Fixing a Partner Visa Refusal

If you want to fix partner visa refusal problems, the first step is not a new application and it is not an angry letter. It is a diagnosis. Every refusal names one or more criteria that the delegate found were not met. The right way to fix partner visa refusal decisions depends entirely on which criterion failed and why. Some grounds are answered by new evidence. Some can only be answered after the circumstances change. Some are legal bars that no amount of evidence can move.

This guide explains how to work out which kind of refusal you have, and then which route fits it: review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), a new application, or both in sequence. It sets out the 28-day review deadline, the lawful status issues for couples in Australia, the section 48 bar, Schedule 3, and a ground-by-ground list of what usually has to change. It also explains why lodging again with the same evidence tends to repeat the same result, and why withdrawing a review can close options that cannot be reopened. The aim is to help you fix partner visa refusal problems in the right order, while every option is still open.

If your partner visa has just been refused, read our overview of partner visa refusal appeal options and next steps and check your review deadline today. My Migration Lawyers acts as partner visa refusal lawyers for ART reviews in Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 and Subclass 300 matters across Australia.

How do you fix partner visa refusal problems?

You fix partner visa refusal problems by matching the remedy to the reason. The decision record tells you which criterion failed. The evidence tells you whether that criterion can now be met. The law tells you which route is open to you. Only when all three are clear should a couple decide whether to seek review, reapply or do both.

In practice, the process to fix partner visa refusal decisions has four steps:

• Identify the refusal ground. Read the decision record and list every criterion the delegate found was not met, including minor ones.
• Classify the ground. Decide whether it can be fixed with new evidence, whether it needs a change in circumstances, or whether it is a legal bar.
• Choose the route. Decide whether Tribunal review, a new application, or review followed by a new application gives the couple a lawful path.
• Change what caused the refusal. Gather the evidence, correct the record, resolve the sponsorship or health issue, or obtain the documents that were missing.

A couple who skips the first two steps usually ends up choosing a route by instinct. That is how people try to fix partner visa refusal problems in the wrong order, for example by lodging a new onshore application that is invalid, or by letting the review deadline pass while they collect documents.

Our guide to why partner visas get refused explains the common reasons in more detail, and our article on the most common Subclass 820 refusal reasons covers the onshore visa specifically. This article goes one step further and explains how each reason is fixed.

Read the decision record first

The decision record is the single most important document when you set out to fix partner visa refusal decisions. It states the criteria that were not met, the evidence the delegate relied on and the reasons for the findings. It is not a summary of everything wrong with the application. It is a legal finding on specific criteria, and each finding needs its own answer.

When reading the decision record, look for:

• The criteria named. Partner visa refusals usually turn on a clause in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, a Schedule 3 criterion, a public interest criterion in Schedule 4, or the sponsorship rules.
• The findings of fact. Look for statements such as "the delegate is not satisfied that the applicant and sponsor have a mutual commitment to a shared life" or "the applicant has not provided a police certificate".
• The evidence relied on. Note any inconsistency the delegate identified between the forms, the relationship statement, interview answers and documents.
• Any adverse information. If the Department put information to the couple before refusing, read that letter again alongside the decision. Our guide to responding to a partner visa section 57 natural justice letter explains how that process works.
• The review rights paragraph. It states whether the decision is reviewable, who can apply and the time limit.

Many couples read only the conclusion. That is a mistake. A refusal may say the relationship was not genuine, but the reasoning may show that the real problem was one inconsistent date in the forms, or a gap in evidence of shared finances. Those are very different problems, and they lead to different ways to fix partner visa refusal outcomes.

If you cannot find the decision record, check your ImmiAccount and the email address used in the application. Our guide on how to create and use an ImmiAccount explains where correspondence is stored.

The relationship criteria the delegate applies

For relationship refusals, the delegate applies section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 for spouses and section 5CB for de facto partners. The question is whether the couple have a mutual commitment to a shared life as spouses or de facto partners to the exclusion of all others, whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, and whether they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

The delegate weighs four aspects of the relationship: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. These factors are set out in regulation 1.15A(3) for spouses and regulation 1.09A(3) for de facto partners. Our guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains each aspect. If the refusal turns on one aspect, the fix starts there.

