Partner Visa After Protection Visa Refusal

A partner visa after protection visa refusal is a real option for many people in Australia. If your Subclass 866 protection visa was refused, and you are now in a genuine relationship with an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, the refusal does not automatically close the partner pathway.

The rules are strict, however. A partner visa after protection visa refusal must get past four separate legal hurdles: section 48A, section 48, your bridging visa status and the Schedule 3 criteria. The Department will also read your protection file next to your partner application. Anything you said about your marriage, your relationships, your family or your dates of travel will be compared.

This guide explains each hurdle in a partner visa after protection visa refusal in plain English. It is written for people whose protection visa was refused by the Department of Home Affairs, or whose refusal was affirmed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), and who now want to know whether a partner visa is available. It covers when to lodge, what to do about a pending review, and how the Department assesses a relationship that began after a refusal. For the full overview of every partner visa subclass, see our complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

Can you apply for a partner visa after a protection visa refusal?

Yes, you can usually apply for a partner visa after a protection visa refusal, because the statutory bar that follows a protection refusal applies only to further protection visa applications. The partner visa is a different class of visa with its own rules.

That answer comes with three conditions. First, the onshore application must meet extra validity requirements because section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 will usually apply to you. Second, because you will usually hold only a bridging visa, you will generally need to satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria or show compelling reasons for not applying them. Third, the relationship must be genuine and continuing, and it will be assessed against everything already on your immigration record.

The onshore partner visa is one combined application for the temporary Subclass 820 visa and the permanent Subclass 801 visa. The Department assesses the Subclass 820 first and the Subclass 801 generally about two years after lodgement. Our Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 guide explains how the two stages fit together.

Who this article is for

This article is about the protection-to-partner pathway specifically. If your earlier refusal was a student, visitor or skilled visa, our general guide to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal is the better starting point. If you are still preparing or defending a protection claim, our Subclass 866 protection visa page and our protection visa lawyers page explain that process.

Section 48A: what it stops and what it does not stop

Section 48A of the Migration Act 1958 stops a person whose protection visa application has been refused, or whose protection visa has been cancelled, from making a further protection visa application while they remain in the migration zone. It does not stop a partner visa after protection visa refusal.

Since the 2014 amendments, the section 48A bar applies on any grounds. A person cannot lodge a second protection application on a new ground, such as complementary protection, after a refusal on the refugee ground. The only exception is a personal, non-compellable decision by the Minister under section 48B to allow a further protection application. Requests of that kind are discretionary and are not a planning tool.

For a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the important point is the narrow scope of section 48A. It speaks only about protection visas. It says nothing about partner visas. A person barred by section 48A may still make a valid application for a partner visa after protection visa refusal, provided the other validity requirements are met.

Why many people misunderstand section 48A

People often hear "you cannot apply again" after a protection refusal and assume that means every visa. That assumption causes harm. Some people leave Australia when they did not need to. Others wait, become unlawful, and lose options that were open to them. Our article on what happens after a Subclass 866 protection visa is rejected explains the protection side of that position, and our page on protection visa refusals explains the review options.

Section 48 and the partner visa after protection visa refusal

Section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 applies to a person who is in the migration zone, does not hold a substantive visa, and has had a visa refused or cancelled since they last entered Australia. A person refused a protection visa onshore, and now on a bridging visa, will almost always be caught by section 48.

Section 48 limits the visa classes that person can apply for in Australia. The permitted classes are prescribed in regulation 2.12 of the Migration Regulations 1994. They include the Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, which is the Subclass 820, and the Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa, which is the Subclass 801. That is why a partner visa after protection visa refusal remains legally possible even though most other onshore visas are closed.

Extra validity requirements for applicants caught by section 48

Applicants caught by section 48 must meet a higher threshold to make a valid combined application. Under Schedule 1 item 1124B of the Migration Regulations 1994, as explained in the Department's procedural instructions:

• The applicant must not have had a partner visa refused since they last entered Australia.
• The sponsorship for a partner to migrate to Australia must be completed and signed by the Australian partner and provided at the same time as the application is made. For other applicants, the sponsorship can follow later. For a person caught by section 48, it cannot.
• Two statutory declarations must be provided with the application. Each must be made by an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is not the partner, must declare that the couple are in a married or de facto relationship, and must have been made within the short period before lodgement that the regulations specify.

