ART Migration Appeals Surge: Is Australia’s Visa Review System Becoming a Waiting Game?
Author: Youssef Haddad, Principal Director, Immigration Law Matters Australia | MARN 1278455
Published: 10 September 2026
Australia’s Administrative Review Tribunal is confronting one of the most significant migration review challenges in recent years. The issue is no longer simply that some visa applicants are waiting a long time for an ART decision. The underlying statistics show a review system dealing with a substantial increase in applications, driven particularly by an extraordinary rise in student visa refusals being challenged at the Tribunal.
The scale of that increase deserves closer examination. Official figures provided by the Attorney-General’s Department to Parliament show that student visa refusal review lodgements increased from 1,868 in 2022–23 to 11,138 in 2023–24 and then to 32,187 in 2024–25. In only two financial years, the annual number increased by approximately 1,623%. Student visa refusal reviews consequently grew from just 4.6% of total AAT/ART lodgements in 2022–23 to 38.6% in 2024–25.
This extraordinary growth has occurred while substantial numbers of Partner, skilled, visitor, bridging and protection matters are also competing for Tribunal resources. Current ART processing statistics show that, among reviews finalised between 1 February and 31 July 2026, 50% of Partner visa reviews were finalised within 3 years and 2 months, while 95% were finalised within 3 years and 10 months. For student visa refusal reviews, the corresponding periods were 1 year and 6 months and 2 years and 1 month. Protection reviews had reached 2 years and 2 months for 50% of cases and 5 years and 1 month for 95%. The ART appropriately cautions that these figures describe cases already finalised and are a guide rather than a prediction of how long an individual review lodged today will take.
For me, however, the most important issue is not simply how long the ART is taking. It is what the statistics tell us about the structure of Australia’s migration review system and what happens when tens of thousands of people remain within that system for extended periods. Parliament has already considered whether lengthy review periods can create incentives for some non-genuine applicants to use merits review to extend their stay in Australia. At the same time, ART statistics show that a substantial proportion of student refusal decisions reviewed by the Tribunal are set aside, demonstrating why it would be equally wrong to characterise the review caseload generally as an exercise in delay.
The real picture is considerably more complicated. Why have student visa reviews increased so dramatically? Can the ART finalise cases quickly enough to prevent its caseload from continuing to grow? What happens to applicants whose personal and migration circumstances change while they wait? Why are significant numbers of student review applications eventually withdrawn? And will the Government’s decision to remove oral hearings from most student visa refusal reviews actually make a measurable difference?
These questions go beyond ordinary processing times. They concern the capacity, integrity and future operation of Australia’s migration review system.
Why ART Migration Appeals Are Surging: Student Visa Refusal Reviews Increase by More Than 1,600%
The growth in student visa refusal reviews is the clearest place to begin. The Attorney-General’s Department provided Parliament with a seven-year statistical series showing both total Tribunal lodgements and the number specifically involving student visa refusals. That data demonstrates just how unusual the recent increase has been.
In 2018–19, 5,499 student visa refusal reviews were lodged, representing 9.1% of total Tribunal lodgements. The number remained broadly similar in 2019–20 before collapsing during the COVID period. By 2022–23, there were only 1,868 student refusal lodgements, representing 4.6% of the total caseload. One year later there were 11,138. By 2024–25, the number had reached 32,187, representing 38.6% of all lodgements recorded in the Attorney-General’s Department dataset.
The same dataset provides another useful way of understanding the change. In 2022–23, student visa refusals represented only 4.6% of total Tribunal lodgements. In 2023–24 their share increased to 22.2%. In 2024–25 it reached 38.6%. In other words, within two years, student refusal reviews moved from a relatively modest part of the Tribunal’s overall workload to one of its dominant sources of new cases.
The Attorney-General’s Department linked the surge to a combination of increased student visa applications, changes to student visa policy intended to strengthen migration system integrity and the resulting increase in student visa refusals. This is important because it demonstrates how policy decisions made at the primary visa stage can have consequences much further downstream. A substantial increase in Department of Home Affairs refusals can ultimately translate into thousands of additional applications requiring independent merits review.