The three types of refusal ground

Every partner visa refusal ground falls into one of three types: it can be fixed with new evidence, it can be fixed only after the circumstances change, or it is a legal bar. Classifying the ground correctly is the step that decides whether you can fix partner visa refusal problems at review, by reapplying later, or not through a partner visa at all.

Grounds that new evidence can fix

These are refusals where the criterion can be met today, but the delegate did not have the evidence to be satisfied. Common examples are:

• Insufficient relationship evidence. The relationship was genuine but the documents did not show it. See our guide to proving your relationship is genuine and our partner visa document checklist.
• A missing police certificate. The applicant has no criminal record, but a certificate was not provided in time.
• An incomplete health examination. The examination was not done, or the results were not finalised when the decision was made.
• A missing marriage certificate. The couple married, but the certificate was not before the delegate.
• Inconsistency that has an honest explanation. A date was wrong, or a statement was translated badly, and the couple can explain and correct it with evidence.

These are the refusals that are most often fixed at review, because the Tribunal considers the evidence available at the time of its decision, including evidence that was never before the delegate. For couples who want to fix partner visa refusal decisions of this type, review is usually the most direct lawful route, because the original application stays alive while the missing evidence is gathered.

Grounds that need a change in circumstances

These are refusals where the criterion could not be met at the time of decision, but it may be met later. Examples include:

• A sponsorship limitation. The sponsor previously sponsored a partner, or was sponsored as a partner, less than five years ago. Time passing can change this.
• A Subclass 300 refusal for intention to marry. The couple were not yet married. Marrying after the refusal can change the position.
• A de facto relationship that was too short. The couple had not been together long enough, and the relationship has continued since. Our article on whether you need 12 months of de facto relationship explains the rule and its exceptions.
• Health or character matters still being resolved. A medical condition is being treated, or court proceedings have ended.

The correct way to fix partner visa refusal grounds of this type depends on timing. Sometimes the change happens during the review, and the Tribunal can take it into account. Sometimes it only happens later, and a new application is the realistic path.

Grounds that are legal bars

These are refusals where the law prevents grant, whatever the evidence says. Examples include:

• Visa conditions or validity rules. An onshore application that was never valid, or a no further stay condition such as 8503 that was not waived. See our guide to applying with condition 8503.
• Schedule 3 where no compelling reasons exist. An unlawful applicant who cannot show compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria.
• A sponsor who is prohibited from sponsoring. For example, where sponsorship is refused under the child-protection rules.
• Public interest criterion 4020 non-grant periods. A prior refusal for false or misleading information can prevent grant for a period unless a waiver applies.

A legal bar does not always mean there is no way forward. Some bars have waivers. Some can be avoided by applying from outside Australia. But a legal bar cannot be fixed by sending more photographs. Couples who try to fix partner visa refusal problems of this type with more relationship evidence waste time, money and, sometimes, their review rights.

Does the visa type change how you fix partner visa refusal decisions?

Yes. The visa that was refused decides who can seek review, whether a new application is realistic and what happens to lawful status. The same refusal ground can call for a different route depending on whether the applicant is in Australia or overseas.

Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refused in Australia

The Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 are applied for together, so a refusal of the temporary stage usually means both are refused. The applicant can seek review only while physically present in Australia. For most onshore couples, review is the main way to fix partner visa refusal decisions, because it keeps the bridging visa in effect and avoids the section 48 and Schedule 3 problems that a new onshore application would face. Our guides to the Subclass 820 visa and to the difference between Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 explain how the two stages work.

Where the Subclass 801 permanent stage is refused after the Subclass 820 was granted, the review right and the 28-day deadline are the same. The effect of that refusal on the Subclass 820 and on lawful status must be checked immediately. The issues at the permanent stage are often about whether the relationship is still continuing.

Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 refused overseas

A Subclass 309 refusal can be reviewed, and the visa applicant is the person who applies. The Australian partner usually gives evidence. Because section 48 does not apply offshore, a new Subclass 309 application is often also available. The choice between the two routes turns on whether the refusal ground can be fixed with evidence now, and on whether keeping the original application date matters. A Subclass 100 refused while the applicant is outside Australia has no Tribunal review, so the realistic way to fix partner visa refusal decisions of that kind is generally a new application that answers the reason for refusal.

Subclass 300 refused

A Subclass 300 refusal is reviewed on the application of the Australian sponsor. The special rule about marriage after refusal makes review particularly important. If the couple marry before the review is finally determined and tell the Tribunal, the application is also taken to be a partner visa application if it is remitted. That can be a direct way to fix partner visa refusal decisions based on intention to marry, without a new application.

The 28-day deadline comes before any fix

The review deadline must be dealt with before anything else, because once it passes the Tribunal has no power to review the refusal. An application to the ART for review of a partner visa refusal must be made within 28 days after the day the applicant is notified of the decision. If the applicant is in immigration detention on the day of notification, the time limit is 7 days. These limits are set by section 347(3) of the Migration Act, and they cannot be extended.

The review fee must also be paid within the same 28 days, or a request for a fee reduction must be lodged with at least half the fee paid, for the application to be properly made. The fee is substantial and increases each 1 July. An application that is late, or unpaid, is not properly made and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it.

The 28 days run from the day after notification. Under section 494C, a decision sent by email is taken to be received at the end of the day it is sent. A decision sent by post is taken to be received 7 working days after the date of the letter. A decision handed over in person is received immediately. The practical point is that the clock may already be running before you read the letter.

That is why the first rule when you set out to fix partner visa refusal decisions is to protect the review right first, and then work on the evidence. A couple cannot fix partner visa refusal grounds at the Tribunal if the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Lodging a review does not commit a couple to running it to the end. Missing the deadline removes the option entirely.

Who lodges the review

Who can apply for review depends on the visa:

• Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refused in Australia. The visa applicant applies, and must be physically present in Australia when the review application is made.
• Subclass 309. The visa applicant applies. The Australian partner usually instructs, supports the review and gives evidence.
• Subclass 300. The Australian sponsor applies.
• Subclass 100 refused while the applicant is outside Australia. There is no ART review.

The firm's partner visa refusal review service covers each of these review pathways, and our general guide to what to expect from ART review after a visa refusal covers the Tribunal process. Where family members were refused together, a combined application for review generally attracts only one fee. The application should attach the decision notice if the applicant has it.

How to fix partner visa refusal decisions through ART review

Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal is the main way to fix partner visa refusal decisions while the original application is still alive. The ART replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. It does not simply check whether the delegate made an error. It stands in the shoes of the delegate and decides the application again, on the evidence before it at the time of its own decision.

That has three practical consequences for couples:

• New evidence counts. The Tribunal can consider documents and oral evidence that were never given to the Department. A missing police certificate, a finalised health examination or stronger relationship evidence can be provided during the review.
• Time keeps running in your favour on some criteria. Where a criterion depends on time, such as a five-year sponsorship limitation, the position at the time of the Tribunal's decision may be different from the position at the time of refusal.
• The original application is preserved. The couple keep their original lodgement, the original application date and, for onshore applicants, the bridging visa that came with it.

What the Tribunal can do

On review of a partner visa refusal, the Tribunal can affirm the decision, vary it, set it aside and substitute a new decision, or set it aside and remit the application to the Department with a direction that a specified criterion is taken to be satisfied. Remittal is the most common favourable outcome in partner visa reviews, and it is often how couples fix partner visa refusal decisions without starting again. On remittal, the Department must reassess the remaining criteria, and it is bound by the Tribunal's finding on the criterion that was remitted.

The Minister is a non-participating party, and the Department generally does not appear at the hearing. The applicant can ask for access to the documents the Department gave the Tribunal under section 362A, and that request should be made early. The Tribunal must give its decision with written reasons, and must notify the decision within 14 days of making it.

If the applicant does not attend a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application. Reinstatement must be sought within 28 days after notice of the dismissal. A dismissal for non-attendance is an avoidable way to lose the chance to fix partner visa refusal decisions, so the hearing date must be treated as fixed.