These are validity requirements. If any one of them is missing, the application is invalid. An invalid application does not attract a bridging visa and gives no protection against becoming unlawful. This is the most common technical failure in a partner visa after protection visa refusal, and it is entirely avoidable. Elsewhere in partner visa matters, supporting witnesses use Form 888. The two section 48 declarations are a separate legal requirement for this situation, and the Form 888 statements described in our guide to Form 888 for a partner visa do not replace them.

Travel does not reset section 48

A person cannot escape section 48 by travelling on a bridging visa. Subsection 48(3) treats a person who leaves and re-enters Australia on a bridging visa as having been continuously in the migration zone. Most people considering a partner visa after protection visa refusal cannot travel lawfully in any event, and leaving Australia has other consequences discussed below. Our article on the Bridging Visa B explains how travel on a bridging visa works generally.

Your visa status after a protection visa refusal

Most people considering a partner visa after protection visa refusal hold a bridging visa, not a substantive visa, and that single fact shapes the whole application. A substantive visa is any visa other than a bridging visa, a criminal justice visa or an enforcement visa. A protection visa applicant who lodged while holding a student or visitor visa usually now holds only a bridging visa, because the student or visitor visa has expired.

Bridging Visa A during the protection matter

A person who held a substantive visa when they lodged the protection application was usually granted a Bridging Visa A. That Bridging Visa A generally stays in effect while the Department decides the protection application and while any ART review is pending. It ceases after a set period once the review is finally determined or withdrawn. Our article on the protection visa bridging visa and our guide to bridging visas in Australia explain those rules.

Bridging Visa E after the protection matter is finalised

A person whose protection review has ended may need a Bridging Visa E to remain lawful while a partner visa after protection visa refusal is prepared or decided. The Department's instructions describe the Bridging Visa E (Subclass 050) as available for specific purposes, including to make arrangements to leave Australia, to await the final determination of a substantive visa application made in Australia, to seek merits or judicial review, or to request Ministerial intervention. A separate Bridging Visa E (Subclass 051) applies to certain protection visa applicants. A Bridging Visa E can carry restrictive conditions, including conditions that stop work or require reporting.

Why your status on the day of lodgement matters

Your status on the day you lodge decides two things. It decides whether Schedule 3 applies, and it decides which bridging visa, if any, you receive with the partner application. A person who lodges while still lawful on a Bridging Visa A is in a different position from a person who lodges after their bridging visa has ceased and they have become unlawful. The VEVO record and grant notices show the current position, and My Migration Lawyers obtains and checks that record itself before advising on a partner visa after protection visa refusal. Our article on working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa explains how the bridging visa granted with a partner application usually works.

Partner visa after protection visa refusal: the pathway at a glance

A partner visa after protection visa refusal follows a predictable sequence of checks, and getting the order right avoids most problems. In practical terms, the questions are asked in this order:

• Is there any bar to a valid application? This means section 48 requirements, any earlier partner visa refusal since last entry, and any no further stay condition on a visa held since last entry.
• What is the applicant's status today, and what will it be on the day of lodgement?
• Does Schedule 3 apply, and if so, what are the compelling reasons for not applying it?
• Is the relationship genuine and continuing, and is it supported by evidence across the four aspects the Department assesses?
• Is everything in the partner application consistent with the protection claim, the protection interview, the ART hearing and earlier visa applications?
• What happens to the protection review, judicial review or any Ministerial request while the partner visa is processed?

Each of these questions about a partner visa after protection visa refusal is covered below. A couple who works through them before lodging a partner visa after protection visa refusal is far less likely to receive a refusal that could have been avoided.