The ART’s Active Student Caseload Has Become Enormous
The increase in lodgements has inevitably translated into a much larger stock of unresolved cases. The ART’s detailed migration statistics for the period from its commencement on 14 October 2024 to 30 June 2025 recorded 23,713 study visa lodgements and 4,553 finalisations. At 30 June 2025, the Tribunal had 38,066 study visa matters on hand.
Those figures require some care because the ART commenced on 14 October 2024 and its 2024–25 detailed caseload report therefore does not cover a complete financial year. The Tribunal expressly identifies the reporting period as 14 October 2024 to 30 June 2025. Nevertheless, the relationship between incoming and finalised study matters during that period illustrates the scale of the workload confronting the new Tribunal.
It would be too simplistic to conclude from this comparison that the Tribunal itself is responsible for the backlog. The ART inherited existing cases when it replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the figures are affected by the age and composition of that inherited caseload. What they do demonstrate is the mathematical difficulty involved in reducing a backlog when new matters are arriving at a very high rate.
This problem is not confined to migration. Parliament recorded that across the Tribunal and its predecessor there were 85,845 lodgements during 2024–25, while 46,406 matters were finalised. At 30 June 2025, 112,591 cases were on hand across the Tribunal. The ART identified migration and protection as the areas experiencing the largest increase in lodgements, with NDIS matters also increasing to a lesser degree.
That is the broader context in which the current ART processing times need to be understood. A three-year Partner review or an 18-month student refusal review is not simply an isolated slow case. It forms part of a system managing a large existing caseload while continuing to receive substantial numbers of new applications.
What Has the ART Told the Senate?
The statistical reports tell only part of the story. Evidence from senior ART officials before Senate committees provides a clearer picture of how the Tribunal itself views the problem.
ART Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar Michael Hawkins AM gave Parliament a separate series of figures for the broader student visa caseload. He recorded 2,057 student visa lodgements in 2022–23, 11,668 in 2023–24 and 32,198 in 2024–25, followed by another 5,755 in the first two months of 2025–26. Hawkins later formally clarified one aspect of that evidence, confirming that the major increase in student lodgements began around April 2024.
These figures are slightly different from the student visa refusal figures used in the earlier graphs because they are not the same statistical series. The Attorney-General’s Department data records student visa refusal lodgements, while Hawkins was discussing the broader student visa caseload. Keeping those datasets separate is important when assessing the scale of the increase.
What is common to both datasets is unmistakable: the Tribunal experienced a sudden and extraordinary increase in student visa work.
The significance of Senate scrutiny is that it shifts the discussion away from individual processing complaints and towards institutional capacity. The question becomes whether the Tribunal has sufficient members, staff and procedural flexibility to deal with the volume of work entering the system while also reducing its inherited backlog.
That question has become even more important because the ART is not dealing only with student matters. Every member and administrative resource directed towards a rapidly expanding student caseload exists within a Tribunal that must also determine Partner, skilled, family, visitor, character, citizenship and protection matters. The effect of a major increase in one jurisdiction can therefore extend well beyond the applicants who created that increase.
Does a Long ART Review Process Create an Incentive to Prolong a Person’s Stay?
This is perhaps the most sensitive issue arising from the ART backlog, and it is important to distinguish evidence from assumption. Lodging an ART review is the lawful exercise of a statutory right where review rights exist. It should not be assumed that an applicant challenging a visa refusal is doing so merely to remain in Australia.
There is also strong statistical evidence demonstrating why merits review matters. In the ART’s detailed figures for Subclass 500 Student visa refusal matters between 14 October 2024 and 30 June 2025, 4,287 cases were finalised. Of those, 2,022 were set aside, 835 were affirmed, 1,328 were withdrawn and 102 had another outcome. Expressed as the ART reports them, approximately 47% were set aside, 19% affirmed, 31% withdrawn and 2% recorded as other outcomes. The ART explains that “set aside” includes decisions varied, set aside or remitted under the applicable review powers.