After an unfavourable Tribunal decision, the Minister has a personal power under section 351 to substitute a more favourable decision in the public interest. That power is discretionary and is not a substitute for preparing the review properly.

Lawful status while the review runs

For onshore applicants, review is usually also the way to stay lawful. A Bridging A visa granted with a partner visa application made on or after 19 November 2016 generally ceases 35 days after the refusal if no review is lodged. If a review is lodged in time, the bridging visa continues and generally ceases 35 days after the Tribunal's decision, or remains in effect if the application is remitted. The same 35-day pattern applies to Bridging B and Bridging C visas.

That is a major reason why Tribunal review is often the right first step to fix partner visa refusal decisions made in Australia. A couple who can stay together lawfully in Australia while they fix partner visa refusal grounds is in a far stronger position than a couple forced apart. Our guides to the Bridging A visa, the Bridging B visa for travel and bridging visas in Australia generally explain the conditions. Our article on work rights on a bridging visa while waiting for a Subclass 820 covers work conditions.

When review is the right route

Review is usually the right way to fix partner visa refusal decisions when:

• the refusal ground can be answered by evidence that exists now or will exist before the hearing;
• the applicant is in Australia and needs to keep lawful status;
• a new onshore application would be blocked or made harder by section 48 or Schedule 3;
• the original application date matters, for example because of a time-based criterion or because a later application would face new rules; or
• the couple want the Tribunal's finding on a criterion to bind the Department on remittal.

Our guide to visa appeal lawyers and what they do explains how a review is prepared. The firm's visa refusal appeal lawyers act in reviews across visa types.

Can you reapply instead of appealing?

Yes, in some cases, but whether a new application is open depends on where the applicant is and which visa was refused. Reapplying is a real way to fix partner visa refusal outcomes for many offshore applicants. For onshore applicants, it is generally much harder, and sometimes not possible at all. Before anyone tries to fix partner visa refusal decisions by reapplying, the validity of the new application must be checked.

Reapplying from outside Australia

An applicant who is outside Australia can usually lodge a fresh Subclass 309 or Subclass 300 application after a refusal. Section 48 does not apply to an application made outside Australia. The new application needs a new visa application charge, a new sponsorship, and evidence that answers the reason the earlier application was refused. For many offshore couples, a new application is a practical way to fix partner visa refusal outcomes, provided the cause of the refusal has been dealt with first.

A couple who reapply offshore should still consider whether the review right is worth keeping open, because a new application starts again from the beginning and the Department will see the earlier refusal. See our guides to the Subclass 309 partner visa and the Subclass 300 prospective marriage visa.

Reapplying in Australia: the section 48 bar

An applicant who is in Australia, does not hold a substantive visa, and has had a visa refused since last entering Australia is generally subject to section 48 of the Migration Act. Section 48 limits the visas such a person can apply for while in Australia to the classes prescribed in regulation 2.12. Partner visas are among them, so a person subject to section 48 may apply for a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visa. But extra validity requirements apply.

Under item 1124B of Schedule 1, a person to whom section 48 applies must provide, at the time of making the application:

• A sponsorship form. The approved sponsorship form completed and signed by the sponsoring spouse or de facto partner.
• Two statutory declarations. Each made by an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is not the partner, declaring that the couple are in a married or de facto relationship, and declared no more than 6 weeks before the application is made.

This is the one situation in partner visa law where statutory declarations, rather than Form 888 supporting statements, are a legal requirement. An application that does not meet these requirements is invalid. Our guide to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains section 48 in more detail.

There is also a separate rule for people who already hold a temporary partner visa. If the applicant holds a Subclass 820 or Subclass 309 visa and applies for the Subclass 801, they must not have had a partner visa refused in the 21 days immediately before making that application, unless they meet the section 48 requirements. The aim is to stop serial applications.

Schedule 3 for applicants without a substantive visa

Even where a new onshore application is valid, an applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application generally has to meet the Schedule 3 criteria, or show compelling reasons for not applying them. Criterion 3001 generally requires the application to be made within a set period after the applicant last held a substantive visa. Criteria 3003 and 3004 deal with other aspects of unlawful status.

