Australian student visa appeal oral hearings are phased out for student visa appeals. The reform comes at a time when the system is under extraordinary strain, with 48,826 active student visa appeals as of November 2025 and median wait times stretching beyond 16 months.

The changes represent one of the most consequential adjustments to the student visa appeal process in recent years. For international students already navigating refusal decisions, the removal of guaranteed oral hearings could redefine how appeals are argued, assessed, and decided.

At the centre of the issue is the Administrative Review Tribunal, the body responsible for reviewing visa refusals made by the Department of Home Affairs. Facing mounting caseloads and capacity constraints, the tribunal is now shifting toward deciding more matters “on the papers,” meaning cases will be assessed based on written submissions without live hearings.

Why the Change Was Introduced

The reform is widely viewed as a response to a system under pressure. Student visa appeals now make up a substantial portion of the tribunal’s migration caseload. With tens of thousands of matters pending, the traditional model of conducting oral hearings for most cases has become increasingly difficult to sustain.

Oral hearings require scheduling coordination, tribunal members’ time, interpreters where necessary, and administrative resources. Each live hearing adds weeks or months to processing timelines. By reducing reliance on in-person hearings, policymakers argue the tribunal can process cases faster and reduce the backlog.

From an administrative standpoint, the logic is clear: written submissions allow cases to move through the system more efficiently. Decisions can be made without the logistical delays associated with hearings, potentially increasing throughput.

But efficiency gains come with trade-offs.

Potential Positives of Phasing Out Oral Hearings

Here is how this ammendment will impact students positively.

1. Faster Case Processing

The most immediate expected benefit is speed. Removing mandatory oral hearings could shorten decision timelines, particularly for straightforward cases. If implemented effectively, this may reduce the current 16-month median wait time.

For students in limbo, quicker outcomes mean greater certainty. Even a negative decision delivered sooner can allow applicants to move forward with alternative plans.

2. Reduced System Congestion

With nearly 50,000 appeals active, every procedural simplification matters. Written-only assessments allow tribunal members to review more cases per week compared to hearing-based reviews. Over time, this could significantly ease the backlog.

3. Cost Efficiency

Oral hearings require infrastructure, staffing, and administrative coordination. Scaling down hearings lowers operational costs. Given fiscal pressures on public institutions, this is likely a key consideration behind the reform.

4. Consistency in Decision-Making

Proponents argue that written submissions may lead to more standardized assessments. Decisions based purely on documented evidence could reduce variability influenced by presentation style, communication skills, or nervousness during hearings.

The Risks and Concerns

Despite these potential efficiencies, the removal of oral hearings has raised serious concerns among migration lawyers and student advocates.

1. Reduced Procedural Fairness

Oral hearings provide applicants with an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, explain complex circumstances, and respond directly to tribunal questions. For many students, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, the ability to speak directly to a decision-maker is critical.

Written submissions, no matter how comprehensive, may not fully capture context, intent, or mitigating factors. Critics argue that this risks diminishing natural justice.

2. Impact on Credibility Assessments

In many visa refusal cases, credibility plays a central role. Decision-makers often assess whether a student genuinely intends to study or comply with visa conditions. Live hearings allow tribunal members to evaluate demeanor, consistency, and responsiveness.

Without oral interaction, credibility determinations will rely solely on documents. Some legal experts warn that this could increase the likelihood of adverse findings without applicants having a meaningful opportunity to respond.

3. Disadvantage for Vulnerable Applicants

Not all students have equal access to legal representation. Those without experienced migration lawyers may struggle to prepare detailed written submissions. Oral hearings sometimes provide a second chance to clarify issues that were poorly presented in the initial paperwork.

The shift toward written-only assessments may disproportionately affect students who lack professional guidance or English proficiency.

4. Transparency and Public Confidence

Australia’s international education sector is a major economic contributor. Policy changes that appear to limit appeal rights risk damaging confidence among prospective students abroad.

If the perception emerges that appeal opportunities are narrowing, this could influence Australia’s competitiveness in global education markets.

What This Means for International Students

For students currently facing visa refusals, the practical reality is that preparation standards will need to rise.

Appeals will increasingly hinge on:

• Detailed written legal arguments
• Comprehensive documentary evidence
• Clear responses to refusal reasons
• Structured explanations addressing the Genuine Student criteria

The margin for error may narrow. Where oral hearings once provided room for clarification, written submissions must now carry the full burden of persuasion.

Final Thoughts

The reform reflects a broader tension between administrative efficiency and procedural fairness. On one hand, the tribunal faces undeniable capacity challenges. Nearly 48,826 pending student appeals and extended wait times are unsustainable. On the other hand, access to a meaningful review process is fundamental to Australia’s migration framework.

Whether this amendment ultimately improves outcomes will depend on implementation. If faster decisions are delivered without compromising fairness, the reform may stabilize a strained system. If, however, the absence of oral hearings leads to increased refusals or perceptions of injustice, further legal and political scrutiny may follow.