Why Schedule 3 usually applies to a partner visa after protection visa refusal

Schedule 3 usually applies to a partner visa after protection visa refusal because the applicant does not hold a substantive visa when the application is made. Under subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994, an applicant who is not the holder of a substantive visa must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

In general terms, the three criteria work as follows:

• Criterion 3001 is a timing rule. It looks at when the application was made, measured from when the applicant last held a substantive visa or last became unlawful.
• Criterion 3003 applies to applicants who are not unlawful in the relevant sense. It looks at matters such as lawful entry, substantial compliance with the conditions of the last substantive visa, and whether the applicant would have been entitled to the visa if they had applied when their last substantive visa ended.
• Criterion 3004 applies to applicants who became unlawful. It looks at whether that happened because of factors beyond their control, and whether there are compelling reasons for granting the visa.

Most people refused a protection visa cannot meet criterion 3001, because the protection process usually takes a long time and their last substantive visa ended well before the partner application. That is why the compelling reasons waiver is the real battleground in almost every partner visa after protection visa refusal. Our Schedule 3 waiver page and our article on the Schedule 3 criteria for partner visa applicants who are unlawful explain each criterion in more detail.

What compelling reasons mean in practice

Compelling reasons are not defined in the Act or the Regulations. The decision maker must consider all of the applicant's circumstances known up to the time of decision and decide whether any one or more of them is compelling. The Full Federal Court confirmed this approach in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32.

For a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the Department's policy is direct about what it does not usually accept. It states that, as a general rule, a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation if the applicant had to leave and apply offshore are not, by themselves, compelling reasons. Every partner visa is based on a genuine relationship, so the relationship alone does not set the case apart. The policy also says the waiver is not intended to advantage people who failed to comply with visa conditions, who deliberately manipulated their circumstances, or who could leave Australia and apply offshore.

The policy accepts that compelling reasons are more likely to exist where circumstances beyond the applicant's control led to their status or prevented them from regularising it. Every case is assessed on its facts. Policy guides the delegate but is not law, and the ART reviews the question afresh.

Factors that are often relevant

In a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the factors commonly put forward include:

• An Australian citizen child of the relationship, and the child's best interests.
• The Australian partner's health, caring responsibilities, employment or other ties that make relocation genuinely difficult.
• Pregnancy, or medical needs of the applicant or partner that require continuity of care in Australia.
• The length, stability and depth of the relationship, supported by evidence rather than assertion.
• The circumstances in which the applicant came to be without a substantive visa, including that they pursued a protection claim through lawful processes rather than overstaying.
• The practical consequences of departure, including whether the applicant could realistically lodge an offshore application and the effect on the Australian family.

Not all of these will apply in any one partner visa after protection visa refusal. Our article on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explains how the compelling reasons case is presented, with evidence for each point.

What the Tribunal has looked at in Schedule 3 compelling reasons cases

The ART, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it, has set aside Subclass 820 refusals and remitted them to the Department in matters where compelling reasons for not applying Schedule 3 were in issue. The decisions below are described only by the issues recorded for them. None is presented as a protection-to-partner case, and each was decided on its own facts.

• In Sandhu (Migration) [2018] AATA 1483, a Subclass 820 matter, the issue was whether compelling reasons existed for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria, with the length of the relationship and the difficulty of relocating offshore while the application was processed among the matters considered.
• In Naidu (Migration) [2023] AATA 1830, a Subclass 820 matter remitted from the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the issues included compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, a child born of the relationship and a long-standing relationship.
• In D'Angeli (Migration) [2019] AATA 3676, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues included compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, whether the relationship was entered into for the purpose of gaining a migration outcome, and the impact of separation on the Australian spouse.
• In 1731993 (Migration) [2020] AATA 4270, a Subclass 820 matter, the issues included that the applicant held no substantive visa at the time of application, compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, previous visa applications and a genuine and longstanding de facto relationship.

These decisions show the questions a decision maker asks. They do not predict the result of any other case. For a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the D'Angeli issue line is particularly relevant: where a relationship develops while a person has limited migration options, the decision maker may ask whether it was entered into to gain a migration outcome. The evidence must answer that question directly. Our page on partner visa refusals explains how the firm approaches a refused Schedule 3 case at the ART.