For partner visas, the Schedule 3 criteria can be waived if there are compelling reasons. The Department's policy is that a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation are generally not, on their own, compelling reasons, because a genuine relationship is the basis of every partner visa. Our guides to Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explain the test, and the firm's Schedule 3 waiver lawyers act in these matters.

The practical result is that a couple in Australia who try to fix partner visa refusal decisions by simply lodging a new onshore application may face section 48, item 1124B, a no further stay condition and Schedule 3 all at once. That is rarely a better position than a properly prepared review.

Can you appeal and reapply in sequence?

Yes, some couples use review and a new application one after the other. The usual sequence is to lodge the review within 28 days to protect lawful status and the original application, and then decide, once the evidence is gathered, whether the review is the strongest path or whether a new application would be better.

Common sequences include:

• Review first, new application only if needed. The review is run on the evidence available. If the refusal is affirmed, the couple then consider whether a new application is possible and whether the problem has since been fixed.
• Review while waiting for a change. A sponsorship limitation period may expire, a marriage may take place, or a health issue may be resolved during the review. The review keeps the original application alive until the change happens.
• Offshore review and offshore reapplication considered together. For a Subclass 309 refusal, the applicant may weigh a review against a new offshore application. Whether both can run together, and how the Department treats a second application while review is pending, should be checked on the facts before lodging.

The key point is that review and reapplication are not always alternatives. Used in the right order, they can give a couple two chances to fix partner visa refusal problems. Used in the wrong order, the first step can close the second. The safest way to fix partner visa refusal problems in sequence is to decide the order before the 28 days end. Our guide to partner visa refusal appeal options compares the choices.

Why reapplying with the same evidence repeats the refusal

A new application with the same evidence is likely to be refused for the same reason, because the decision maker applies the same criteria to the same material. The new decision maker will also see the earlier refusal, the earlier forms and the earlier relationship statement. Any inconsistency between the two applications becomes a new problem.

This is the most common mistake people make when they try to fix partner visa refusal decisions on their own. They assume the first delegate was unreasonable, lodge the same package again, and hope for a different officer. The refusal was not about the officer. It was about the evidence measured against a criterion. Unless the evidence changes, the result usually does not change. To fix partner visa refusal grounds through a new application, the new application must be stronger on exactly the point that failed.

What has to change depends on the ground:

• For a genuineness refusal, the couple must address the specific concerns, not add volume. If the delegate doubted the commitment aspect, more photographs of holidays do not help. Evidence of shared plans, joint responsibilities and long-term commitment may.
• For an insufficient evidence refusal, the gaps identified in the decision must be filled. Our Subclass 820 evidence checklist and guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship show what each aspect needs.
• For an inconsistency refusal, the inconsistency must be explained honestly and corrected, with documents where possible. Repeating the same error is worse than the first time.

Common myths about how to fix a partner visa refusal

Several common beliefs lead couples to the wrong route when they try to fix partner visa refusal decisions. Each of these is wrong.

"We can just lodge again and get a different officer"

This is wrong. A new application is assessed against the same criteria, and the new decision maker will see the earlier refusal and the earlier evidence. If nothing has changed, the most likely result is the same refusal. People who fix partner visa refusal problems successfully change the evidence or the circumstances first.

"The Tribunal only looks at what the Department had"

This is wrong. The Tribunal decides the application again on the evidence before it at the time of review, including new evidence. That is why many non-relationship refusals are resolved at review when the missing documents are finally provided.

"We have plenty of time because we are still collecting documents"

This is wrong. The 28-day review deadline runs from notification, not from when the evidence is ready. The review application must be made and the fee paid within that period. Evidence can be provided later in the review. The review application cannot.

"A partner visa refusal means we can never apply again"

This is wrong as a general statement. Many couples can apply again, especially from outside Australia. But some refusals carry consequences, such as section 48 for onshore applicants and the non-grant periods that follow a public interest criterion 4020 refusal. The way to fix partner visa refusal problems of that kind is to understand the consequence first.

