A file we see too often. The Tribunal affirms a partner visa refusal. The couple writes a two page letter to the Minister, and nothing new is attached. Months later a short reply arrives. The request did not meet the guidelines and will not be referred. The couple has lost time they needed for other options, and the section 48 bar still applies. Ministerial intervention is real, and it changes lives when it works. However, it is not an appeal or a way to buy time.
This guide explains the Minister’s personal powers and what the 2025 guidelines require before a request is referred. It also covers how to decide whether a request is worth making at all.
Short answer: There is no fee for a ministerial intervention request, but the Minister has no duty to consider it. Most requests are finalised by the Department without referral. The guidelines require unique or exceptional circumstances that the visa system did not anticipate, usually after a Tribunal decision.
What the power actually is
The Migration Act gives the Minister several personal, non-compellable powers. The most used is section 351, which lets the Minister substitute a more favourable decision for one made by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Section 501J does the same for certain protection related Tribunal decisions. Subsection 46A(2) lifts the bar on unauthorised maritime arrivals applying onshore. Subsection 48B(1) allows a further protection visa application where a bar would otherwise apply.
Three features matter more than the section numbers. First, the power is discretionary, so the Minister can decline to consider a request at all. Second, there is no merits or judicial review of a decision not to intervene. Third, the Minister must act personally, which is why the Department screens requests before any reach the Minister’s desk.
Why the guidelines changed
In 2023 the High Court decided Davis v Minister for Immigration. The Court held that departmental officers could not finalise requests by applying the Minister’s own personal criteria as if they were law. Consequently, a large backlog of requests sat unresolved while the framework was rebuilt.
On 4 September 2025 the Minister signed new instructions covering sections 351 and 501J, subsection 46A(2) and subsection 48B(1). They replace subjective screening with objective thresholds. Officers now assess each request against stated criteria, and only requests that meet them are referred with a submission. Requests closed after Davis can be re-lodged under the new instructions if they meet the threshold.
What gets referred and what does not
Strong compassionate circumstances where refusal would cause serious harm to an Australian citizen or permanent resident, especially a child. Circumstances that engage Australia’s international obligations. Exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit to Australia. Situations the legislation plainly did not anticipate, where the outcome is unfair or unreasonable. Extreme hardship on return that is specific to the person, not general to their country.
Repeat requests with no significant new information. Circumstances the Tribunal has already considered and rejected. People who can apply for another visa through the normal system. Hardship shared by everyone in the same position, such as a wish to keep working in Australia. Requests lodged mainly to prolong a stay. Requests where the person has not yet had a Tribunal decision.
The second tab is where most requests fall. Therefore, the honest first question is whether anything in the file is genuinely unusual. If the answer is a good job and a long stay, the request will not be referred.
A Tribunal decision comes first
Section 351 only applies to a decision of the Tribunal. A refusal that was never reviewed cannot be the subject of a request. In practice this means the merits review path on our refusals and review page must be exhausted first. It also means the Tribunal’s reasons become the starting point of the request. Anything the Tribunal considered and rejected needs new evidence, not a second telling.
What if I already made a request years ago?
Requests closed after the Davis decision without a decision by the Minister may be re-lodged under the 2025 instructions. However, the new request must meet the objective criteria on its own terms. A repeat of the old material, with no change in circumstances, is one of the listed reasons not to refer. Gather what has changed since the first request before lodging.
Status while the request is assessed
A request does not grant a bridging visa. If your bridging visa has expired, you may be able to apply for a Bridging visa E. That visa carries its own conditions and often no work rights. If you are unlawful, the Department expects you to resolve your status or depart, and a pending request does not change that. Consequently, status planning must happen before the request goes in, not after the letter arrives.
A request also does not stop other clocks. The period for judicial review of the Tribunal decision keeps running. Where a legal error in the Tribunal decision is arguable, the court application must be filed within its own time limit regardless of the request.
What a request should contain
The submission should read like a legal document, not a plea. Officers assess against headings, so the request should use them. Each claim needs a document behind it. A letter from a treating specialist carries weight. A statement that someone is unwell does not.
Deciding whether to lodge
We run three questions before recommending a request. Is there a Tribunal decision? Is there something exceptional that the Tribunal could not take into account, or that has arisen since? Is there another visa, onshore or offshore, that would resolve the situation sooner? If the third answer is yes, the request usually loses. A well planned offshore application often delivers a result while an intervention request is still in a queue.
Where the answers point to a request, we prepare it as a single package. Our fees and process page sets out how that work is scoped. General questions about review routes are answered on the FAQ page. You can also contact us with the Tribunal decision for a view on whether a request is realistic.
No government charge applies to a ministerial intervention request. Checked against Department of Home Affairs guidance as at 2 September 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a fee for a ministerial intervention request?
No. The Department does not charge for lodging a request. Professional fees for preparing the submission are separate, and any bridging visa application carries its own requirements.
Can I ask the Minister to intervene without going to the Tribunal first?
Not under section 351. That power only applies to a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal. If your refusal was reviewable and you did not apply in time, the section 351 route is closed. Other powers may apply in narrow cases.
Do I get a bridging visa while the request is assessed?
Not automatically. If you no longer hold a visa, you may be able to apply for a Bridging visa E. It typically carries no work rights, and it does not extend beyond the period the Department allows to finalise the request.
Can I make a second request if the first was not referred?
You can, but the guidelines list repeat requests without significant new information as a reason not to refer. A second request needs a genuine change in circumstances, supported by new evidence, to have any prospect of reaching the Minister.
Does a request pause the deadline for judicial review?
No. The time limit for applying to the court about a legal error in the Tribunal decision keeps running. If judicial review is arguable, the court application must be lodged within its own period, whether or not a request is pending.
General information as at 2 September 2026. Not legal advice. Ministerial intervention is discretionary and outcomes turn on individual facts, so obtain advice before lodging a request.