictional error” that can be argued before a judge.
- Formal Court Process: They will handle the preparation of technical court documents, such as originating applications and affidavits, and represent you in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or the Federal Court.
- Navigating Legal Complexity: Given that judicial review focuses strictly on errors of law and does not reconsider the facts, having an experienced legal team is crucial to navigating the procedural rules and presenting a persuasive legal argument to the court.
Request Your Free 15-Min Consultation
Conclusion
Choosing the right appeal path after a visa refusal depends on understanding the fundamental difference between an ART merits review, which re-examines the facts and allows new evidence, and a judicial review The most effective strategy hinges on whether the refusal was based on a factual issue that can be corrected at the ART or a flaw in the legal process that requires a court’s intervention.
Navigating this critical decision requires specialised legal knowledge to ensure you select the most strategic path. Contact our specialised ART Review lawyers for experienced guidance from our team, who can assess your case and provide the tailored advocacy needed to secure your best possible outcome.