Timing: lodging during an ART review or judicial review, or after

A partner visa after protection visa refusal can generally be lodged while an ART review or judicial review of the protection decision is still pending, and it can also be lodged after those processes end. The right timing depends on the applicant's bridging visa, the strength of the protection review, the state of the relationship evidence, and the risk of becoming unlawful.

Lodging while the ART review is pending

Section 48 applies once the Department refuses the protection visa and the applicant holds no substantive visa. It does not wait for the ART. That means the section 48 validity requirements apply to a partner application lodged during the review, as they would after it. The advantage of lodging during the review is that the applicant is usually still lawful on a Bridging Visa A. Lodging while lawful can reduce compliance risk and may help the Schedule 3 position, because the applicant has not been unlawful in the meantime. Our article on what to expect in an ART review after a visa refusal and our guide to the Subclass 866 ART review explain the review stage.

Running a protection review and a partner visa after protection visa refusal at the same time also has costs. The applicant will be giving evidence in the protection review about fear of harm on return, while the partner application builds a life in Australia with a sponsor. The two accounts must be consistent and both must be true. The ART will have the Department's file, and the Department will have the ART's decision.

Lodging after the ART affirms the refusal

If the ART affirms the protection refusal, the Bridging Visa A from the protection application will cease after a set period. A partner application lodged before it ceases is lodged while the applicant is still lawful. A partner application lodged after it ceases is lodged by an unlawful non-citizen, which brings criterion 3004 into play and increases compliance and detention risk. Review deadlines are short and strictly applied, and the bridging visa cessation date should be identified on the day the ART decision is received. Our article on protection visa refusal ART review explains the decision stage.

Lodging while judicial review is pending

Some people considering a partner visa after protection visa refusal also seek judicial review of an ART decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Judicial review is limited to legal error. It is not a rehearing of the protection claim. A person pursuing judicial review may hold a Bridging Visa E connected to that application, often with restrictive conditions. A partner visa after protection visa refusal can generally be lodged during that period, but the bridging visa position must be checked closely. Our judicial review page explains when judicial review is available.

Should you withdraw a protection review to pursue a partner visa?

Nobody should withdraw a protection review, or discontinue judicial review, before obtaining legal advice on the specific facts. A withdrawal ends the review. It can bring forward the end of the bridging visa connected to it. It does not reopen the protection pathway, because section 48A still applies. It can also affect any later request for Ministerial intervention.

On the other hand, there are cases where continuing a review that has no realistic prospect creates problems of its own, including credibility problems if the protection evidence and the partner evidence pull in different directions. The decision is a legal one with permanent consequences. My Migration Lawyers does not treat it as a formality, and this article does not recommend either course.

Credibility crossover between the protection claim and the partner application

The Department can compare everything in your protection file with your partner application, and inconsistencies about marital status, relationships, family and dates are one of the most serious risks in a partner visa after protection visa refusal. Protection applications contain detailed personal information. The protection interview and any ART hearing add more. All of it remains on the record.

What gets compared

Statements that are commonly compared include:

• Marital status. A protection claim may state that the applicant was single, married overseas, separated or widowed. The partner application must be consistent, or the difference must be explained with evidence.
• Previous relationships and children. Earlier spouses, partners and children named, or not named, in the protection claim will be compared with the partner application and the Form 80 personal particulars.
• The current relationship. If the couple say the relationship began on a particular date, the Department may check whether the applicant mentioned that partner, or that address, in the protection matter.
• Family members and addresses. Names, dates of birth, places of residence and contact with family overseas are often discussed at length in a protection claim.
• Travel and dates. Dates of entry, departure and return, and any travel to the country of claimed fear, are compared across every application.

Our guide to the protection visa statement of claims and our article on the protection visa credibility assessment explain how much personal detail a protection claim usually contains.

PIC 4020 and false or misleading information

Public interest criterion 4020 is a criterion for the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas. In general terms, PIC 4020(1) is not met if there is evidence that the applicant gave a bogus document, or information that was false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the current application or a visa the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made. The Department's instructions list, as a trigger for closer investigation, claims that are inconsistent with claims made previously by the applicant or the sponsor about their immigration history.

