Roder Lawyers

Protection Visa Tribunal Hearing: No Lawyer? Don’t Panic!

Some Protection Visa (Subclass 866) cases lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) from 2020 onwards are now being allocated to Tribunal Members for consideration.

If your case has been pending for several years, you may soon receive correspondence from the ART, including requests for further information or an invitation to attend a hearing.

We have received many calls from review applicants who are feeling anxious or even panicked after receiving correspondence from the ART.

The ART hearing is not a court trial, although sometimes it may feel formal and court-like. The Tribunal Member will ask questions about your protection claims, your evidence, and most importantly, why you are afraid to return to your home country.

If you are representing yourself, preparation is very important.

👉 Go back to your original story. Read the statement and claims you submitted to the Department. Be ready to explain what happened to you, who you fear, why you were targeted, and what you believe will happen if you return.

👉 Read your refusal decision. Understand exactly why the Department refused your visa because the Tribunal Member may focus on those concerns.

👉 Don’t memorise a script. Tell your story naturally and in your own words.

👉 Be truthful. Never exaggerate, invent an incident, or change your story because you think it will make your case stronger.

👉 If you cannot remember, say so. It is better to honestly say, “I cannot remember the exact date,” than to guess and later give inconsistent evidence.

👉 Expect difficult questions. You may be asked why you are still at risk today, why the authorities cannot protect you, or why you cannot simply move to another part of your country.

And remember—being asked many questions does not automatically mean that the Tribunal Member does not believe you. Listen carefully, stay respectful, and answer the question as honestly as you can.

Know your story. Understand your refusal. Prepare your evidence. And above all, TELL THE TRUTH.

Every Protection Visa case is different. This post is for general information only and is not legal advice.

Course finished during student visa appeal: Now what?

Students appealing a visa refusal at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) frequently ask:

"My original course has already finished while I am waiting for my appeal. Do I need to enrol in another course and continue studying?"

This concern is understandable. Unfortunately, due to the significant delays in the Tribunal's hearing process, many student visa applicants find themselves in a situation where the Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) used in their original visa application has already expired because the course has been completed long before their appeal is heard.

Continuing studies strengthens your appeal
In a recent hearing before the Administrative Review Tribunal, a visa applicant had completed his original course approximately six months before the Tribunal hearing.

Rather than remaining inactive during that period, he made the personal decision to enrol in another course that was related to his previous qualification. He attended classes, progressed satisfactorily, and continued to comply with his obligations as a student.

This became a positive factor during the hearing. It demonstrated that his intention to study in Australia remained genuine and that he continued to take his education seriously.

The Tribunal also expected that he would continue his studies while awaiting the outcome of the review.
Winning an appeal "On the Papers”
In another recent student visa appeal determined "on the papers" (without the need for an oral hearing), the Administrative Review Tribunal set aside the Department's refusal decision and remitted the matter to the Department of Home Affairs for reconsideration.

While every case depends on its own facts and evidence, this outcome demonstrates the importance of presenting comprehensive evidence and well-prepared legal submissions. Where appropriate, continuing to study and maintaining a genuine commitment to education may assist in supporting an applicant's credibility as a genuine student.

Is enrolling in a new course mandatory?
There is no specific provision in the Migration Act 1958 or Migration Regulations 1994 that requires every student visa applicant awaiting an ART decision to enrol in a new course once the original course has been completed.

However, each case is assessed on its own facts.
Where a student has already completed the course that formed the basis of the original visa application, continuing with further studies may assist in demonstrating that the applicant remains a genuine student and continues to pursue educational objectives in Australia.

If you choose to enrol again, it is generally sensible to select a course that is related to or builds upon your previous qualification, as this may help demonstrate a logical progression in your studies.

Key recommendations for applicants

If your appeal is still pending:

* Continue studying and complete your original course if it is still in progress.
* If you have already completed your course and your hearing has not yet been listed, carefully consider whether enrolling in a further related course is appropriate for your personal circumstances.
* Where possible, choose a course that logically progresses from your previous qualification and genuinely aligns with your education or career goals.
* Ensure that any further study represents a genuine educational pathway and not merely an attempt to remain in Australia.
* Continue complying with all conditions attached to your Bridging Visa and maintain satisfactory academic progress if you decide to continue studying.

Every case is different

Whether enrolling in another course is the appropriate course of action depends on your individual circumstances, including your educational background, future study plans, financial capacity, and the evidence available to support your case.
Before making any decision, obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances.

For further information, please read my article published in the July 2026 issue of the Philippine Times (Australia).

Remitted! Protection visa (SC 866)

Our client was not a high-ranking government official, not a high-profile politician, and not a journalist. Yet the evidence demonstrated that they have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Every case turns on its own facts, credible evidence, and the applicable law.

A word of caution! Never make a false protection claim or fabricate evidence. False claims can lead to serious consequences under Australian migration law, including refusal of your application, credibility concerns in future visa applications, and potential exclusion from visa grants.

Each case is decided on its own merits. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results.

