Abstract: On January 9, 2026, as the rate of Federal Court overturning ART decisions stabilises due to the clarification of the 'Materiality Test,' a new legal battlefield is forming within the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). For applicants who spent a fortune winning in Federal Court only to have their cases remitted to the ART, they face an unexpected blow: the ART is no longer conducting a 'full rehearing de novo,' but strictly limiting the scope of review to the specific errors identified by the Court. This article provides an in-depth analysis of this efficiency-driven 'Limited Review' doctrine and how applicants can fight for a visa grant within this constricted space.
January 9, 2026 — For visa applicants, nothing is more exhilarating than receiving a "Judgment for the Applicant" from the Federal Court. When a judge declares the ART's original decision void (Quashed) and sends the case back (Remits) for reconsideration, most assume this is a "Golden Ticket" for rebirth—a chance to restate their case from scratch and even update all expired evidence.
However, the ART hearing rooms of early 2026 are pouring cold water on these optimists.
To cope with backlogs, the newly constituted ART has adopted a highly controversial "Surgical Precision" adjudication strategy when handling Remitted Cases. That is: if the Court only found that the ART erred on "Issue A," then upon remittal, the ART will only review "Issue A," refusing to reopen "Issue B" and "Issue C" if the Court did not find errors in those findings.
This means that even if you win the lawsuit, you may not get a complete "Round Two."
In the old AAT era, once a case was remitted, it was generally treated as a fresh merits review (De Novo Review). The Tribunal would often re-examine all facts. But in 2026, citing efficiency principles and the latest jurisprudence, the ART has established new operational norms.
Soft Application of "Res Judicata"
Although Res Judicata (the principle that a matter has been finally adjudicated) does not strictly apply in administrative law, the ART now strongly inclines towards preserving factual findings from the original decision that were unaffected by the legal error.
Case Illustration:
To implement this policy, the ART introduced a new procedural step in 2026—the Remittal Directions Hearing.
Before formally rehearing a remitted case, an ART Registrar will convene a short meeting with the applicant's lawyer specifically to discuss the "Scope of Rehearing."
This is an extremely dangerous phase:
This "Limited Review" has sparked immense legal controversy when dealing with Schedule 3 (waiver for unlawful non-citizens) or Partner Visa cases.
Misalignment of Time Points
When a case returns to the ART after a loop through the courts (often taking 1-2 years), the applicant's personal circumstances have often changed drastically (e.g., birth of a child, new job).
The Strict Trend of 2026:
The ART has begun frequently using the "Relevance Test" to exclude new evidence. If new evidence aims to overturn a "negative credibility finding" that was not challenged by the Court, the ART will refuse to admit it, citing resource wastage and potential "abuse of process."
In 2026, representing a "Remitted Case" is far more difficult than representing an initial appeal. Lawyers must possess a high level of expertise in administrative law.
Core Defense Strategy:
Lawyers must construct a powerful argument at the "Remittal Directions Hearing" proving that the legal error identified by the Court actually "Infected" all aspects of the original decision.
Only by successfully constructing this logic of "Total Infection" will the ART be forced to agree to a Full Rehearing.
The Immigix team observes that many applicants experience a dangerous relaxation of mindset after winning in Federal Court. They believe that because the government lost the lawsuit, a visa will automatically be granted.
The Cruel Reality:
The government losing in court simply means it must "refuse you again according to the law."
Statistics show that in 2026, the proportion of cases eventually granted a visa after being remitted to the ART is only around 40%. For the remaining 60%, the ART, after correcting the technical error pointed out by the Court, still maintained the refusal decision on other grounds.
Winning a Federal Court lawsuit is merely a ticket back to the negotiating table, not the champagne of victory.
The ART remittal mechanism in 2026 is no longer a chaotic stew of "throw in all evidence and see what happens," but a highly precise legal surgery. The ART attempts to excise the part of the error identified by the Court as "diseased" while preserving as many of the remaining grounds for refusal as possible.
For applicants, surviving this "surgery" and obtaining a visa requires a legal scalpel sharper than the Member's, to precisely sever the bonds the old decision imposes on the new hearing.