The 47% figure makes it difficult to dismiss the student review caseload simply as an exercise in delaying departure. A substantial proportion of applicants obtained a different outcome through merits review. At the same time, the 31% withdrawal rate raises an entirely legitimate question about what happens to applicants while their cases remain pending. The published statistics identify how many reviews were withdrawn, but they do not establish why those applicants withdrew their applications.
Parliament has nevertheless considered the possibility that lengthy review periods can create an incentive for some applicants to remain in Australia through the review process. In its submission concerning the ART reforms, the Attorney-General’s Department explained that many onshore applicants seeking review of certain visa refusals can remain in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of merits review. It then expressly warned that backlogs and extended Tribunal waiting times “may create incentives for non-genuine applicants to apply for review in order to extend their stay in Australia”.
That is an important distinction. It is not Immigration Law Matters Australia alleging that ART applicants generally are abusing the review system. It is a migration-system integrity concern expressly identified by the Australian Government in material provided to Parliament.
In my view, the more useful question is whether a review system that takes 18 months, two years or sometimes considerably longer to reach a decision inevitably changes behaviour at the margins. Even where an application was initially lodged for entirely legitimate reasons, a person’s circumstances can change substantially during such a long period. Relationships develop, marriages occur, employment circumstances change, people leave Australia, and entirely different migration issues may arise.
The unusually high withdrawal rate in student refusal reviews makes this an area worthy of further investigation. However, unless the Government or Tribunal publishes reliable information about why those reviews are withdrawn and what subsequently happens to the applicants, it would be wrong to assume that withdrawal proves abuse, visa hopping or the use of the ART merely to buy time.
From 1 June 2026, Most Student Refusal Reviews No Longer Have an Oral Hearing
The Government has now introduced a significant procedural response to the student caseload. From 1 June 2026, changes to the Migration Act require the ART to decide most student visa refusal reviews without holding an oral hearing. For affected cases, the Tribunal member determines the review on the written materials. Limited exceptions apply, including certain refusals involving public interest criteria or special return criteria. Transitional arrangements also mean that cases already assigned to a Tribunal member before 1 June 2026 may be treated differently, while an applicant who had already received notice of a hearing or case event will still have that event proceed.
The ART has been careful not to promise that removing hearings will immediately produce faster decisions. Its own explanation states that the objective of the reforms is to allow the Tribunal to manage its increasing caseload more flexibly. That distinction is important. Removing the logistical requirements associated with thousands of hearings may increase capacity, but the Tribunal must still consider the evidence, apply the law and produce decisions while dealing with the enormous stock of cases already on hand.
For applicants and migration practitioners, however, the practical consequence is immediate. Written advocacy has become considerably more important in student refusal reviews. Where there will ordinarily be no opportunity to appear before a Tribunal member and explain the case orally, the evidence and written submissions must stand on their own. The refusal reasons need to be identified and addressed directly, relevant evidence must be properly presented and the applicant cannot safely assume that deficiencies in the written case can later be repaired at a hearing.
Whether this reform ultimately reduces the student backlog is something that can now be measured. Over the coming reporting periods, the figures to watch will be the number of new student review lodgements, the number of student reviews finalised and, most importantly, whether the 38,066 study matters recorded as being on hand at 30 June 2025 begin to fall. Processing times will eventually provide another indicator, although they necessarily lag because the ART calculates them from cases that have already been finalised.
What Happens While an Applicant Waits Years for an ART Decision?
One aspect of the ART backlog that receives comparatively little attention is what happens to applicants during the period between a Department of Home Affairs refusal and the eventual Tribunal decision. An 18-month or three-year waiting period is not simply an administrative statistic. For an applicant living in Australia, it can represent a substantial period of their life during which their personal, family and employment circumstances may change considerably.
