New Ministerial Intervention Guidelines 2025: s351 & s501J Explained (Applicant + Practitioner Guide)

Introduction

Ministerial Intervention is one of the most misunderstood parts of Australia’s migration system. The guidelines were updated in September 2025 to clarify who may be considered for intervention and who is unlikely to be considered, how referrals are triaged, and how decision-makers weigh compassionate and compelling circumstances against the broader public interest. I’m Nilesh Nandan, an Australian Immigration Lawyer. In this long-form guide, I explain the new settings in plain English for visa holders and families, while including practitioner-level notes for registered migration agents and lawyers who need a structured approach to triage and drafting.

My aim is twofold: first, to help anxious applicants understand whether a request is even worth making; and second, to help professionals avoid wasting precious time on files that can’t pass the initial screen. The 2025 framework tries to make the system more transparent, by setting expectations up front and encouraging well-prepared, evidence-based requests that genuinely warrant the Minister’s personal attention.

Ministerial Intervention in plain English

Ministerial Intervention is a discretionary power. It allows the Minister (or an Assistant Minister) to substitute a more favourable decision for an unfavourable one, where it is in the public interest to do so. In most migration cases this power is found in section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (reviewable migration decisions after merits review). In character matters, the relevant discretionary power is section 501J (substituting a decision to revoke a mandatory cancellation or to grant a visa where appropriate, again on public interest grounds). These are exceptional powers — not a general “second appeal”, and not a routine bypass of the normal system.

Importantly, Ministerial Intervention is not something you “apply for” in the same way you apply for a visa. You request intervention, typically after you have gone through the ordinary process (merits review). The Minister can only intervene personally. Most requests do not proceed to the Minister’s desk; they are screened against current guidelines. The 2025 refresh sets clearer inclusion and exclusion signals so that requests likely to be unsuccessful are filtered out early, and those that warrant attention are escalated efficiently.

The 2025 framework: how requests are screened and prioritised

The updated 2025 approach can be thought of as a funnel with three stages:

1. Eligibility screen (gatekeeping): Does the request fall within the categories the Minister has indicated may be considered? Is the case obviously excluded by rules of thumb in the negative decisions? Are there jurisdictional bars (e.g., an active visa application that has not yet been decided, or merits review rights not yet exhausted)?
2. Merit and public interest: If the request passes the first gate, does the material demonstrate compassionate and compelling circumstances? Are there exceptional features or outcomes the public would expect the government to consider? Are there children, health, or other vulnerable-person issues that elevate the public interest?
3. Referral and decision: If the request is both eligible and compelling, it may be referred for the Minister’s personal consideration. The Minister is not obliged to act, even if a case is referred. Where the Minister does act, the Minister may substitute a new decision that is more favourable than the one made previously.
   
   

This staged logic is designed to preserve the Minister’s time for the most serious and deserving matters, while giving the community clearer signposts about when a request is likely to be entertained.

Positive vs Negative Personal Procedural Decisions (what they mean)

In 2025 the government issued updated Personal Procedural Decisions that guide departmental screening of requests. Two categories are central:

• Positive Personal Procedural Decisions: These describe inclusion scenarios — the kinds of circumstances in which a request may be considered for referral. They are not guarantees of success, but they flag matters that could meet the public interest threshold for ministerial attention.
• Negative Personal Procedural Decisions: These set out exclusion scenarios — situations likely to be not considered for referral at all. They serve as early “no-go” flags to minimise false hope and administrative churn.
  
  

Understanding these two streams is crucial. A request that clearly falls within a negative decision will almost certainly be screened out. A request that fits squarely within a positive decision still needs high-quality evidence and a clear public-interest narrative to progress.

Who may be considered under the new settings

While the Minister retains broad discretion, the 2025 settings signal that certain categories of cases may be considered. Broadly, these include matters where:

• Compassionate and compelling factors are genuinely present — for example, complex family circumstances, significant best-interests-of-the-child considerations, or situations of unusual hardship that the community would expect to be considered at a high level.
• Health and vulnerability concerns are central — including serious, chronic or life-threatening conditions where treatment continuity or carer roles in Australia are central to the person’s welfare or that of their dependent family members.
• Strong integration and contribution is evident — for example, long-term residence from a young age, meaningful community ties, or recognised skills and contributions that align with Australia’s interests.
• Character risk has been addressed (in the s501J context) — where rehabilitation, risk mitigation and community support are compelling and well evidenced, particularly where the best interests of Australian citizen children are a primary consideration.
• Identity and family unity issues arise that would produce harsh or anomalous outcomes if left unaddressed — for instance, maintaining family unity around an Australian citizen child.
  
