Partner Visa Application Mistakes

What are the most common partner visa mistakes?

The most common partner visa mistakes are applying for the wrong subclass or from the wrong place, lodging an application that is not valid, giving wrong or incomplete answers in the forms, letting the forms, relationship statement and evidence contradict each other, and failing to report changes or correct errors after lodgement. Some partner visa mistakes are fatal on their own. Others only cause delay at first, but they grow into a refusal if nobody fixes them.

This guide is an error audit. It is organised by where each mistake happens: before lodgement, when the subclass and location are chosen; at lodgement, when validity is decided; in the application forms; in the evidence; on the sponsor's side; and after lodgement, when the Department asks for information or circumstances change. For each of the partner visa mistakes covered, it explains what the mistake is, why it matters in law, and how it is fixed. It applies to the onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas, explained in the guide to Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801, and to the offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 visas, which share the same relationship test. For an overview of every pathway, see the complete guide to partner visas in Australia.

This is not a list of refusal reasons. Those are covered in the guide to why partner visas get refused. Partner visa mistakes are the errors that cause those refusals, and most of them can be found and fixed before a case officer ever opens the file.

Why an error audit is different from a document checklist

A partner visa document checklist tells a couple what to gather. It does not tell them whether what they gathered is right. Many partner visa mistakes sit inside documents that were on the checklist and were provided: a lease with the wrong address, a bank statement with an unexplained gap, a form with a date that does not match the relationship statement. An audit reads the file the way a case officer reads it. It looks for gaps and contradictions, not only for missing pages.

Why do partner visa mistakes matter legally?

Partner visa mistakes matter because the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 attach legal consequences to them, ranging from an invalid application to refusal, a bar on future visas, or cancellation after grant. Under section 65 of the Act, a decision maker may grant a visa only if satisfied that every criterion is met. An error that leaves a criterion in doubt is enough to refuse.

Several provisions deal with errors directly. Section 101 requires a non-citizen to answer every question in the application form and to give no incorrect answers. Section 104 requires the person to tell the Department in writing, as soon as practicable, if circumstances change so that an answer becomes incorrect. Section 105 requires the person to tell the Department in writing, as soon as practicable, if they become aware that an answer was incorrect when it was given. Both obligations continue even after a visa is granted. A visa granted on incorrect information can be considered for cancellation.

Public Interest Criterion 4020 adds a further layer. It requires that the applicant has not given a bogus document, or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the application. Failing it can lead to refusal and to a period during which later visas cannot be granted. The section on PIC 4020 in this guide explains how that works and why the way an error is handled matters so much.

Which partner visa mistakes are fatal and which can be fixed

Partner visa mistakes fall into three broad groups. The first group cannot be fixed inside the same application: an application that is not valid, or one lodged by a person who is barred from applying in Australia. The second group can be fixed if the couple acts before a decision is made: wrong answers, missing evidence, inconsistent documents and unreported changes. The third group involves integrity: information that is false. Even here, the law treats an innocent mistake that is explained and corrected differently from a deliberate false statement. The way an error is handled often decides which group it falls into.

Partner visa mistakes in choosing the subclass and location

The first partner visa mistakes happen before any form is opened, when the couple chooses which visa to apply for and where the applicant will be when it is lodged. The partner visa scheme has an onshore stream and an offshore stream, and the location rules are part of the law, not a preference.

A Subclass 820 application must be made at the same time and place as an application for the permanent Subclass 801 visa, and every applicant must be in Australia, but not in immigration clearance, when it is made. That is a validity requirement in item 1214C of Schedule 1 to the Regulations. A Subclass 309 application is made together with the permanent Subclass 100 visa, and every applicant must be outside Australia when it is made, under item 1220A. As a general rule, the applicant must also be outside Australia when the Subclass 309 offshore partner visa is granted. The Subclass 820 onshore partner visa page and the Subclass 820 visa guide explain onshore eligibility in more detail.

Choosing onshore when the applicant cannot apply onshore

A common partner visa mistake is assuming that anyone in Australia can lodge a Subclass 820 application. That is not correct. Some visa holders are prevented from applying for most visas while in Australia. Others can apply only if extra criteria are met. Holders of certain regional skilled visas, including the Subclass 491 and Subclass 494 visas, cannot validly apply for a Subclass 820 visa until they have held that visa for a minimum period set by item 1214C. A couple who lodges onshore in these situations may find that the application is invalid, or that it is refused on a criterion that could never have been met. The Subclass 820 visa explained guide sets out who is eligible.

