Does Winning at the ART Clear the Section 48 Bar?

Two things are true at once, and people mix them up. Lodging a Tribunal review does not lift the section 48 bar — the Act says the bar applies "whether or not the application has been finally determined". But winning the review can remove the bar, because the refusal that triggered it is replaced in law. The gap between those two statements decides what a barred person should do in the 28 days after a refusal letter arrives.

This article is about one question only: what the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) can and cannot do about a section 48 bar. What triggers the bar and what it stops is in the section 48 bar explained. What a barred person may still lodge onshore is in section 48 and Schedule 3: what you can still lodge.

Verified against the Migration Act 1958, Compilation No. 172 (C2026C00461, in force 8 October 2026), the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, Compilation No. 5 (C2026C00202, in force 18 May 2026), and the Migration Regulations 1994, Compilation No. 289 (F2026C01017, in force 2 October 2026).

Lodging a review does not pause the bar

Section 48(1)(b)(i) is triggered by a refusal "whether or not the application has been finally determined". The bar exists from the moment the delegate refuses. A pending review changes nothing about it. While the ART matter runs, the only new onshore applications open to you are the classes prescribed in regulation 2.12 — partner, protection, the bridging visas and a short list of others. The full list, and the Schedule 3 problem that comes with some of them, are in what you can still lodge.

So the honest answer to "if I appeal, can I apply for another visa?" is: only an excepted one, and the review does not widen that list.

The deadline, and why the Tribunal cannot move it

The review clock is in the Act itself. Section 347(3): the application must be made within 28 days after the day you are notified of the decision, or within 14 days if you are in immigration detention on that day. Section 347(5) then says that section 19 of the ART Act — the Tribunal's general power to extend a review period — "does not apply in relation to reviewable migration decisions or reviewable protection decisions". The Tribunal has no power to extend the migration review deadline.

Older articles cite regulation 4.10 for this rule. That regulation is no longer in the Migration Regulations; Part 4 now runs from regulation 4.02 to 4.12 with nothing in between. The authority is section 347 of the Act. The period stated in your decision letter is the one to diarise, on the day the letter arrives.

The Regulations also set the review fee. Regulation 4.13 prescribes a base fee that is indexed every 1 July under regulation 4.13A, so the dollar figure printed in the Regulations is not the amount you pay. The current fee is on the ART's own fee page at art.gov.au, and we have not reproduced it here because it moves. Three things about it do not move:

What the Tribunal can actually do

Section 105 of the ART Act gives the Tribunal three outcomes on a review: affirm the decision, vary it, or set it aside. A set-aside is completed in one of two ways: substituting a new decision, or remitting the matter to the decision-maker.

For migration decisions the remittal route runs through the Migration Act, not the ART Act. Section 349(1) switches off the ART Act's own remittal power for reviewable migration decisions, and section 349(2) replaces it: the Tribunal may set the decision aside and "remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with such orders or recommendations of the ART as are permitted by the regulations". Regulation 4.15 makes an application for a visa a prescribed matter for that purpose, and the permissible order is that the applicant "must be taken to have satisfied a specified criterion for the visa". In plain terms: a remittal sends the application back to the Department with a direction that one or more criteria are treated as met.

Why a win removes the bar

Here is the mechanism, from the provisions. When the Tribunal varies a decision, or sets it aside and substitutes its own, section 108(2) of the ART Act says the result "is taken to be a decision of the decision-maker for all purposes", with a short list of exceptions that do not include section 48 of the Migration Act. Section 108(4) then fixes the timing: the substituted decision "has effect, or is taken to have had effect, from the time at which the reviewable decision has or had effect" — unless the Tribunal orders otherwise under section 108(5).

Put those together. The refusal that triggered section 48 is, in law, no longer the Department's decision on your application. What stands in its place is whatever the Tribunal decided, dated back to the original decision. If that is a grant, there is no refusal for the bar to rest on.

Where the matter is remitted, the position is different but the result for the bar is the same while reconsideration runs: the refusal has been set aside under section 349(2), the application is back with the Department undecided, and the Department must reconsider it on the Tribunal's terms. A remittal is not a grant. The Department can still refuse on a criterion the Tribunal did not direct — and a fresh refusal would start the whole sequence again.

One honesty note. No Department or Tribunal page states this consequence in terms. It is the orthodox reading of section 48 and section 349 of the Migration Act with section 108 of the ART Act, and it is how the provisions operate in practice — but the operative words are the statutes', not a published policy's. If you are relying on it, rely on the sections.

Is remittal a win?

