Case Details
- (Migration) [2025] ARTA 967 (1 July 2025)
- Partner visa (Subclass 100)
- ART (Administrative Review Tribunal)
- Decision set aside, cancellation revoked under s 501CA(4)
At a glance
Tribunal considered whether there was another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to revoke a Subclass 100 Partner visa cancellation. While the offending was serious, non-violent and limited in duration, protective factors (rehabilitation, strong ties, best interests of two Australian-citizen children) weighed in favour of revocation under Direction 110.
Facts summary
Applicant was a permanent resident on a Subclass 100 visa, convicted of financial offences, sentenced to 19 months. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A). He sought revocation citing strong family ties and rehabilitation.
Decision
The Tribunal set aside the delegate’s refusal and found there was another reason to revoke the cancellation. While the offending was serious, it was below mid-range, not violent, and occurred in a short period. Protective factors, rehabilitation, and strong ties to Australia weighed in favour of revocation.
Why it matters
This case shows that under Direction 110, even where mandatory cancellation arises from a custodial sentence over 12 months, revocation may be granted if compelling family ties, rehabilitation evidence, cultural context, and best interests of children strongly outweigh community protection and expectations.
Need expert help?
Every consultation is with an experienced Australian immigration lawyer at Jade Immigration Lawyers. We can assess your circumstances against Direction 110, s 501CA and Partner visa (Subclass 100) considerations, and provide clear next steps.
✅ 30-minute consultation – $250
(If you proceed with us, this fee will be credited towards your legal costs.)
- 📅 Book Online
- ✉️ Email: info@jadeimmigrationlawyers.com.au
- 📞 Phone: 0485 907 989
💡 We assist clients across Australia and internationally. Let us handle the paperwork — so you can focus on your future.
Related Pages:
General information only — not legal advice. This case note summarises a public decision and is anonymised for privacy. Outcomes depend on individual facts, current law and policy. For advice about your situation, please seek a consultation.