Applying from a visitor visa

Many couples lodge after the applicant enters Australia as a visitor. This can be lawful, but it raises two separate checks: whether the visitor visa carries a no further stay condition, and whether the purpose of the visit was described accurately when the visitor visa was applied for. An answer in an earlier visitor visa application can become relevant again in the partner application. The guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia covers both checks.

Applying for a Prospective Marriage visa when another subclass fits

The Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa is for a couple who intend to marry in Australia. A couple who already live together, or who are already married, may be better placed in the Subclass 309 stream. Choosing a subclass that does not match the relationship does not always make the application invalid, but it changes what must be proved and when, and it can leave the couple meeting the wrong test.

Relying on a de facto relationship that is too short

For a de facto partner, regulation 2.03A generally requires the relationship to have existed for at least 12 months immediately before the application, unless an exception applies, such as registration of the relationship under a prescribed State or Territory law or compelling and compassionate circumstances. Lodging before the relationship qualifies, without an exception, is one of the partner visa mistakes that leads directly to refusal. The guide to the Subclass 820 de facto 12-month rule and the de facto partner visa guide explain the exceptions.

Can you apply for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503?

No. A person whose current visa is subject to condition 8503 (no further stay) is generally prevented by section 46(1A) of the Migration Act from making a valid application for a substantive visa in Australia, including a Subclass 820 visa, unless the condition is first waived. Lodging anyway is one of the most avoidable partner visa mistakes, because the application is not valid and the Department cannot assess the relationship at all.

The fix is a request to waive the condition under section 41(2A) of the Act. A waiver is available only in limited circumstances prescribed in regulation 2.05, broadly where there has been a compelling and compassionate change in circumstances, beyond the person's control, after the visa was granted. A relationship that already existed when the visa was applied for is unlikely, on its own, to meet that test. The waiver must be granted before the partner visa application is lodged. Other no further stay conditions can also restrict onshore applications and need separate advice. The guide to applying for a Subclass 820 visa with condition 8503 explains the waiver in detail.

Partner visa mistakes when no substantive visa is held: Schedule 3

An applicant who does not hold a substantive visa when the Subclass 820 application is lodged must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the decision maker is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying them. This is set out in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii). A bridging visa is not a substantive visa. So a person on a bridging visa after an earlier visa ended, or a person who has become unlawful, is in this group.

Criterion 3001 requires the application to be made within a set period after the person last held a substantive visa. Criteria 3003 and 3004 deal with the circumstances in which the person became unlawful and whether visa conditions were complied with. When the criteria are not met, the application depends on compelling reasons.

The main partner visa mistakes here are not knowing that Schedule 3 applies at all, and assuming that the relationship itself is the compelling reason. Departmental policy says that, as a general rule, a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation are not compelling reasons, because every partner applicant has a relationship. Policy points instead to circumstances beyond the applicant's control and to the best interests of an Australian citizen child with a real link to the applicant. The fix is a written submission, supported by evidence, that deals with each criterion and sets out the reasons. The guide to Schedule 3 criteria for an unlawful applicant, the guide to the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver and the firm's Schedule 3 waiver partner visa page explain what is usually relevant.

Tribunal decisions show how often this issue arises. In Harpreet Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 5689, the recorded issues were the Schedule 3 criteria, an application lodged outside the relevant timeframe, and compelling reasons for a waiver. In Naidu (Migration) [2023] AATA 1830, the recorded issues included compelling reasons to waive the Schedule 3 criteria, a child born of the relationship and a long-standing relationship. Both matters were remitted to the Department for reconsideration.

Section 48 and the missing sponsorship form

A person in Australia who does not hold a substantive visa, and who has had a visa refused or cancelled since last entering Australia, is affected by section 48 of the Act. The Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas are among the visas such a person may still apply for under regulation 2.12. However, for that person, the application must include a completed sponsorship form signed by the sponsoring partner when it is lodged. For other applicants, the sponsorship can follow. Leaving out the sponsorship form is a small partner visa mistake with a large consequence, because it goes to validity. The guide to a partner visa after a visa refusal explains the section 48 rules.