This is particularly relevant to applicants who are lawfully able to remain in Australia while their ART review is pending. Depending on their individual circumstances, an applicant may hold a bridging visa while the review proceeds. During a lengthy review period, relationships may develop, marriages may occur, children may be born, employment circumstances can change and employers may become willing to sponsor workers. Other applicants may leave Australia or decide that they no longer wish to pursue the review.
None of this means that an ART applicant can simply choose another visa whenever their circumstances change. The Migration Act contains significant restrictions on further onshore visa applications following a visa refusal. Section 48, for example, can prevent a person who no longer holds a substantive visa and has had a visa refused or cancelled since last entering Australia from making certain further visa applications while remaining in Australia. Although some visa subclasses are prescribed as exceptions, the ability to make a valid application does not mean that the applicant will necessarily satisfy the substantive criteria for that visa. Partner visa applicants in particular can encounter additional Schedule 3 requirements depending on their immigration status and circumstances.
The practical point is that time can change a migration case. A person who lodged an ART review in 2024 may have a very different immigration profile when the matter is considered in 2026 or 2027. This makes the high number of withdrawn student visa reviews particularly interesting. As discussed earlier, 31% of the Subclass 500 refusal reviews finalised in the ART reporting period from 14 October 2024 to 30 June 2025 were withdrawn. The published ART statistics tell us that those cases were withdrawn, but they do not tell us why. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume that these applicants obtained another visa, left Australia, abandoned weak cases or used the review process merely to extend their stay. The available statistics simply do not answer that question.
In my view, this is an area where greater transparency would materially improve the migration debate. If data could appropriately be published showing the principal reasons migration reviews are withdrawn, it would help determine whether lengthy ART processing periods are influencing applicant behaviour and whether significant numbers of cases are becoming redundant before the Tribunal reaches them. Until such evidence is available, the distinction between what the data shows and what we might suspect is important.
Student Visa Reviews and Protection Claims: What the Senate Was Told
There is one area where Senate evidence provides a particularly interesting insight into what may happen as applicants move through different parts of the migration system. During evidence before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 1 October 2025, ART Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar Michael Hawkins AM was questioned about the relationship between student visa applicants and protection matters before the Tribunal.
Hawkins told the committee that, based on the protection matters then before the ART, approximately 20% appeared to have originated with people who had previously been student visa applicants. He also indicated that the Tribunal was mindful of the possibility that some of the large student caseload entering the review system could subsequently appear in the protection jurisdiction. This evidence needs to be interpreted carefully. It does not establish that those protection claims were not genuine, nor does it establish that student visa applicants generally pursue protection visas. A person who previously held or sought a student visa can subsequently have a genuine claim engaging Australia’s protection obligations. The significance of the evidence is that it demonstrates how pressure in one part of the migration system can potentially flow into another. (aph.gov.au)
For policymakers, this connection matters because the student and protection caseloads impose very different demands on the Tribunal. A student refusal review ordinarily concerns whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for the relevant visa. A protection review can require detailed consideration of a person’s claimed fear of harm, country information, credibility, Australia’s protection obligations and complex legal questions. The movement of applicants between different parts of the migration system can therefore affect not only the number of cases before the ART but also the resources required to determine them.
Protection Reviews Reveal Another Side of the Backlog
Student visa reviews may be the most dramatic source of recent growth, but they are not necessarily the cases experiencing the longest waits. Current ART processing statistics show that, for protection reviews finalised between 1 February and 31 July 2026, 50% were finalised within 2 years and 2 months and 95% within 5 years and 1 month. Those figures make protection one of the clearest examples of why the ART backlog cannot be understood solely through the student visa debate. (art.gov.au)
These figures also demonstrate why applicants should be cautious about comparing their case with another person’s ART experience. There is no single ART migration processing time. The type of decision under review, complexity of the matter, age of the case, availability of evidence, procedural history and Tribunal priorities can all affect when a matter is determined.