"More statements from friends will fix it"

This is only partly right. Form 888 supporting statements from people who genuinely know the couple can help, and our guides to what a Form 888 should say and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain how. But Form 888 statements do not fix a missing police certificate, a sponsorship limitation or a Schedule 3 problem.

Refusal ground by ground: how to fix each one

The fix for each refusal ground is different, and the list below sets out what usually has to change for the most common grounds. Use it to work out whether you can fix partner visa refusal problems with evidence, with time, or only through a different route. It is a general guide, not advice on any particular case. The way to fix partner visa refusal decisions in an individual matter depends on the decision record, the evidence and the route that is legally open.

• Genuine and continuing relationship. The fix is evidence that answers the delegate's specific doubts across the four aspects, and a consistent account from both partners. The couple's own relationship statement should be reviewed against the forms and documents, and the couple should correct and confirm any errors in their own words. Our guide to writing a partner visa relationship statement explains what a strong statement covers. At review, oral evidence from both partners and from witnesses is often decisive.
• Insufficient evidence. The fix is to fill the specific gaps in the decision record with documents that show the relationship over time, such as joint leases, joint accounts, shared bills, correspondence and evidence of being known as a couple. Volume is not the fix. Relevance is.
• Schedule 3. The fix is evidence of compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria, focused on circumstances beyond the applicant's control and on the effect of refusal on the Australian partner and any Australian citizen children. If no compelling reasons exist, the realistic fix may be an application from outside Australia.
• Public interest criterion 4020. The fix starts with understanding exactly what the delegate found to be false or misleading, or bogus. If the finding is wrong, the review must show that the information was not false or misleading in a material particular, or that the document was not bogus. If the finding is right, the question becomes whether a waiver can apply because of compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. There is no waiver for the identity requirements in public interest criterion 4020(2A) and (2B).
• Sponsorship limitation. The fix is either time or compelling circumstances. Under regulation 1.20J, a sponsor can generally sponsor no more than two partners, and cannot sponsor again within five years of an earlier sponsorship or of their own sponsored application. The five years are measured to the date of the sponsorship decision, so the limitation may expire during a review. Compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor can also justify approval. See our guide to partner visa sponsorship limitations and the firm's sponsorship limitation lawyers.
• Health. The fix is to complete the required examinations and have the results finalised, or to provide medical evidence that answers the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth's opinion. Where a waiver is available for the visa concerned, evidence relevant to the waiver may also be needed.
• Character and police certificates. The fix for a missing certificate is to obtain every required police certificate from every relevant country and provide it. The fix for a recorded conviction is a full and honest account, with court documents and evidence relevant to the character assessment.
• Subclass 300 intention to marry. The fix is evidence of a genuine intention to marry within the visa period and to live together as spouses, such as a Notice of Intended Marriage and consistent evidence of plans. If the couple marry after the refusal and before the review is finally determined, and notify the Tribunal, the application is taken also to be a partner visa application if it is remitted.
• Debts to the Commonwealth. Where a refusal relates to public interest criterion 4004, the fix is usually to repay the debt or make an arrangement to repay it that the decision maker accepts.

Many refusals rest on more than one ground. To fix partner visa refusal decisions of that kind, every ground must be answered, because one unanswered criterion is enough for the refusal to stand. If you are not sure which ground applies, our guide to getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explains what a review of the decision record involves.

What must change before any reapplication

Before any new partner visa application is lodged after a refusal, the cause of the refusal must be dealt with. Otherwise the second application inherits the first application's problem, plus the refusal itself. Couples who want to fix partner visa refusal outcomes by reapplying should check each of the following. If any item cannot be answered yet, it is usually too early to lodge.

Evidence

The evidence must answer the criterion that failed. That means reading the decision record, listing every concern, and making sure each one is addressed by documents or statements that did not exist, or were not provided, the first time. Our partner visa document checklist is a starting point, not a complete answer.