A protection visa that was refused was never held. In a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the risk therefore usually arises through the partner application itself: if the partner application repeats an earlier untrue statement, or contradicts a true earlier statement without explanation, the inconsistency can become the problem. Separately, an inconsistency can lead the decision maker to doubt the relationship, even without a PIC 4020 finding. PIC 4020 includes a limited waiver for compelling circumstances, and it also has identity requirements that cannot be waived. The firm's Form 80 work, described in our guide to completing Form 80 without errors, is checked line by line against the protection record.

In Kann (Migration) [2023] AATA 2265, a Subclass 309 matter, the recorded issues were false or misleading information in a previous visa application, a declared marriage in the home country with the husband listed as a non-accompanying member of the family unit, and whether the applicant was validly married. The issue line illustrates how marital status declared in one application can become central in a later partner case.

Correcting the record honestly

If something in the protection matter was wrong, the answer is not to repeat it in a partner visa after protection visa refusal. The safer course is usually to identify the inconsistency early, obtain advice, and address it truthfully in the way the law allows. My Migration Lawyers presents the client's own account and evidence in the form the law requires. The firm does not create claims, and it will not prepare a partner application that contradicts what the client says actually happened.

Partner visa after protection visa refusal: two common scenarios

The two scenarios below are generic examples of how the rules combine in a partner visa after protection visa refusal. They are not client stories, and every real case turns on its own facts.

A couple who met before the protection refusal

Consider a couple who met while the applicant's protection application was with the Department. They moved in together, shared bills and introduced each other to family. The Department then refused the protection visa, and the applicant sought ART review while holding a Bridging Visa A. For this couple, a partner visa after protection visa refusal may be lodged while the applicant is still lawful. Section 48 applies, so the sponsorship and the two supporting declarations must be lodged with the application. Schedule 3 still applies, because the applicant holds only a bridging visa. The relationship history before the refusal is useful evidence on the question of genuineness. The protection claim must be checked to see whether it mentioned the partner, the shared address or a change in marital status.

A couple who met after the ART affirmed the refusal

Now consider a couple who met after the ART affirmed the refusal. The applicant's Bridging Visa A has ceased, or is about to cease. For this couple, a partner visa after protection visa refusal is still legally possible, but it is harder. If the couple are not married, the de facto relationship may not yet meet the length requirement. If the applicant has become unlawful, criterion 3004 is relevant and detention risk is real. The decision maker is likely to ask whether the relationship was entered into to obtain a migration outcome. The compelling reasons case must rest on evidence beyond the relationship itself. A partner visa after protection visa refusal in this situation needs careful planning before anything is lodged, including advice on whether an offshore application is the safer course.

What the two scenarios show

In both scenarios, the same four questions decide the case: validity under section 48, status on the day of lodgement, Schedule 3, and consistency with the protection record. The difference is how much room the couple has to act. The earlier the advice, the more options usually remain open for a partner visa after protection visa refusal.

Relationships formed after a protection visa refusal

A relationship that began after a protection visa refusal can still support a partner visa, but it will attract closer scrutiny, because the decision maker may ask whether the relationship was entered into to obtain a migration outcome. That question is lawful, and the evidence must be ready for it.

The Department assesses whether a relationship is genuine and continuing by reference to four aspects: the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, and the nature of the commitment. In a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the timing of the relationship sits alongside those four aspects. A couple who met before the protection refusal, and who can show that, is in a different position from a couple who met after it.

De facto and married couples

A married couple must have a marriage that is valid and recognised in Australia. A de facto couple generally must have been in the de facto relationship for at least 12 months before the application, unless the relationship is registered in an Australian state or territory or another exception applies. A person whose bridging visa is about to cease may be tempted to lodge before the relationship can meet that requirement. That is a real risk, and our article on the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule and our article on whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship explain the exceptions.