The protection statistics are particularly significant because the ART has also been working through very old cases. Finalising older matters is necessary if the Tribunal is to reduce the long-term backlog, but it can have the counterintuitive effect of making published processing-time figures appear worse. When a five-year-old case is finally determined, that five-year period enters the historical processing-time statistics. An increase in a published processing figure therefore does not necessarily mean that the Tribunal has become less productive; it may partly reflect an intentional effort to clear aged cases.
The ART Was Already Deciding Student Cases on the Papers Before the 2026 Reform
The removal of oral hearings from most student visa refusal reviews from 1 June 2026 may sound like an entirely new method of conducting migration review, but deciding cases on the papers was not unknown to the ART before the reforms. Parliamentary scrutiny material records that, before the new mandatory regime, approximately 28% of substantive student visa refusal decisions were already being determined without an oral hearing. Importantly, the Attorney-General advised Parliament that such decisions were usually made wholly in favour of the applicant. (aph.gov.au)
That statistic provides important context. A decision on the papers should not be confused with an automatic refusal or a reduced form of merits review. The Tribunal member must still consider the case and apply the relevant law. The significant difference introduced from 1 June 2026 is that paper determination has moved from being a mechanism used in some cases to the ordinary statutory procedure for most student visa refusal reviews, subject to the applicable exceptions and transitional arrangements.
For practitioners, that change reinforces the importance of properly prepared written material. A student applicant should approach the review on the basis that the written evidence and submissions may be the principal opportunity to persuade the Tribunal. In practical terms, the ART application should not be treated merely as a mechanism to preserve status while waiting for something else to happen.
ART Review Fees Have Also Increased
The financial cost of obtaining merits review is another important part of this discussion. From 1 July 2026, the application fee for most migration reviews under Part 5 of the Migration Act increased to $3,727. The ART provides for a 50% fee reduction where it is satisfied that payment of the full fee has caused or is likely to cause severe financial hardship. The fee arrangements for protection reviews are different, with a current fee of $2,293 generally payable where the review is unsuccessful. (art.gov.au)
It is tempting to multiply the migration application fee by the tens of thousands of applications being lodged and describe the resulting amount as money “made” by the ART. That would not be an accurate way to analyse the finances. Not every applicant pays the full headline amount, reductions and refunds can apply, protection fees operate differently, and the accounting treatment of application fees means that fees received and revenue recognised do not necessarily occur in the same reporting period.
More importantly, the ART is not a commercial enterprise generating a conventional profit from migration applicants. Its financial statements distinguish between departmental funding and administered revenue collected on behalf of the Commonwealth. For that reason, I do not consider it responsible to suggest that the Tribunal is financially benefiting from the backlog merely because substantial application fees are being collected.
There is, however, a legitimate public policy question about the relationship between cost and service. An applicant paying $3,727 to seek merits review may then face a wait measured in years. In my view, a statutory review system charging applicants a substantial application fee should be resourced sufficiently to provide meaningful and independent review within a reasonable period. The amount of the fee does not entitle an applicant to a favourable decision, but it is entirely legitimate to scrutinise whether the system has adequate capacity to deliver decisions in a timely manner.
Can the ART Actually Clear the Backlog?
This is ultimately the central question. Improving individual processing efficiency will not by itself eliminate a backlog if new applications continue to arrive faster than existing cases can be finalised. The student statistics demonstrate the problem clearly. During the ART reporting period from 14 October 2024 to 30 June 2025, 23,713 study visa matters were lodged while 4,553 were finalised. The Tribunal was therefore attempting to process existing cases while a very large volume of additional work continued entering the system. (art.gov.au)
The reforms commencing on 1 June 2026 are intended to give the ART greater flexibility. Removing routine oral hearings from most student refusal reviews eliminates some of the administrative requirements associated with scheduling hearings and allows members to determine suitable cases from the written material. That should provide efficiencies. The question is whether those efficiencies will be large enough to overcome both the accumulated caseload and continuing new lodgements.
The best measure of success will not initially be the headline processing time. Processing-time statistics are backward-looking because they measure cases that have already been finalised. A more immediate indicator will be whether the ART begins finalising more student matters than it receives. If that occurs consistently, the active caseload should begin to contract. If new applications continue to exceed finalisations, the backlog may continue growing even if individual Tribunal members are deciding more cases.