Honesty corrections

If anything in the earlier application was wrong, it must be corrected openly, not quietly changed. A second application that gives a different relationship start date, a different address history or a different account of a previous relationship, without explanation, invites a public interest criterion 4020 finding. The forms must be checked line by line. Our guide to completing Form 80 without errors explains why consistency across forms matters. Changes that happened after lodgement should be notified, and our guide to Form 1022 change of circumstances explains when.

Sponsorship eligibility

The sponsor must be eligible at the time of decision. If the refusal was based on a sponsorship limitation, check whether five years have passed or whether compelling circumstances can now be shown. If the sponsor has a relevant criminal record, check whether the sponsorship rules for sponsors of concern apply. The firm's partner visa lawyers review sponsor eligibility before any application is lodged.

Health documents

Health examinations must be complete and current. If the refusal followed a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth opinion, the new application should include medical evidence that addresses that opinion directly.

Character documents

Police certificates must be obtained for every country required, and must still be valid when the application is decided. Missing certificates are one of the most avoidable reasons couples need to fix partner visa refusal decisions in the first place. Where a certificate takes months to obtain, the review often gives the time needed to fix partner visa refusal grounds of this kind.

The route itself

For an onshore applicant, check section 48, item 1124B, any no further stay condition and Schedule 3 before lodging. For an offshore applicant, check whether the review right should be kept open while the new application is prepared. Our guide on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explains some of the validity issues for visitors.

The risks of withdrawing a review

Withdrawing a Tribunal review ends the review, and the refusal then stands. Once the 28-day period has passed, a new review application for the same decision cannot be made. Withdrawal is therefore a decision that generally cannot be undone. A couple who withdraw in the hope of a quicker result can lose the one forum in which they could fix partner visa refusal grounds with new evidence.

For onshore applicants, withdrawal also affects lawful status. The bridging visa that continued because of the review will generally cease after the review ends, and the applicant may then need another visa or may become unlawful. A person in that position may then face section 48 and Schedule 3 if they try to apply again in Australia.

Couples sometimes withdraw because they believe a new application will be quicker, or because a friend told them the review would fail. That can be a serious mistake. Before withdrawing, a couple who want to fix partner visa refusal problems should confirm:

• whether a new application is valid where the applicant is;
• whether the applicant will remain lawful after withdrawal;
• whether the refusal ground has actually been fixed; and
• whether anything about the refusal, such as a public interest criterion 4020 finding, will follow them into the new application.

If a relationship has ended during the review, the issues are different again. Our guide to what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains the special provisions, and the firm's family violence partner visa lawyers act where those provisions apply.

What Tribunal decisions show about fixing partner visa refusals

Published Tribunal decisions show that many partner visa refusals are set aside and remitted once the missing evidence is provided or the circumstances have changed. The decisions below are drawn from reported remittals. In each case, the Tribunal set aside the refusal and sent the matter back to the Department. They are described only by what the published headnote records, and no outcome in one case predicts the outcome in another.

Police certificates provided at review:

• Takemanu (Migration) [2023] AATA 936. A Subclass 820 matter in which the Tribunal received a national police clearance certificate from Papua New Guinea.
• Collier (Migration) [2023] AATA 1840. A Subclass 820 matter involving criminal history, in which an Australian National Police Certificate and a Canadian National Criminal Records certificate were provided upon review.
• Goh (Migration) [2022] AATA 4903. A Subclass 820 matter in which a police certificate of good conduct issued by the government of Malaysia was provided, in the context of public interest criterion 4001.

Health requirements cleared at review:

• Freeland (Migration) [2024] AATA 1083. A Subclass 820 matter in which evidence of the required examination was provided to the Tribunal and the decision was made without a hearing.
• Dayao (Migration) [2023] AATA 1900. A Subclass 820 matter in which the Department's records showed the health requirements had been finalised and the applicant was auto-cleared.
• 1923768 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3910. A Subclass 309 matter in which a further Medical Officer of the Commonwealth opinion was provided and the visa applicant was found to satisfy the health criteria.

Marriage certificates provided:

• Sage (Migration) [2019] AATA 4230. A Subclass 300 matter in which the couple validly married after the refusal, notified the Tribunal before the review was determined, and provided a marriage certificate.
• Abdulwahed (Migration) [2020] AATA 6096. A Subclass 309 matter in which a copy of the marriage certificate was provided and the Tribunal found the parties were validly married and in a genuine spousal relationship.