Are invalid applications among the most serious partner visa mistakes?

Yes. An invalid application is among the most serious partner visa mistakes because, in law, no application has been made. Under section 46 of the Act, an application is valid only if it meets the requirements in Schedule 1, including the approved form, the visa application charge, where the applicant must be, and any other conditions. If it is not valid, the Department cannot grant the visa, no bridging visa can be granted on the strength of it, and there is no merits review of a refusal because there was nothing to refuse.

Common validity errors include the following:

• lodging a Subclass 820 application while a no further stay condition applies;
• lodging onshore without the signed sponsorship form when section 48 applies;
• lodging a Subclass 309 application while the applicant is in Australia;
• lodging a Subclass 820 application before a required minimum period on a regional skilled visa has passed; and
• not paying the visa application charge in the way the Department requires.

The fix depends on why the application failed. Sometimes a fresh valid application can be lodged at once. Sometimes a waiver, or a departure from Australia, must come first. Where the applicant's lawful status depended on a bridging visa that now does not exist, timing becomes urgent. The guide to bridging visas in Australia and the guide to Bridging Visa A explain how a bridging visa attaches to a valid partner application, and the guide to working while a Subclass 820 visa is pending explains the work rights that follow.

A hypothetical example of a validity mistake

Consider a hypothetical applicant who arrives on a visitor visa with condition 8503, marries an Australian citizen, and lodges a Subclass 820 application online without first seeking a waiver. The application is not valid. The visitor visa then expires. The applicant now has no visa and no bridging visa, and Schedule 3 is engaged for any later onshore application. A waiver request before lodgement, or advice to apply offshore, would have avoided every one of these partner visa mistakes. The point of the example is that the first error caused all of the later ones.

Partner visa mistakes in the application form

Partner visa mistakes in the application form are wrong, incomplete or inconsistent answers to the questions the Department asks, and they matter because section 101 of the Act requires every question to be answered and no incorrect answer to be given. The form is a legal document. Every answer is compared with the relationship statement, the evidence, Department records from earlier visa applications, and movement records. The most frequent form errors fall into six areas.

Dates of the relationship

The form asks when the couple met, when the relationship began, when they started living together, when they became engaged and when they married or registered the relationship. These dates drive the legal test. For a de facto couple, the start of living together often decides whether the 12-month requirement is met. Common partner visa mistakes include guessing dates, using the date of a first message instead of a first meeting, or giving a cohabitation date that is earlier than the first lease. The fix is to build a timeline from documents before completing the form, then use the same dates everywhere.

Addresses and living arrangements

The form asks for current and previous addresses. Errors here are common because couples move often, live with family for periods, or keep one partner's lease while living together at the other's address. An address in the form that does not match the lease, the bank statements or the electoral roll will be noticed. In Le (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2423, the recorded issues included the genuine and continuing relationship and incorrect residential information in the visa application. That matter was remitted to the Department. The fix is to list every address accurately, with dates, and to explain any period when the couple lived apart.

Previous relationships and earlier applications

The form asks about previous marriages, previous de facto relationships and earlier visa applications, including whether the applicant or sponsor was previously sponsored, or sponsored someone else, as a partner. Leaving out a previous relationship is one of the more dangerous partner visa mistakes, because it is often found in Department records. In 2107016 (Migration) [2022] AATA 2250, the recorded issues included that the parties provided false or incorrect information and failed to disclose details of a previous relationship and a Subclass 300 application. In Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137, the recorded issues included incorrect information in the visa application and in Department interviews, and that a meeting through an introduction agency was not disclosed. Both matters were remitted to the Department. The fix is full disclosure, with a short explanation where a previous relationship ended recently or overlaps in time with the current one.

Children not declared

The form asks about every child of the applicant, including children who are not applying and children who live with the other parent. Under subclause 820.224(1A), the Subclass 820 visa cannot be granted unless each member of the family unit who is not an applicant meets certain character and health criteria. The same principle applies at the Subclass 801 stage. A child who is left off the form is therefore not just an omission. It can affect the criteria for the whole application, and it can create problems for any later application to bring the child to Australia. The fix is to declare every child and to address custody and consent where a child is included.