Evidence that answers the scrutiny

Evidence for a partner visa after protection visa refusal should show the relationship as it actually developed, with dates. Joint leases, shared bills, joint finances, travel together within Australia, contact with each other's families and friends, and long-term plans all matter. The one relationship statement should give the couple's own honest account of how they met and how the relationship grew. Our guides to partner visa relationship evidence and the partner visa relationship statement explain both. Our article on Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explains what supporting witnesses should say.

Same-sex couples are assessed on the same terms. Our page on the LGBTI partner visa covers issues that sometimes arise. Where the protection claim itself concerned sexual orientation, the consistency between the protection evidence and the partner relationship deserves particular care.

The sponsor's position

The Australian partner sponsors the applicant. Sponsorship limitations apply to some sponsors, including limits on the number of partners sponsored and the time between sponsorships. Our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations explains those rules. In a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the sponsorship must be lodged at the same time as the application, so the sponsor's eligibility must be confirmed before lodgement, not after.

Condition 8503 and conditions on visas you held before

Condition 8503 is often relevant to a partner visa after protection visa refusal, even though it never stopped the protection application. Condition 8503 provides that the holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while they remain in Australia. The protection visa exception is written into the condition. A partner visa has no such exception.

Many protection applicants entered Australia on a visitor visa. If any visa held since the last entry carried condition 8503, or a similar no further stay condition such as 8534 or 8535, a partner application may be invalid unless the condition has been waived. A waiver is available only in limited circumstances, generally where compelling and compassionate circumstances beyond the person's control have developed since the visa was granted. The grant notice and VEVO record for every visa held since the last entry must be checked. Our article on whether you can apply for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503 explains the condition and the waiver, and our guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explains the visitor visa issues.

Removal risk, bridging visa conditions and compliance

A person who is unlawful in Australia is liable to be detained and removed, and that risk is at its highest in the period after a protection matter ends and before a valid partner visa after protection visa refusal is lodged. Lodging a valid application generally allows a bridging visa to be considered. Lodging an invalid one does not.

Bridging visa conditions after the partner application

The bridging visa granted with the partner application depends on the applicant's status on the day of lodgement. A person who did not hold a substantive visa may receive a Bridging Visa C or a Bridging Visa E rather than a Bridging Visa A, and those visas can carry restrictive conditions, including no-work or reporting conditions. Permission to work may be available in some cases. Our articles on Bridging Visa A work rights and on protection visa work rights explain how work conditions operate. Every condition must be complied with. A breach can lead to cancellation of the bridging visa and to detention.

Ministerial intervention

The Minister has personal, non-compellable powers to intervene in some cases after a review decision. Those powers are exercised rarely and at the Minister's discretion. They are not a substitute for a valid partner visa after protection visa refusal, and a pending request does not of itself keep a person lawful.

Leaving Australia instead

Leaving Australia and applying offshore avoids section 48 and Schedule 3, but it is not always simple or safe. A person who leaves as an unlawful non-citizen, or on certain bridging visas, may face an exclusion period for some later visas. A person refused protection may also have genuine practical difficulties returning to their country. The offshore Subclass 309 visa is a real option for some couples, and the choice should be made with advice before any flight is booked.

Partner visa after protection visa refusal: common mistakes

Most failed attempts at a partner visa after protection visa refusal fail for reasons that could have been identified before lodgement. The most common are:

• Lodging without the sponsorship or the two section 48 declarations, so the application is invalid.
• Missing a condition 8503 on an earlier visa held since the last entry.
• Lodging after the bridging visa has ceased, without realising the applicant had become unlawful.
• Relying on the relationship alone as the compelling reason for not applying Schedule 3.
• Repeating, or contradicting without explanation, earlier statements about marital status, relationships or family.
• Withdrawing a protection review without advice.
• Breaching a bridging visa condition while the partner application is pending.

Our analysis of why partner visas get refused and of why Subclass 820 partner visas are refused covers the wider refusal grounds. Our article on partner visa refusal appeal options explains what to do if a partner application is refused.

