You have the decision record in front of you. It is forty pages. Somewhere in it is the reason the Tribunal gave for the part that mattered. Three decisions from late September and October 2026 show the three sentences that, if you find them, mean the decision can be sent back.
Short answer: Look for a consideration given no weight because the law intended the consequence (NKHH). Look for a consequence dismissed as not direct or immediate (AVG26). Look for a dismissal for a missed form with no invitation to explain (Hassan). Each was quashed. A Tribunal review costs $3,727 and judicial review runs on short time limits, so the reading has to happen fast.
Three sentences, three errors
The sentence: the legal consequences carry no weight because removal and exclusion are what the statutory scheme intends. The case: NKHH v Minister [2026] FCA 1422, Shariff J, 28 September 2026. A South Sudanese humanitarian visa holder’s mandatory cancellation was not revoked. The Tribunal listed the consequences, detention, removal, no further visa except protection, then gave them nothing for that one reason. Why it failed: the consequences exist because the statute creates them. If that emptied them of weight, the consideration would mean nothing. Circular, so legally unreasonable. Quashed, with costs.
The sentence: removal to a third country is not a direct or immediate consequence of this decision, so its hardship need not be assessed. The case: AVG26 v Minister [2026] FCA 1457, Wheelahan J, 5 October 2026. An Iranian with a protection finding was refused a protection visa on character grounds while the Minister sought a Nauruan visa for him. Why it failed: Direction 110 has no direct or immediate limit. Liability to removal is the first consequence it names, and Nauru was a real prospect. The Tribunal had to consider the harm. Quashed, with costs.
The sentence: the applicant did not return the form within 28 days, so the review is dismissed. The case: Hassan v Minister [2026] FedCFamC2G 1952, Judge McCabe, 2 October 2026. A student visa applicant missed a form. A registrar dismissed the review without contacting him; a member confirmed it after the reinstatement window closed. Why it failed: before dismissing, the Tribunal must consider whether a reasonable time has passed and whether dismissal is right, and it cannot do that without inviting the applicant to respond. The direction only warned dismissal was possible. Both decisions quashed.
Reading your own decision
Timeline after an adverse decision
- Day 0Notification. The clock starts.
- Days 1 to 7Read the decision against the three sentences above. Get advice. Request the file.
- Before the limitJudicial review is lodged in the Federal Circuit and Family Court or the Federal Court. The Court decides legal error, not the merits.
- If quashedThe matter goes back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. None of the three applicants won a visa in court; each won a second hearing.
Our refusals and review page covers the Tribunal stage, including the $3,727 application fee and the 50 per cent reduction for financial hardship. From 31 October 2026, character decisions are guided by Direction 123 rather than Direction 110; the principle in NKHH and AVG26, that stated consequences must be weighed for a real reason, carries across.
Review fee verified against the Administrative Review Tribunal as at 1 July 2026. Case summaries from MIA Notices 20 and 22 of 2026; the judgments were not publicly accessible when this article was written.
My decision was made under Direction 110 and the new Direction starts on 31 October. Does that help me?
A decision already made is judged on the direction in force when it was made. If it is quashed and reheard after 31 October, Direction 123 applies to the rehearing. The errors in these three cases are about reasoning, and they apply under either direction.
Frequently asked questions
Can the Tribunal give the legal consequences of its decision no weight?
It can decide how much weight they carry, but NKHH holds it cannot give them none because the statute intended them. That reasoning is circular.
Does the Tribunal have to consider removal to Nauru?
AVG26 holds that where removal to a third country is a real prospect, the Tribunal must consider what it would mean. The Direction has no direct or immediate limit.
Can a review be dismissed for a missed deadline without asking me?
Hassan holds that dismissing for non compliance without at least inviting a response is procedurally unfair.
What does a Tribunal review cost?
$3,727, with a 50 per cent reduction available for financial hardship. Judicial review in court has its own fees.
General information as at 25 October 2026. Not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.