This is why the next ART caseload reports will be particularly important. If the new paper-based review regime is working as intended, we should eventually see a significant increase in student finalisations and a reduction in cases on hand. If that does not occur, the Government may need to consider whether procedural reform alone can address what has become a much larger capacity problem.
The Backlog Affects More Than Student Visa Applicants
The pressure created by rising ART Migration Appeals is not confined to student visa applicants. The Tribunal must also allocate resources across Partner, Family, skilled, employer-sponsored, visitor, bridging visa, character, citizenship and protection matters. However, there is a risk that the wider impact on the migration jurisdiction is overlooked. The ART must continue determining Partner, Family, skilled, employer-sponsored, visitor, bridging, character, citizenship and other migration matters while simultaneously responding to the student caseload.
For a Partner visa applicant waiting more than three years for a review, the reason that student applications have increased may be of little comfort. The same applies to a skilled applicant whose employment circumstances may change while waiting, or a protection applicant facing years of uncertainty before receiving a final merits review decision.
The Tribunal therefore faces a difficult balancing exercise. Concentrating resources on student cases may help control the fastest-growing part of the caseload, but resources devoted to one category are not unlimited. Prioritising very old cases can reduce the aged backlog but may leave newer cases waiting longer. Increasing the number of finalisations without maintaining the quality and independence of merits review would create a different problem altogether.
This is why the ART backlog should be viewed as a migration-system issue rather than merely an ART administrative problem. Departmental visa policy, refusal rates, review rights, bridging visa arrangements, Tribunal resources and procedural rules are interconnected. A significant policy change at one stage of the migration process can generate consequences elsewhere that may not become apparent until months or years later.
My Assessment: Australia Has a Structural Migration Review Problem
Having examined the ART statistics, the Parliamentary material and the evidence given by senior Tribunal officials, my assessment is that Australia is dealing with more than a temporary processing delay. The student visa surge has exposed a structural vulnerability in the merits review system: a sufficiently large increase in primary visa refusals can generate a downstream volume of review applications that the Tribunal may struggle to absorb within its existing capacity.
That does not mean the solution is to restrict legitimate review rights. The Subclass 500 outcome statistics demonstrate precisely why independent merits review remains important. During the ART reporting period examined in this article, approximately 47% of finalised Subclass 500 refusal reviews resulted in the decision being set aside, varied or remitted. Whatever the reasons for those outcomes, that is too substantial a proportion to dismiss merits review as merely an avenue for unsuccessful visa applicants to delay departure. (art.gov.au)
At the same time, the Government is entitled to be concerned if very lengthy review periods create an unintended incentive for some non-genuine applicants to prolong their stay. Those two propositions are not inconsistent. A properly functioning migration system should be capable of providing genuine applicants with meaningful independent review while also deciding unmeritorious cases quickly enough that delay itself does not become an incentive.
In my view, timeliness is therefore an integrity measure as much as it is a service standard. The faster a properly resourced Tribunal can fairly determine a case, the less opportunity there is for the review process itself to distort migration behaviour. At the same time, faster decision-making must not come at the expense of procedural fairness or the quality of merits review.
The decision to move most student refusal reviews onto the papers is a major test of that balance. If it substantially increases finalisations while maintaining sound decision-making, it may prove to be an effective response to the student backlog. If the active caseload continues to grow despite the removal of hearings, that will suggest the underlying problem is one of scale and resources rather than procedure alone.
What Should ART Applicants Do While They Wait?
For applicants already before the ART, the existence of a backlog should never be treated as a reason to ignore the case until the Tribunal makes contact. Circumstances and evidence can change considerably during a lengthy review period. Applicants should keep their contact details current, retain relevant evidence and promptly seek advice when there is a material change in their personal, family, employment or immigration circumstances.