Documents for a partner visa after protection visa refusal

A partner visa after protection visa refusal needs the ordinary partner documents plus the documents that make the application valid for a person caught by section 48. Identity documents, relationship evidence, the relationship statement, Form 888 supporting statements and, when requested, character and health documents are all needed. Our partner visa document checklist and our 820 evidence checklist list them.

The applicant does not need to find old grant notices, bridging visa letters or tribunal papers. My Migration Lawyers obtains the visa history itself through VEVO and Department records, and through a freedom of information request where that is warranted. During processing, the Department may issue a section 56 request for more information or a section 57 natural justice letter, and every change in circumstances must be notified, generally through Form 1022.

If the relationship ends during processing, special provisions such as those for family violence committed by the sponsor may apply. Our article on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains the position.

What happens after you lodge a partner visa after protection visa refusal

After a valid partner visa after protection visa refusal is lodged, the Department considers whether to grant a bridging visa and then assesses the Subclass 820 stage, including Schedule 3, the relationship and the public interest criteria. Processing times change, and the Department publishes current estimates in its processing time guide.

During processing, the applicant must comply with every bridging visa condition, notify every change in circumstances and respond to every request within the time given. The Department may ask for health examinations, police certificates, biometrics or Form 80. It may also invite the couple to an interview. Where the Department holds information that may lead to refusal, it will usually put that information to the applicant for comment first, and the response should be prepared with the protection record in mind.

If the Subclass 820 is granted, the applicant holds a substantive visa for the first time since the protection matter began. The Subclass 801 stage is then generally assessed about two years after lodgement. If the Subclass 820 is refused, review rights usually exist at the ART, and the review deadline is short and strictly applied. Our page on partner visa lawyers and our guide to the onshore Subclass 820 visa explain the process from lodgement to grant. A partner visa after protection visa refusal is not finished at lodgement. It is finished when the permanent visa is granted.

Where our partner visa after protection visa refusal clients are located

My Migration Lawyers acts for people seeking a partner visa after protection visa refusal throughout Australia, and every consultation is conducted by video. Couples can read about our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Those comparing firms can read our guide to choosing a partner visa lawyer in Australia, and our article on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. People already being advised can read about getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer, and those facing an imminent bridging visa deadline can read our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice. Our article on when you need a protection visa lawyer covers the protection side.

How My Migration Lawyers handles a partner visa after protection visa refusal

My Migration Lawyers deals with complex cases at the meeting point of protection and partner law, and acts in many matters where a client needs a partner visa after protection visa refusal. The firm acts in protection visa matters and partner visa matters, so it reads the protection file and the partner application as one record, the way the Department does. It is capable of handling these matters from the first status check to the Subclass 801 decision.

On a partner visa after protection visa refusal, the firm's work includes:

• Obtaining the client's VEVO record, grant notices and visa history, and, where needed, the Department and ART records of the protection matter, so that every refusal, condition, bridging visa and period without a substantive visa is identified.
• Confirming that section 48A does not affect the partner application, and checking each section 48 validity requirement, including the sponsorship lodged with the application and the two supporting declarations.
• Checking every visa held since the last entry for condition 8503 or another no further stay condition, and preparing a waiver request where the facts support one.
• Advising on timing against the protection review, any judicial review and the bridging visa cessation date, including the consequences of continuing or withdrawing a review, without pressing the client either way.
• Preparing the compelling reasons case for not applying Schedule 3, built on evidence of the couple's actual circumstances, children and the sponsor's position.
• Reviewing the relationship statement, Form 888 supporting statements and Form 80 against the protection claim, the protection interview and any ART hearing, so that the client's account is consistent and true.
• Managing section 56 requests, natural justice letters, Form 1022 notifications and bridging visa conditions through to the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 decisions, and acting at the ART if a refusal needs review.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. Information about the firm's partner visa practice is on our partner visa lawyers page, information about the combined application is on our Subclass 820 visa page, information about refused visas is on our visa refusals page, and more about the firm is on our about page.

If your protection visa was refused and you want to know whether a partner visa after protection visa refusal is open to you, and what to do first, book a consultation online or call 1300 040 300.