The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 commenced on that day, fixed by Proclamation, and two Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Acts made the amendments to other legislation, including the Migration Act 1958, that the change required. For someone appealing an 820 or 801 refusal, the review right itself did not change. The name, the paperwork and a set of cross-references did.
What changed in practice
The body. The AAT no longer exists. Applications for review of a partner visa refusal go to the ART, and matters that were on foot at the changeover continued in the new Tribunal rather than starting again.
The forms and the process material. Application forms, practice directions and procedural guidance are now the Tribunal's own and are published on the Administrative Review Tribunal website. A form downloaded before October 2024, or a template that names the AAT, is not the current document.
The fee arrangements. The prescribed fee for review of a reviewable migration decision sits in regulation 4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, now headed "ART review—fees and waiver". The amount stated in subregulation 4.13(1) is a base figure that is increased on each 1 July in line with the Consumer Price Index under regulations 4.13A and 4.13B, so the number printed in the Regulations is not the number you pay. Where the ART Principal Registrar considers, having regard to your income, expenses, liabilities and assets, that paying would cause or has caused financial hardship, subregulation 4.13(4) makes the prescribed fee 50 per cent of the full amount. Regulation 4.14 governs refunds. As at 23 September 2026, take the current amount from the Tribunal before you lodge. More detail is on ART deadlines and fees.
The statutory plumbing. The Migration Act now refers throughout to "the ART" and to "the ART Act", and switches off parts of the general tribunal scheme for migration matters. Section 347(4) applies the migration time limits "despite section 18 (when to apply—general rule) of the ART Act". Section 347A(6) has effect "despite section 17 (who can apply) and section 35 (applications may be made on behalf of a person) of the ART Act". Section 349(1) disapplies subparagraph 105(c)(ii) of the ART Act and substitutes the migration remittal power.
What did not change
Merits review. The Tribunal reviews the decision on its merits, on the material before it, and decides the matter for itself. It is not confined to what the Department had. For a partner visa that remains the central point: evidence about the months since the refusal is relevant because the Tribunal decides as at the date of its own decision.
The short time limits. They were short before and they are short now.
The outcomes. Section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 requires the Tribunal to make a decision "affirming the reviewable decision", "varying the reviewable decision", or "setting aside the reviewable decision and: (i) making a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision; or (ii) remitting the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with any orders or recommendations of the Tribunal". Section 349(2) of the Migration Act provides the migration-specific remittal power, and regulation 4.15 of the Migration Regulations, headed "ART's power to remit matters with orders", sets out the orders that may accompany a remittal. Remittal with an order that a specified criterion is taken to be satisfied is still the outcome most partner visa reviews aim at.
Everything about the visa itself. The criteria in the subclass 820 regulations were not touched. Neither was the Minister's personal power under section 351 of the Migration Act to substitute a more favourable decision — see ministerial intervention — nor the position of a Bridging visa A while a review lodged in time is on foot.
Regulation 4.10 and where the time limits live now
This is the change that trips up older material. Regulation 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 used to prescribe the period for making an application for review of a migration decision. It is no longer in the Regulations: Division 4.1 now runs from regulation 4.01A and 4.02 to regulation 4.12, with nothing in between. The periods are in the Act.
Section 347(3) of the Migration Act 1958 provides:
(3) An application must be made: (a) if the applicant is in immigration detention on the day the applicant is notified of the decision—within 14 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision; or (b) otherwise—within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision.
And section 347(5) provides:
(5) Section 19 (ART may extend period) of the ART Act does not apply in relation to reviewable migration decisions or reviewable protection decisions.
Watch out
There is no power to extend the period and no good-reason exception. The clock runs from the day you are notified, not from the day you read the letter, understood it or had it translated. Your refusal letter states the date. Lodging in time is a separate step from putting your case together, and the evidence can follow.
Why older articles are wrong in a way that matters
A page written before October 2024 will tell you to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, will often cite regulation 4.10 for the deadline, and may quote a fee that has since been indexed twice. On the deadline the outcome usually happens to be the same number of days, which is exactly why the error survives: nothing looks obviously wrong until a detail differs. But the citation is dead, the body named does not exist, the form linked is withdrawn and the fee is stale.
Three habits protect you:
- Check the date on anything you read, including this page. Material about tribunals and fees ages badly.
- Take the deadline from your own decision record, not from an article. The Act requires the notification of a refusal to state that the decision can be reviewed, the time in which the application may be made, who can apply and where.
- Take the fee and the forms from the Tribunal, not from a summary.
Review is the stage where professional help changes results most. The deadline cannot be extended, the case has to be rebuilt around the single criterion the Department was not satisfied of, and your sponsor will usually need to give evidence. Reviews run by a migration lawyer are more likely to succeed. No one can promise an outcome, and anyone who does should not be retained.
What to do next
If you have a refusal letter, confirm the date on it today and read appealing at the ART for how the review runs. If you are still deciding whether review is the right path, start with why 820 visas are refused to identify the ground you would have to answer, and see working with a migration lawyer if you intend to be represented. For where the Tribunal sits in the wider structure, see the law behind the partner visa.
Common questions
When did the ART replace the AAT?
On 14 October 2024. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 commenced on that day by Proclamation, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ceased. Matters that were before the AAT continued in the new Tribunal.
Do I apply to the AAT or the ART for a partner visa refusal?
The ART. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal no longer exists. If your refusal letter or an online guide refers to the AAT, check its date; the review rights are the same but the body, the forms and the fee arrangements are now the Administrative Review Tribunal's.
Is regulation 4.10 still the time limit for a partner visa review?
No. Regulation 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 no longer sets the period. The periods for applying for review of a reviewable migration decision are now in section 347(3) of the Migration Act 1958: 14 days after the day you are notified if you were in immigration detention on that day, and 28 days after the day you are notified in any other case.
Can the ART extend the time to apply for review?
Not for a migration decision. Section 347(5) of the Migration Act 1958 provides that section 19 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which lets the Tribunal extend the period to apply, does not apply in relation to reviewable migration decisions or reviewable protection decisions.
Did the change give applicants new grounds of appeal?
No. The criteria for the subclass 820 and 801 visas are in the Migration Regulations 1994 and were not changed by the move. The Tribunal still conducts a merits review and can affirm, vary or set aside a decision, substituting its own or remitting the matter to the Department.
Sources
Keep reading
Spouse and De Facto Partner: The Legal Definitions
The exact wording of section 5F and section 5CB of the Migration Act 1958, regulations 1.15A and 1.09A and their four matters, and regulation 2.03A on the 12-month rule.
Read the guide →
The Migration Regulations for Subclass 820, Explained
A clause-by-clause guide to subclass 820 in the Migration Regulations 1994 — Schedule 1 item 1214C, Part 820 of Schedule 2, and Part 801 in brief.
Read the guide →
How Home Affairs Policy (PAM3) Guides Partner Visa Decisions
What the Procedures Advice Manual is, why it is not law, how a delegate must still apply the Migration Act and Regulations, and how the Tribunal treats departmental policy.
Read the guide →