44 years old - High School grad - Waiter by experience - Pursuing Commercial Cookery in Australia 🎉

A successful Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) hearing—Decision Remitted! - Student Visa (Subclass 500)

Our client, 44 years old, high school graduate in the Philippines, worked as a waiter for 20 years, faced challenges with his refused Student Visa (Subclass 500) application for a Commercial Cookery course. The Tribunal ruled in his favour, giving him another chance to pursue his studies in Australia!

At Roder Lawyers, we fight for our clients' dreams.

26- year - old with a 2- year education gap - Child visa (Subclass 101) (Offshore) - Granted!

I am thrilled to share that a 26-year-old visa applicant who had a 2-year education gap was recently granted a visa. With many refusals based on education gaps, this case was no small feat.

Despite the challenge, we provided solid circumstantial evidence explaining the gap and demonstrated that the client met the critical dependency criteria under regulation 802.214 for applicants aged 18 or over.

It is crucial to provide evidence to explain an education gap, such as medical or psychological reports, financial hardship documentation, or other relevant circumstantial evidence.

Two Siblings Facing Permanent Visa Cancellation – Outcome: Visas Not Cancelled

I am pleased to share a successful outcome in a complex case I handled. Two siblings were at risk of having their Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) permanent visas cancelled under Section 109 of the Migration Act 1958.

The Delegate of the Minister considered that they had provided incorrect information (Section 101) and bogus documents (Section 103) in their visa applications.

The situation arose after the Delegate received information, two years after the siblings had been granted their ENS visas, alleging that they had falsified overseas qualifications and other school credentials. Under Section 107A of the Migration Act, non-compliance with Sections 101 and/or 103 may lead to visa cancellation.

However, I worked diligently to represent the siblings, presenting substantial and circumstantial evidence to persuade the Delegate of the Minister. While non-compliance was identified in the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation, the Delegate ultimately decided not to cancel their visas, concluding that the reasons to maintain their visas outweighed the non-compliance.

Providing false or misleading information can put your visa at serious risk.

This case highlights the importance of always being truthful in the information and declarations you provide to the Department of Home Affairs and any other government institutions.

If you are facing similar issues or need guidance on your immigration matters, Roder Lawyers is here to help.

Health waiver - Family Violence = Partner Visa (SC 820/801) Granted!!!

I want to share a powerful story of a Partner Visa (Subclass 820) applicant who faced immense challenges during the visa application journey. This young individual failed the health examination requirement and suffered family violence while processing the visa. To make matters worse, the sponsoring partner withdrew the application amidst the turmoil.

Understandably, this applicant was on the verge of giving up, feeling defeated by the breakdown of the relationship and the overwhelming hurdles.

It has been an emotional rollercoaster, but I poured my heart and soul into maximizing the chances of success for this application.

Before the decision was made today, I received a surprising call from a delegate of the Minister, thanking me for looking after the case of this young fellow. It was unexpected, but it reaffirmed that even the Department of Home Affairs understands the difficult circumstances faced by the applicant.

To everyone facing similar battles, remember that you are not alone, and there is always a path forward.

Pregnancy - Condition 8503 Waived & Partner visa Granted

Is pregnancy or being pregnant helpful for a partner visa application under Schedule 3 requirement and condition 8503 (No Further Stay Waiver)?

Unfortunately, pregnancy ALONE is not considered a waiver or a reason beyond control. However, if there are health complications related to the pregnancy, then yes, it can be used as a valid reason and a compassionate ground.

In this particular case, our client's request for a waiver of condition 8503 was lifted, and their partner visa application was granted, waiving Schedule 3 requirement due to health concerns.

Lawyers

Chef - Catering business - 48 hours approval

You may be aware that sponsoring or being nominated as a chef/cook can have its challenges.

Our client's visa application was approved in less than 48 hours! Notably, this client operates solely in the catering business, not a restaurant.

This speedy approval highlights the possibilities and efficiencies in the process despite the caveats. 🌟

# Roder Lawyers
# Catering

🌟 A Bittersweet Moment – Health Waiver - Child Visa (Adoption) Grant! 🌟

Tomorrow, I will say a final goodbye to my beloved 99-year-old mother-in-law. While her passing brings sorrow, I find a silver lining in this moment of grief.

A beautiful 2-year-old child from South Africa, who has been living with asymptomatic HIV infection and is on antiretroviral treatment, has found a loving home in Australia. This young Australian citizen couple adopted the child through court proceedings, bringing light into a life that began in the harshest circumstances—found as a newborn, eaten by ants in the garbage.

Despite failing a health exam due to HIV, we request for a health waiver and argued Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) and Robinson v MIMIA [2005] FCA 1626; [2005] 148 FCR 182.

In line with CROC Article 3, the best interests of the child were our paramount consideration. The adoptive parents are overjoyed that this young child now has the chance to grow up in a nurturing and supportive environment, where they can thrive and reach their full potential.

Making a difference, one life at a time. ❤️


Waiver
# NewBeginnings