Travel history and identity details

The form, and often Form 80, ask for travel history, other names, previous passports and national identity documents. The Department holds movement records and earlier applications, so a missing trip or a forgotten earlier name is easy to find. Missing trips are partner visa mistakes that are easy to make and easy for the Department to detect. Dates of travel should match passport stamps and the evidence of time spent together. Where records are incomplete, it is better to say so and give the best information available than to guess.

Character questions

The form asks about criminal charges, convictions, removal or deportation, visa refusals and cancellations, and debts to the Commonwealth. Answering "no" to a question that should be answered "yes" is one of the partner visa mistakes most likely to raise integrity concerns. A charge that did not lead to a conviction, a matter in another country, or an old refusal may still need to be disclosed, depending on the wording of the question. The fix is to read each character question exactly as written, obtain police certificates early, and disclose with an explanation where in doubt.

How do inconsistencies between documents cause partner visa mistakes?

Inconsistencies cause partner visa mistakes because the decision maker compares every source against every other source, and a contradiction between the forms, the relationship statement, Form 888 statements and the documents is treated as a credibility problem, not a typing problem. One wrong date can be explained. A pattern of conflicting accounts suggests that the relationship is not as described.

A partner visa has one relationship statement. It describes the history of the relationship and how the couple share their lives. The partner visa relationship statement guide explains what it should cover. Each Form 888 is a supporting witness statement from a person who knows the couple. It is not a statutory declaration. The guides to who can make a Form 888 and Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain what witnesses should say. The statement and the witness accounts must be consistent with each other and with the forms.

Where inconsistencies usually appear

The usual places are the date and place the couple met, the date they began living together, who was present at the wedding, how often they saw each other while living apart, who pays which bills, and what each partner knows about the other's family. These partner visa mistakes are rarely deliberate. Witnesses often describe events in different words, which is normal. What causes problems is a witness who describes the couple living together at a time when the forms say they lived apart, or a statement that describes a joint account that the bank records show was opened last month.

Interviews and inconsistent answers

The Department may interview the applicant, the sponsor, or both. Answers at interview are compared with the file. Partner visa mistakes made in the written material often surface at interview, when a partner gives an accurate answer that contradicts an inaccurate form. The fix is to correct the written material before the interview, not to try to match an error.

How inconsistencies are fixed

The fix is a full reconciliation before lodgement: every date, address and event checked across the forms, the relationship statement, the Form 888 statements and the documents. Where an error is found after lodgement, the correct information should be given in writing, with a short explanation of how the error happened. The guide to how to prove your relationship is genuine explains how decision makers weigh consistency.

Evidence mistakes that weaken a partner visa

Evidence mistakes weaken a partner visa because the decision maker must consider the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the commitment, under regulation 1.15A for spouses and regulation 1.09A for de facto partners, and gaps in any of these assessed aspects leave the relationship test in doubt. These are assessed aspects of one relationship, not separate statements. The common partner visa mistakes in evidence fall into five patterns.

All of the evidence is recent

Couples often gather documents in the weeks before lodgement. The result is a file in which the joint account, the lease and the photographs all start shortly before the application. That pattern invites the conclusion that the evidence was created for the visa. The fix is to cover the whole relationship, including the early stages, and to explain clearly why some arrangements began later. In Tran (Migration) [2023] AATA 3870, the recorded issues included the four aspects of the relationship and limited evidence at the time of application. That matter was remitted to the Department.

Generic evidence that proves little

A letter that says "they are a lovely couple", a stack of undated photographs, or bills addressed only to one partner do little work. Generic evidence is one of the quieter partner visa mistakes, because nothing looks wrong until the case officer asks what it proves. Evidence should show the couple doing things together, over time, in a way that third parties recognise. The guides to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and the 820 partner visa evidence checklist explain what carries weight.

Documents that are not translated

The partner application form tells applicants that documents not in English must be accompanied by an accurate English translation, and recommends a translator accredited by NAATI for translations done in Australia. Untranslated documents may not be considered, or may lead to a request for information that delays the case. Marriage certificates, birth certificates, divorce documents and police certificates in another language are the usual problems. Untranslated documents are partner visa mistakes that are entirely avoidable. The fix is to translate every document that the case relies on before lodging.