  

These are indicative inclusion markers. They do not create entitlements. They simply identify matters that might warrant the Minister’s attention when the evidence is clear, consistent and persuasive.

Who is generally not considered (typical exclusions)

Equally important: the 2025 settings indicate categories that are usually not considered for referral. Examples include requests where:

• Ordinary avenues are still open — merits review or judicial review is available and has not been pursued, or another visa application is on foot awaiting decision.
• No exceptional features are present — the request is a re-argument of the original visa case or simply disagrees with the merits of a refusal without new public-interest elements.
• Non-compliance is ongoing — the requester is unwilling to meet lawful reporting or departure obligations and offers no compelling reason for non-compliance.
• Public interest risks are unacceptable — for example, unresolved serious character concerns (s501J context) where risk to the community remains high on objective evidence.
• Requests are speculative — no coherent evidence pack, no chronology, and no identifiable public-interest hook beyond a generic wish to remain.
  
  

If your scenario aligns with these exclusions, it is better to consider other lawful strategies rather than expending scarce time on a request unlikely to be referred.

Section 351: migration decisions (non-character)

s351 allows the Minister to substitute a more favourable decision for an AAT-reviewable migration decision where the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so. In practice, s351 requests often arise after a visa refusal is affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Key points for 2025:

• Not a “second AAT”: The Minister does not re-mark the merits in the ordinary way. The question is public interest, not: “Did the AAT get it wrong?”
• Public interest lens: Emphasise factors the general public would expect the government to consider (children, health, vulnerability, unique contribution, obvious anomaly).
• Procedural clarity: A concise chronology, clean documents, and a short, well-structured submission help screeners identify whether your matter falls within inclusion signals.
• Realism about outcomes: Many strong s351 requests are declined; success rates are modest. Focus on presenting the best possible case, not a long one.
  
  

Section 501J: character-related decisions

s501J is the Minister’s personal power to substitute a decision concerning character matters, typically in the context of mandatory cancellation or where s501 issues dominate the case history. In 2025, the guidance emphasises:

• Protection of the community remains paramount. If risk is unresolved, referral is unlikely.
• Rehabilitation and risk mitigation must be shown with objective evidence: completed programs, compliance records, expert assessments, stable employment and housing, support networks.
• Best interests of affected Australian children are a primary consideration and should be demonstrated by practical caregiving arrangements, schooling continuity, and specialist reports where relevant.
• Respectful candour is essential. Understatement or overstatement of past conduct damages credibility.
  
  

It is rarely persuasive to rely on emotive assertions alone. Decision-makers respond to structured evidence that points to durable change and real-world safeguards.

Evidence pack: what actually helps

Whether your request is under s351 or s501J, the standard of proof you aim for is credibility under scrutiny. From experience, evidence falls into three tiers:

1. Primary official evidence — civil registry extracts, medical specialist reports, police/court records, school records, government agency letters, and certified translations. These anchor the key facts.
2. Institutional and professional evidence — employer letters on letterhead, HR/payroll extracts, social worker reports, psychologist assessments, tenancy records, community organisation letters with contactable signatories.
3. Personal corroboration — statutory declarations from people with direct knowledge, dated diaries, consistent correspondence, and photographs used sparingly with context.
   
   

Quality trumps volume. A 20-page, well-indexed bundle beats 200 pages of noise. Label each annexure and refer to it precisely in your submission (“Annexure B3: Dr Smith’s report, 12 May 2025”).

Step-by-step: how I prepare a Ministerial Intervention request

1. Goal & jurisdiction check: Confirm the power (s351 or s501J), check that ordinary avenues are exhausted or inappropriate, and identify any bars or timing traps.
2. Inclusion vs exclusion screen: Map the facts against the new positive and negative personal procedural decisions. If the case sits in a negative category, reassess strategy.
3. Public interest theory: Write a one-paragraph statement of why the public would expect this case to be considered personally — child welfare, health, rehabilitation, contribution, or anomaly.
4. Chronology: Prepare a clear, dated timeline with cross-references to annexures.
5. Evidence plan: Order missing primary records; obtain expert reports only if they add probative value.
6. Submission drafting: Use headings that mirror the guidelines: background; compassionate/compelling factors; best interests of any Australian children; risk/public interest; conclusion.
7. Index and pagination: Provide a contents page and an annexure index. Keep filenames clear.
8. Final quality check: Consistency of names, dates and facts; tone respectful; claims testable.
9. Lodgement & follow-up: Submit through the specified channel, diarise acknowledgements, and remain contactable for any clarifications.
   