This is particularly important for student visa refusal reviews under the post-1 June 2026 procedure. Applicants should not assume that they will have an oral hearing at which they can later explain weaknesses in their case. The written material may be decisive. A properly prepared review should address the reasons for refusal, identify the relevant legal and factual issues and provide the evidence necessary for the Tribunal to determine the case.
Applicants considering another visa pathway while an ART review is pending should also obtain advice before acting. The interaction between a visa refusal, bridging visa status, section 48 of the Migration Act, Schedule 3 and the criteria for another visa can be complex. The fact that a review may take a long time does not itself create an entitlement to apply for another visa in Australia.
Where to From Here?
The next phase of ART statistics will tell us considerably more about whether the migration review system is beginning to stabilise. The figures I will be watching most closely are student visa review lodgements, student finalisations, the number of study cases on hand and the first meaningful processing-time data reflecting cases determined under the post-1 June 2026 paper-review regime.
Senate scrutiny will also remain important. Parliamentary committees have already extracted information that is not immediately apparent from headline processing statistics, including evidence about the extraordinary growth in student cases and the interaction between student and protection caseloads. Continued questioning about Tribunal capacity, member numbers, finalisations and the impact of the new procedure should help determine whether the reforms are genuinely reducing the underlying backlog.
For applicants and practitioners, however, one conclusion can already be drawn. The ART is no longer simply dealing with a collection of individual delayed migration cases. It is managing a systemic increase in migration review demand that has become significant enough to prompt legislative reform and sustained Parliamentary scrutiny.
Conclusion
The statistics behind Australia’s migration review system are striking. Student visa refusal review lodgements increased from 1,868 in 2022–23 to 32,187 in 2024–25, an increase of approximately 1,623% in two years. During the ART’s first reporting period, 23,713 study visa matters were lodged while only 4,553 were finalised, and 38,066 study visa matters remained on hand at 30 June 2025. At the same time, current processing statistics show waiting periods extending beyond three years for half of recently finalised Partner reviews and beyond five years for 95% of recently finalised protection reviews. (aph.gov.au) (art.gov.au)
The challenge for Government is not simply to make the ART faster. It is to ensure that Australia retains a meaningful system of independent merits review while preventing delay itself from becoming a feature that distorts the operation of the migration program. Those objectives require adequate resources, efficient procedures and continued scrutiny of whether the volume of primary visa decisions being challenged can realistically be absorbed by the review system.
The decision to determine most student visa refusal reviews without an oral hearing represents a significant attempt to address that pressure. Whether it works should soon become visible in the numbers. If finalisations increase and the active student caseload begins to decline, the reform may represent an important turning point. If the backlog continues to grow, Australia may need to confront a more fundamental question about whether the present migration review system has sufficient capacity for the volume of decisions it is being asked to review.
For me, that is the real story behind the ART processing-time figures. The waiting periods are significant, but they are ultimately the symptom. The larger issue is whether Australia’s migration review system can keep pace with the migration system it has been designed to oversee.
Immigration Law Matters Australia
📍 Melbourne Office, Level 4, 256 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
☎️ (03) 9606-0674
ILM Australia 'Solving The Australian Immigration Puzzle'
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information, research and commentary purposes only. It does not constitute legal or migration advice and should not be relied upon as advice concerning any individual visa application, visa refusal, Administrative Review Tribunal proceeding or immigration status. Australian migration law is complex and the application of the Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994 depends on individual circumstances.
Statistics and processing times referred to in this article have been drawn from published Australian Government, Administrative Review Tribunal and Parliamentary sources available as at 10 September 2026. Processing-time statistics describe cases previously finalised by the ART and are not predictions or guarantees of the time required to determine a current or future review. Published statistics may subsequently be revised, updated or superseded.
References in this article to possible incentives, migration trends, withdrawals or changes in applicant behaviour are analysis of systemic issues and published data. They should not be understood as allegations concerning any particular applicant or class of applicants. A person exercising a statutory right of review should not be assumed to be doing so for an improper purpose.