Usually, and not always. A remittal means the Tribunal disagreed with the Department on the point it directed, and the application is alive again. But the Department reconsiders every other criterion, and anything that has changed since the original decision — a relationship ending, a sponsor withdrawing, a health or character finding — is assessed on the facts at reconsideration. Treat a remittal as the application being reopened, not decided.

Your bridging visa while the review runs, and the 35-day tail

An associated bridging visa keeps you lawful through the review, and its end-point is precise. For a Bridging Visa A, clause 010.511, and for a Bridging Visa C, clause 030.511, the visa stays in effect until 35 days after the ART makes its decision — the day the decision is made, not the day you receive it (cl 030.511(1)(b)(iii)). If the Tribunal decides your review application was not validly made, the same 35 days runs from that decision (cl 030.511(1)(b)(iia)). On remittal the bridging visa continues through the Department's reconsideration and takes its end-point from whatever the Department then decides (cl 030.511(1)(b)(vii)).

The same 35-day tail follows a refusal with no review lodged: clause 030.511(1)(b)(ii) ends the visa 35 days after the Minister makes the refusal decision. There is one exception. Where subclause 030.511(1A) applies — a refusal because paragraph (b) of public interest criterion 4003, or criterion 4003A, was not met — the bridging visa ends when the decision is made, with no 35 days at all. Which bridging visa you hold and what it permits is covered on our bridging visas page.

What this means for strategy in the 28 days

1. The review deadline expires first and takes the most options with it. A review that succeeds is the only step that removes the bar itself. Assess review prospects before anything is lodged anywhere.
2. Review and an excepted application are not mutually exclusive. The bar does not stop a partner, protection or other regulation 2.12 application being made while the ART matter runs. Costs, evidence and consistency across the two need managing as one case.
3. An affirmed decision changes the map. After affirmation the realistic paths are the regulation 2.12 list, departure and an offshore application — compared honestly in leaving Australia to apply offshore — or, in limited cases, ministerial intervention.
4. Mind the 35 days. After an unsuccessful review the bridging visa has a fixed tail. Decisions made inside it are choices; after it, they are emergencies.

Frequently asked questions

If I appeal, can I lodge another visa application at the same time? Only a visa in a class prescribed by regulation 2.12. Section 48(1)(b)(i) applies "whether or not the application has been finally determined", so the pending review does not widen the list.

If I win, am I back to normal, or does the bar follow me? Where the Tribunal varies the decision or substitutes a grant, section 108 of the ART Act treats that as the Department's decision, effective from the original decision date. There is then no refusal for section 48 to attach to. That is a reading of the provisions, not a published policy — see the honesty note above.

What happens to my bridging visa the day the Tribunal decides? Nothing that day. Under clause 030.511(1)(b)(iii) (and clause 010.511 for a Bridging Visa A) the visa continues for 35 days after the decision is made, unless the Tribunal remits, in which case it continues through reconsideration.

Is remittal a win? It reopens the application with a direction that a specified criterion is taken to be satisfied (reg 4.15). The Department still decides everything else. It is a step forward, not a grant.

Can the Tribunal give me more time to lodge? No. Section 347(5) of the Migration Act disapplies section 19 of the ART Act for migration and protection decisions. The 28 days (14 in detention) in section 347(3) cannot be extended.

I was refused and did not appeal — how long before I have to leave? If you hold a Bridging Visa A or C, clause 010.511 or 030.511 keeps it in effect for 35 days after the refusal decision is made, unless subclause (1A) applies, in which case it ends when the decision is made. After that you are unlawful unless another visa has been granted. Check your grant notice and the decision letter together.

Get the review assessed before the fee is paid

Migration Vision runs ART reviews and section 48 strategy together for clients across Australia — prospects assessed before the fee is paid, and the fallback mapped before it is needed. Nobody can promise a Tribunal outcome. What can be controlled is lodging in time, on the right grounds, with the evidence the delegate never saw. The review pathway and our approach: visa refusals and appeals.

Reviewed by Dr Asad Muhammad Khan, Registered Migration Agent, MARN 2619525. Last reviewed 25 October 2026 — sections 48, 347 and 349 verified against the Migration Act 1958, Compilation No. 172 (C2026C00461, in force 8 October 2026); sections 19, 105 and 108 against the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, Compilation No. 5 (C2026C00202, in force 18 May 2026); regulations 2.12, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15 and clauses 010.511 and 030.511 against the Migration Regulations 1994, Compilation No. 289 (F2026C01017, in force 2 October 2026) — all on legislation.gov.au. The current ART application fee is published on art.gov.au and is not reproduced here. Figures current as at 25 October 2026; confirm with the Department of Home Affairs before lodgement. This article is general information, not migration advice for your circumstances, and the law may change.