Evidence that is not organised under the four aspects

A file of hundreds of unlabelled pages forces the case officer to do the work of building the case. Important documents are missed. Evidence organised under the four assessed aspects, labelled, dated and in order, is easier to assess and easier to check for gaps. This is one of the simplest partner visa mistakes to fix, and one of the most common.

Gaps that are not explained

Every relationship has gaps: periods apart, separate finances, cultural arrangements, or a partner who does not appear on a lease. A gap that is explained in the relationship statement, with supporting evidence, is usually manageable. A gap that is left unexplained invites an adverse inference. The fix is to identify the gaps and explain them, rather than hope they are not noticed.

Sponsor-side partner visa mistakes

Sponsor-side partner visa mistakes are errors about whether the sponsor is allowed to sponsor, and about what the sponsor discloses, and they matter because a sponsorship that cannot be approved means the visa cannot be granted. The applicant can do everything right and still be refused because of the sponsor.

Sponsorship limitations

Regulation 1.20J limits partner sponsorships. In summary, a person may have at most two approved partner sponsorships, cannot have a further sponsorship approved until at least five years after the earlier sponsored visa application was made, and, if they were themselves sponsored as a partner, cannot sponsor a partner until at least five years after their own application was made. These limits may be waived where there are compelling circumstances affecting the sponsor. A common partner visa mistake is a sponsor who does not mention an earlier sponsorship, or who assumes it does not count. In Promthong (Migration) [2024] AATA 2472, the recorded issue was sponsorship limitations, where the prior sponsorship was approved within five years of the time of the primary decision. In Rogers (Migration) [2020] AATA 4743, the recorded issues included that five years had not lapsed since the earlier application but elapsed during the review process. Both were remitted to the Department. The firm's partner visa sponsorship limitations page and the guide to when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain the waiver.

Sponsor character and police checks

Under regulation 1.20KC, the Department may refuse to approve a partner sponsorship where the sponsor has been convicted of a relevant offence and has a significant criminal record for it, as defined in regulation 1.20KD. The Department may ask the sponsor for police certificates. A sponsor who does not provide them when asked, or who does not answer the consent to disclosure questions, creates a delay or a refusal that the applicant cannot fix. Where a child under 18 is included in the application, regulation 1.20KB adds a separate check about registrable offences. The fix is for the sponsor to obtain police certificates early and to deal with the disclosure questions accurately.

Sponsor's own answers

The sponsor completes a sponsorship form. Wrong answers about the sponsor's own relationship history, address, or earlier sponsorships create the same consistency problems as wrong answers in the applicant's form. The sponsor's information must match the applicant's account of the relationship. These are partner visa mistakes the applicant often cannot see, so the sponsor's form should be reviewed together with the applicant's form.

A family violence history in the relationship

Where family violence has occurred, the right response is advice, not silence. The Regulations contain special provisions for applicants who have experienced family violence by the sponsor. The firm's family violence partner visa lawyers page explains how those provisions work.

How does PIC 4020 turn partner visa mistakes into refusals?

PIC 4020 turns partner visa mistakes into refusals when the decision maker finds that the applicant gave a bogus document, or information that was false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the application or a visa held in the 12 months before the application. PIC 4020 is a criterion for both stages of a partner visa. Under PIC 4020(5), information of this kind is information that was false or misleading at the time it was given and that is relevant to any criterion the decision maker may consider, whether or not the decision turns on it.

The consequences can go beyond one refusal. Where an applicant, or a member of the applicant's family unit, has been refused under PIC 4020 for a bogus document or false information, a further visa cannot generally be granted for a period after that refusal. A refusal under the identity part of PIC 4020 carries a longer period. The decision maker may waive the bogus document and false information parts where there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, such as the sponsoring partner. There is no waiver for the identity requirement.

Why an innocent mistake is treated differently

The Department's own policy, based on the Full Federal Court decision in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42, says that PIC 4020 requires purposeful falsity. A visa application cannot be refused under PIC 4020 where the applicant can explain an innocent mistake. This is why the way partner visa mistakes are handled matters so much. An error that the applicant corrects voluntarily, with an explanation, looks very different from an error that the Department finds and the applicant then denies.