Professional advice should be obtained about the particular circumstances of an individual migration or ART matter.
Sources
The following official Australian Government, Administrative Review Tribunal and Parliamentary sources were consulted in preparing this article. All sources were accessed and cross-checked in September 2026.
Administrative Review Tribunal, “Processing Times” – current migration and protection review processing times, including Partner, Student, Skilled, Visitor and Protection reviews. ART – Processing Times
Administrative Review Tribunal, “ART Caseload Report 2024–25” – official statistics covering ART lodgements, finalisations, cases on hand, median finalisation periods and the proportion of decisions changed across Tribunal jurisdictions.
ART – Caseload Report 2024–25 (PDF)
Administrative Review Tribunal, “AAT Statistics” – historical caseload reports for the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including Migration and Refugee Division statistics and migration statistics by visa subclass. These figures are relevant when examining the development of the present ART backlog across the transition from the AAT to the ART. ART – Historical AAT Statistics and Caseload Reports
Administrative Review Tribunal, Annual Report 2024–25 – annual caseload, performance and audited financial information, including migration and protection workloads, application-fee revenue, refunds, appropriations and Tribunal performance. ART – Annual Reports and Accountability Information
Administrative Review Tribunal, “Changes to the Conduct of Student Visa Reviews”, 1 June 2026 – official explanation of the new requirement that, except in limited circumstances, most student visa refusal reviews be determined without an oral hearing. ART – Changes to Student Visa Reviews
Administrative Review Tribunal, “Fees” – current ART application fees, financial-hardship reductions, protection review fees and refund arrangements. The fee for most Part 5 migration reviews is $3,727 from 1 July 2026.
Administrative Review Tribunal, “Upcoming Application Fee Increase”, 22 June 2026 – confirmation of the 1 July 2026 increase in the migration review fee to $3,727 and protection review fee to $2,293, and explanation of annual CPI indexation.
ART – 2026 Application Fee Increase
Parliament of Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, “Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 – Chapter 2: Key Issues” – Parliamentary examination of the extraordinary increase in student visa refusal reviews, ART caseload pressures, processing delays, bridging visa consequences, concerns about non-genuine applicants prolonging their stay and the rationale for determining student refusal reviews on the papers.
Parliament of Australia – ART Reform Report, Chapter 2
Attorney-General’s Department, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – includes the official historical series showing student visa refusal review lodgements increasing from 1,868 in 2022–23 to 11,138 in 2023–24 and 32,187 in 2024–25, together with their rapidly increasing share of the Tribunal’s total caseload.
Parliament of Australia – Attorney-General’s Department Submission (PDF)
Parliament of Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Hansard, 1 October 2025 – evidence from ART Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar Michael Hawkins AM and other ART officials concerning student visa review growth, the active student caseload, Tribunal resources, protection matters and the operational pressures facing the ART.
Parliament of Australia – Senate Committee Hansard, 1 October 2025
Federal Register of Legislation, Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (Cth) – legislation expanding the circumstances in which the ART may dispense with oral hearings and introducing the legislative framework for specified migration reviews to be determined on the papers.
Federal Register – Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2026
Federal Register of Legislation, Migration Amendment (Administrative Review of Student Visa Refusal Decisions) Regulations 2026 – regulations commencing on 1 June 2026 that prescribe the operation of the new paper-based student visa refusal review regime, including transitional arrangements.
Federal Register – Student Visa Review Regulations 2026
Federal Register of Legislation, Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – current Commonwealth legislation governing migration decisions and statutory merits review, including the 2026 amendments concerning applications to be reviewed on the papers.
Federal Register – Migration Act 1958
Administrative Review Tribunal, “Immigration and Citizenship Reviews” – official information concerning migration and protection review applications, strict review time limits, fees and ART review procedures.
© 2026 Immigration Law Matters Australia. All rights reserved.
This article and its original analysis, commentary, graphics and presentation are copyright. No part may be reproduced, republished or distributed without the prior written permission of Immigration Law Matters Australia, except as permitted by law.
Comments