The 17 September 2025 Ministerial Instruction: What Changed and What It Means for Your Case

Under the 2016 guidelines, departmental officers could identify 'unique or exceptional circumstances' and refer cases to the Minister on that basis. That discretion has been entirely removed. Officers must now assess requests strictly against the ten criteria in Section 13. A case that does not fit one of those criteria will not be referred, regardless of how compelling the circumstances appear.

Previously, a departmental officer could initiate an MI request on an applicant's behalf. Under the new instructions, this is no longer possible. The applicant or their authorised representative must identify and articulate the relevant criterion in the submission itself.

Section 417 of the Migration Act — which previously applied to protection visa decisions — has been repealed. However, the Minister can still exercise the s.351 power in cases where s.417 was previously enlivened by a review decision from a former tribunal.

The request must now expressly state which Section 13 criterion it relies on and provide all information relevant to assessing that criterion. A general submission arguing compassionate circumstances without anchoring to a specific criterion will not be referred.

The 17 September 2025 version amended the 4 September version by removing Clause 12.1.14 from the list of requests that are inappropriate to refer. This is a technical but important change that slightly expands the category of requests that can be referred.

The Minister has made a Personal Procedural Decision that he does not wish to consider these requests, unless the applicant falls within a specific PPD category or is listed in the annexure to the decision. Affected applicants will be notified individually.

These requests will be assessed against the new Section 13 criteria. If the request has been finalised under the PPD process, a new request can be lodged if the applicant meets the updated criteria.

All new requests are assessed against the 17 September 2025 Ministerial Instructions. The submission must identify the specific Section 13 criterion and provide all supporting evidence at first instance.

I have been preparing Ministerial Intervention submissions for over two decades. The September 2025 instructions represent the most significant structural change to this process in my professional experience.

Under the 2016 guidelines, a submission could succeed on the basis of compelling humanitarian circumstances that did not fit a specific category — the "unique or exceptional circumstances" test gave the Department latitude to refer cases that were genuinely meritorious even if they did not fit a neat box. That latitude is gone.

The practical consequence is that submissions must now be structured differently. The first question is no longer "what are the compelling circumstances?" — it is "which of the ten criteria does this case satisfy?" If the answer is none, the submission will fail at the first stage, regardless of how sympathetic the circumstances are.

This is not to say that the new criteria are narrow in every case. Criterion 9 — long-term residents who arrived as children — is potentially broad in application. Criterion 5 — character refusals with a protection finding — addresses a genuinely difficult intersection of law. But the submission must engage the criterion precisely, with evidence that directly addresses each element. General compassionate submissions will not succeed.

It depends on when the request was lodged. Requests lodged on or before 11 April 2023 will not be considered under the new instructions unless the applicant falls within a Personal Procedural Decision (PPD) or is listed in the annexure. Requests lodged from 12 April 2023 onwards will be assessed against the new criteria. If your request has been finalised under the PPD process, you can lodge a new request if you meet the Section 13 criteria.

No. The ten criteria in Section 13 are exhaustive under the new instructions. If your circumstances do not fit one of those criteria, your request will not be referred to the Minister. This is a fundamental change from the 2016 guidelines, which allowed referral based on 'unique or exceptional circumstances' more broadly. This is why it is critical to obtain legal advice before lodging — a poorly framed submission that does not engage a criterion will fail at the first stage.

If you depart Australia while your Ministerial Intervention request is pending, it will be finalised — unless the Minister has already made a personal decision to consider your case. Departure is treated as an indication that you no longer require the intervention. I strongly advise clients not to depart until they have received a definitive outcome.

No. Ministerial Intervention under s.351 and s.501J is only available after a decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) or the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). If the tribunal decision has been quashed by a court, or if the tribunal returned the case to the Department for a fresh decision, the Minister's power is not available.

You can only include family members in your request if they have also had a merits review tribunal decision in their own case. You cannot include a family member whose case has not been through the tribunal process.

There is no statutory timeframe. The Minister is not bound by any deadline and is not required to consider your request at all. Processing times vary significantly depending on the volume of requests and the complexity of the case. I have seen cases resolved in months and others that have taken considerably longer. The absence of a timeframe is one of the most difficult aspects of this process for clients to manage.

Section 351 applies to cases where a visa has been refused or cancelled for reasons other than character grounds — for example, partner visa refusals, protection visa refusals (following the repeal of s.417), and other merits review decisions. Section 501J applies specifically to cases where a visa has been refused or cancelled on character grounds under s.501 of the Migration Act. Both powers allow the Minister to substitute a more favourable decision if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so.

You are not legally required to have a lawyer, but I would strongly recommend it. The new instructions require the submission to identify the specific Section 13 criterion and provide all relevant supporting information at first instance. The Department will not request further information unless the criteria are met — which means a poorly prepared submission will fail without any opportunity to remedy it. The stakes are high, and the process is unforgiving of errors.