What PIC 4020 cases show

Tribunal decisions recorded under the false information heading include TRUONG (Migration) [2024] AATA 680, where the recorded issues were false information in a material particular, a previous visitor visa application, marital status, and a couple separated but still living together. In Mohammadi (Migration) [2021] AATA 5554, the recorded issues were false information in a material particular, the biological parentage of a secondary applicant, DNA test results, and whether the information was material to the application. In Rezai (Migration) [2020] AATA 5489, the recorded issues were a bogus document, no valid identity documents and satisfaction of the applicant's identity. Each matter was remitted to the Department. They show that PIC 4020 issues often begin with an earlier application, a family detail or an identity document, not with the relationship itself.

How partner visa mistakes involving PIC 4020 are fixed

The fix starts with finding the error before the Department does. Where an earlier visa application contained an incorrect answer, or a document in the file is not what it appears to be, the applicant should get advice before lodging, and before any response to the Department. Where the Department has already raised a concern, it will give the applicant an opportunity to comment, usually through a natural justice letter. That response is the main chance to show that the error was innocent or that a waiver should be considered.

Partner visa mistakes after lodgement: missing requests and deadlines

Missing a request or deadline after lodgement is one of the partner visa mistakes that most often turns a strong case into a refusal, because the Department can decide the application on the information it already has once the time to respond has passed. The partner application form itself warns that if necessary documents are not provided, a decision may be made on the information already given.

Requests under section 56

Under section 56 of the Act, the Department may invite the applicant to give more information, such as police certificates, health examinations, updated relationship evidence or translations. The time to respond is set by the Regulations and stated in the letter. It is short and strictly applied. The guide to responding to a section 56 request for more information explains how to answer one.

Natural justice letters under section 57

Under section 57, the Department must give the applicant particulars of adverse information that would be a reason, or part of the reason, for refusal, and invite comment. This is the letter that usually raises inconsistencies, earlier applications, or PIC 4020 concerns. A late response, or a response that does not deal with each point, is among the most costly partner visa mistakes. The guide to the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explains what a full response contains.

Missing letters because contact details are out of date

Many deadlines are missed because the letter went to an email address that nobody checks, or to an ImmiAccount that the couple stopped logging into. The Department generally communicates through the contact details and the account given in the application. The guide to how to create an ImmiAccount explains how the account works. Where a representative is appointed, Form 956 and 956A control where letters are sent.

Interviews and health examinations

A missed interview or health examination appointment has the same effect as a missed letter. If an appointment cannot be attended, the Department should be told in writing before the date, with a reason. The guide to Subclass 820 processing times explains the stages at which these steps usually arise.

Partner visa mistakes in reporting changes: Form 1022

Not reporting a change in circumstances is a partner visa mistake that breaches section 104 of the Act, which requires the applicant to tell the Department in writing, as soon as practicable, of any change that makes an answer in the application incorrect. The usual way to do this is Form 1022 Notification of changes in circumstances, uploaded through ImmiAccount.

What counts as a change

Changes that commonly need to be reported include a new address, phone number or email address; a new passport; a change in relationship status, including separation; a pregnancy or the birth of a child; a change of name; and new criminal charges or convictions. If the applicant is in Australia when the visa is granted, the obligation applies to changes before grant. The obligation also continues after a visa is granted.

Why couples fail to report changes

Couples often assume the Department will learn about a new passport or a new address another way. Section 106 of the Act says the obligations apply even if the Department could obtain the information from another source. Others delay reporting a separation because they hope to reconcile. A separation that is not reported, and is then found at the Subclass 801 stage, raises both the relationship test and an integrity question.

When the relationship ends during processing

Where the relationship ends, the applicant must tell the Department. The application will usually not succeed on the relationship ground unless an exception applies, such as family violence by the sponsor, the death of the sponsor, or a child of the relationship in some circumstances. The guide on what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down explains those options.

Partner visa mistakes left uncorrected: Form 1023

Leaving a wrong answer uncorrected is a partner visa mistake that breaches section 105 of the Act, which requires a non-citizen who becomes aware that an answer was incorrect when it was given to tell the Department in writing, as soon as practicable, of the error and the correct answer. The usual way to do this is Form 1023 Notification of incorrect answers. The form itself warns that the obligation continues after a visa is granted, and that a visa may be considered for cancellation if the obligation is not met.