   

Comparison table: Positive vs Negative Personal Procedural Decisions

For applicants & families: practical tips and expectations

• Start with honesty: Be clear about what happened in your case to date. Concealing a problem usually makes things worse.
• Focus on the why: Explain in plain English why your situation is compassionate and compelling or why the public would expect it to be looked at personally. Keep it short and sincere.
• Evidence over emotion: Personal stories matter, but documents move decisions. Invest time in obtaining the right records.
• Think about children first: If Australian citizen children are involved, organise school, medical and caregiving evidence early.
• Be realistic about timing and outcomes: Many requests are not referred. A declined request does not necessarily mean “no hope” — it may mean another lawful pathway needs to be considered.

If you need help deciding whether a request is worth making, seek advice quickly. We can tell you if the matter maps to the new inclusion signals or if a different strategy is better.

For migration agents & lawyers: practitioner notes and triage workflow

For colleagues handling volume, a disciplined triage saves you and your clients time:

1. Gate 1 — Jurisdiction & posture: s351 or s501J? AAT completed or unavailable? Any judicial proceedings live? Is the client in or out of Australia, on what visa or bridging status?
2. Gate 2 — Positive/Negative mapping: Quickly map to the 2025 inclusion/exclusion signals. If “negative”, record your reasoning and pivot to other options.
3. Gate 3 — Public interest theory: Draft a one-paragraph public interest statement. If you cannot draft a credible one, do not proceed.
4. Gate 4 — Evidence sufficiency: Identify the top five documents that would change the decision-maker’s mind. Order them before drafting.
5. Gate 5 — Short, testable submission: 3–6 pages with annexure map is usually enough. Avoid rhetorical padding. Assume a highly time-poor reader.
   
   

Finally, manage expectations. Be frank about low referral rates and the need for impeccable evidence. Set a review point and do not let requests drift without purpose.

FAQs: timeframes, powers, eligibility, refusals and next steps

Is Ministerial Intervention a right or an entitlement? 

No. It is a personal, discretionary power. Most requests are not referred to the Minister.

Do I need to finish AAT or court first? 

Usually you must exhaust ordinary avenues unless there is a clear reason they are unavailable or inappropriate. Requests are commonly screened out where review options remain open.

How long does a request take?

Timeframes vary. The 2025 settings aim to triage more quickly — but where matters are complex, it can still take time. Plan for uncertainty.

Can I work while a request is pending?

Only if your current visa or bridging visa permits it. Check your VEVO and read your conditions carefully.

What if my request is not referred?

Consider other lawful strategies: different visa pathways, new evidence for a fresh application (where allowed), or resolving issues that blocked your case.

Does s501J mean character issues are “forgiven”?

No. Protection of the community remains paramount. You must demonstrate rehabilitation, reduced risk and strong public-interest factors, especially where children are affected.

Can I make multiple requests?

While not prohibited in all cases, repetitive requests without new facts are discouraged and generally screened out. Only proceed when meaningful new evidence exists.

Should I get professional help?

Where the stakes are high, yes. A concise, well-evidenced request aligned with the 2025 framework is far more likely to be read seriously than a long, unfocused one.

What to do next

If you believe your circumstances align with the New Ministerial Intervention Guidelines 2025, act purposefully. Map your case against inclusion/exclusion signals, identify the public interest rationale in one paragraph, and assemble an evidence pack that can withstand scrutiny.

Book a consultation with me to discuss your Ministerial Intervention options. We will triage your scenario against the 2025 framework, identify any fatal gaps early, and — if appropriate — prepare a concise, high-quality request targeted to the current settings.

Helpful MyVisa pages: Visa Refusals · Visa Cancellations

This blog is intended for discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice. You should seek independent legal advice before relying on any information provided on this site. Immigration policies, systems, and processes can change without notice. I’d like to know your own experience with the immigration challenges noted above — feel free to contact me.

MyVisa: Nilesh Nandan, Attorney at Law
BBus(Accy) LLB(QUT) GDLP MBA(IntBus)
Head of Practice