Sponsorship limitation passed or waived:

• Ba (Migration) [2021] AATA 1251. A Subclass 820 matter in which the five-year sponsorship limitation had expired.
• Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743. A Subclass 309 matter in which five years had not lapsed since the earlier application but elapsed during the review process.
• ZHANG (Migration) [2024] ARTA 113. A Subclass 820 matter in which compelling circumstances were found for the sponsorship limitation, involving significant health issues and a long-standing dependent relationship.

Identity and Schedule 3:

• Chea (Migration) [2021] AATA 2824. A Subclass 309 matter in which identity documents and evidence were provided and the Tribunal was satisfied as to the applicant's identity under public interest criterion 4020(2A).
• ZOHAIB (Migration) [2020] AATA 3208. A Subclass 820 matter in which there was an Australian citizen child of the relationship, compelling reasons were found and the Schedule 3 requirements were waived.

The pattern is consistent with the framework in this guide, and it shows how couples were able to fix partner visa refusal grounds at review rather than by starting again. Where the ground could be fixed with evidence or by a change in circumstances, the review was the vehicle that fixed it. These decisions are illustrations, not predictions, and every review depends on its own facts.

How My Migration Lawyers helps couples fix partner visa refusal decisions

My Migration Lawyers helps couples fix partner visa refusal decisions by diagnosing the refusal ground first and then choosing the route that the law and the evidence support. The question the firm asks first is not whether to appeal, but what it will take to fix partner visa refusal grounds in this particular decision. The firm deals with complex refusal matters, including relationship refusals, Schedule 3 refusals, section 48 cases, public interest criterion 4020 findings, sponsorship limitations, health and character refusals and Subclass 300 refusals. The firm acts in many partner visa refusal matters of this exact type and is capable of handling them.

Our work on a partner visa refusal follows clear steps:

• Deadline and status check. We confirm the date of notification, calculate the review deadline, identify who must lodge and, for onshore applicants, confirm the bridging visa position. If review is the right first step, we lodge it within the 28 days.
• Decision record diagnosis. We read the decision record line by line, list every criterion that was not met, and classify each ground as fixable with evidence, dependent on a change in circumstances, or a legal bar.
• Route advice. We advise whether Tribunal review, a new application, or both in sequence gives the couple a lawful path, taking into account section 48, item 1124B, any no further stay condition, Schedule 3 and public interest criterion 4020.
• Document access. For a review, we request the Department's documents early so that we work from the same record the Tribunal has.
• Evidence and statements. We review the couple's own relationship statement against the forms and documents, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and ask the couple to correct and confirm their own account. We check Form 888 supporting statements, police certificates, health results, marriage certificates and sponsorship documents.
• Legal submissions. We prepare written submissions that address each criterion in issue and the evidence that meets it, and we decide which legal arguments are run.
• Hearing preparation. We prepare both partners and any witnesses for the hearing and attend with them.
• After the decision. If the matter is remitted, we deal with the Department on the remaining criteria. If it is not, we advise on what options remain.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, see how the firm approaches partner visa lawyer work in Australia, and read our guide on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. Our articles on partner visa lawyer help versus doing it yourself, the roles of a partner visa migration agent or lawyer and hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explain what professional help involves. If you already have a representative and want to move, our guide on how to change your immigration lawyer and our explanation of Form 956 and Form 956A set out the steps. For a time-critical refusal, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare.

My Migration Lawyers acts for couples across Australia by video consultation, including clients of our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. The firm also acts as immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

The firm does not treat every refusal as an appeal. Sometimes the honest advice is that the way to fix partner visa refusal problems is a new application from outside Australia, or a wait until a sponsorship limitation ends. Every refusal is different, and no lawyer can promise the outcome of a review or a new application. What My Migration Lawyers can do is identify why the refusal happened, tell you honestly whether it can be fixed and how, and make sure the route you take is lawful and on time.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your refusal decision reviewed and your options explained. You can also call us on 1300 040 300.