Form 1022 or Form 1023?

Form 1022 is for an answer that was correct when given but has become incorrect because circumstances changed. Form 1023 is for an answer that was wrong from the start. A wrong date of first meeting, an undisclosed child, a missing previous relationship or an incorrect travel history are Form 1023 matters. Using the right form, with a clear explanation of how the error happened, helps show that it was an innocent mistake.

Why correcting partner visa mistakes early helps

Correction does not erase an error, but it changes how the error is assessed. A voluntary correction, made before the Department raises the issue, supports the conclusion that there was no purposeful falsity for PIC 4020. It also prevents the error being repeated at the Subclass 801 stage, where the decision maker looks at the file again. The visa cancellations page explains what can happen when errors are found after grant.

Can partner visa mistakes be fixed after a refusal?

Yes, some partner visa mistakes can be fixed after a refusal, but the options are narrower and the time limits are short. Most partner visa refusals can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. On review, the Tribunal looks at the case again and can consider new evidence, including corrected information and explanations that were not before the Department.

The deadline to apply for review is short and strictly applied, and it runs from when the decision is taken to have been received. The guide to partner visa refused appeal options, the guide to what to expect at an ART review and the firm's partner visa refusals page explain the process. A visa appeal lawyer can assess whether the refusal turned on errors that can now be corrected. Where a decision involves an error of law, judicial review may also need to be considered. The broader visa refusals page covers other refusal types, and the guide to Subclass 820 refusal reasons lists the usual grounds.

Errors in the review application itself

The review application is also a document where errors happen. In Nguyen (Migration) [2024] AATA 559, the recorded issues included the genuine and continuing relationship and a review application that noted an incorrect visa subclass. That matter was remitted to the Department. The point is not that every error is fatal, but that each document in the process must be checked.

How My Migration Lawyers audits and corrects partner visa mistakes

My Migration Lawyers audits partner visa files before lodgement and corrects partner visa mistakes after lodgement, using the same method in both situations: check every document against every other document, identify each legal risk, and deal with it in writing before the Department does. The firm handles complex partner visa matters of this exact type, acts in many matters involving validity problems, Schedule 3, sponsorship limitations, inconsistent forms and integrity concerns, and is capable of handling them carefully. No outcome can be promised in any matter, but each risk can be identified and addressed.

The pre-lodgement file audit, step by step

First, the firm takes instructions from both partners and builds a timeline of the relationship, addresses, travel and earlier visa applications. Second, it checks eligibility: the correct subclass, where the applicant must be, the applicant's current visa and its conditions, whether Schedule 3 or section 48 applies, and whether the sponsor is affected by sponsorship limitations or police check requirements. Third, it checks validity requirements so the application is valid on the day it is lodged. Fourth, it reviews the draft forms, the relationship statement and the Form 888 statements against the documents, and the couple correct and confirm their own accounts. Fifth, it identifies gaps in the four assessed aspects and explains what further evidence is realistically available. Sixth, it identifies earlier answers that may need correction before lodgement. Finally, it organises the evidence and lodges, with a Form 956 so that the Department writes to the firm. The firm presents the couple's own account and evidence in the form the law requires.

Correction work after lodgement

Where couples have already lodged, the firm reviews the lodged application in the same way and prepares any Form 1022 or Form 1023 notifications, with an explanation of each error. It prepares responses to section 56 requests and section 57 natural justice letters, including PIC 4020 responses and waiver submissions where relevant. Couples who lodged themselves can read about hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application and about getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer. The guide to whether a partner visa lawyer is worth it compared with doing it yourself explains the difference an audit makes, and the guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare when a deadline is close.

Who handles partner visa mistakes at the firm

Partner visa work at My Migration Lawyers is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. More about the firm is on the About My Migration Lawyers page and the partner visa lawyers page. The firm acts for couples across Australia by video consultation, including clients of its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Couples comparing options can read the guide to the best partner visa lawyer in Australia and the guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation.

Book a consultation about partner visa mistakes

If you are worried about partner visa mistakes in an application you are about to lodge, or in one you have already lodged, the best time to get advice is before the Department raises the issue. Book a Consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa file audited for errors before they become a refusal. You can also call 1300 040 300.