Partner Visa ART Evidence

Partner visa ART evidence is the evidence a couple gives the Administrative Review Tribunal after a partner visa refusal to show that the visa criteria are met. Good partner visa ART evidence answers each reason the Department gave for refusing the visa, updates the relationship evidence to the present, and is organised so the Tribunal member can see exactly how each criterion is satisfied.

The Tribunal does not simply check whether the Department made a mistake. It looks at the application again and makes its own decision on the evidence before it when it decides. That is why partner visa ART evidence matters so much, and why the review should be treated as a new opportunity rather than a formality. Our partner visa lawyer guide explains how legal help fits into a review. Many refused couples have a genuine relationship but gave the Department too little proof of it, gave inconsistent answers, or did not provide a single required document such as a police certificate. A review is the opportunity to fix that properly.

This guide explains what partner visa ART evidence should contain, how to answer the common refusal reasons, how the Tribunal weighs documents, statements and witnesses, and what real Tribunal decisions show about evidence given on review. It is written for couples who have received a partner visa refusal and can still apply for review, or who have already lodged a review and need to prepare. If you are still deciding whether to seek review at all, start with our guide to partner visa refused appeal options. For the general process after a refusal, see what to expect at an ART review after a visa refusal. If the deadline is close, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to have ready, and our visa refusals service covers review work across visa types.

What is partner visa ART evidence?

Partner visa ART evidence is every document, statement, submission and piece of oral testimony that the Administrative Review Tribunal considers when it reviews a refused Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309, Subclass 100 or Subclass 300 application. It includes the evidence already on the Department's file, which the Department gives to the Tribunal, plus everything new the applicant and sponsor provide during the review.

The key point is that the Tribunal can consider new material. A review is not confined to the documents the delegate had. The Tribunal can take into account documents created after the refusal, events that happened after the visa application was lodged, and evidence that existed earlier but was never provided. In Bateman (Migration) [2019] AATA 394, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were a genuine de facto relationship, credible witnesses, and the fact that the Tribunal had more information available to it than was available to the delegate. That combination is the core of most successful partner visa ART evidence.

Partner visa ART evidence usually falls into five groups:

• Documents that prove facts: leases, bank statements, bills, photographs, travel records, certificates, police certificates and medical results.
• The relationship statement: one joint or individual statement from the couple that tells the history of the relationship in their own words.
• Form 888 statements: supporting statements from Australian citizens or permanent residents who know the couple.
• Oral evidence: what the applicant, the sponsor and any witnesses say to the Tribunal at a hearing.
• Written submissions: a legal document that explains which criteria are in issue, what the evidence shows and why the Tribunal should be satisfied.

Each group does a different job. Documents prove facts. Statements explain the facts. Witnesses confirm them. Submissions connect them to the law. Strong partner visa ART evidence uses all five.

Why the Tribunal looks at the evidence afresh

The Administrative Review Tribunal conducts merits review. It may exercise all the powers and discretions of the original decision maker, and it decides for itself whether the applicant meets the criteria for the visa. The Tribunal is not bound by the delegate's findings or the delegate's view of the evidence.

For a partner visa, this has three practical consequences.

First, the review is decided on the evidence as it stands when the Tribunal decides. Criteria that must be met at the time of decision are assessed on the facts at that point. A couple whose relationship has grown stronger since lodgement, who now live together, or who have married since the refusal, can rely on that.

Second, missing documents can be supplied. If the visa was refused because a police certificate, a health examination or a sponsorship form was never received, the Tribunal can consider that document when it is provided on review.

Third, credibility is assessed again. If the delegate disbelieved the couple, the Tribunal forms its own view after reading the evidence and, usually, hearing from the couple. Consistent, detailed partner visa ART evidence can change that assessment.

There is an important limit. Some partner visa criteria must be met at the time the application was made, not at the time of decision. Better evidence cannot change a historical fact. If a criterion tied to the date of application was not met on that date, new evidence of present circumstances will not repair it. The evidence must therefore be aimed at the right point in time for each criterion. For an explanation of how the visa criteria are structured, see our complete guide to partner visas in Australia. For the onshore visa specifically, see our guides to the Subclass 820 partner visa requirements, the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa explained, 820 visa documents and how to apply and the difference between Subclass 820 and Subclass 801.

Who should prepare partner visa ART evidence

Partner visa ART evidence can be prepared by the couple themselves, but the review is usually the last chance to put new evidence forward, so many couples obtain legal advice. Under section 280 of the Migration Act 1958, immigration assistance is generally restricted to registered migration agents and Australian legal practitioners. A representative is appointed to the Tribunal in the same way that a representative is appointed to the Department, which our guide to Form 956 and Form 956A explains. Our guides to when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, what a visa appeal lawyer does and how to choose the best partner visa lawyer in Australia set out what to look for. If you are not yet sure what help you need, our guide to booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what a first meeting covers.

Start with the refusal decision record

The starting point for any partner visa ART evidence is the Department's decision record. It sets out every criterion the delegate found was not met and the reasons for that finding. The evidence must answer those reasons, one by one.

Read the decision record for three things:

• The criteria in issue. The decision will usually name the clause or regulation the delegate relied on, such as the genuine relationship requirement, a public interest criterion or a Schedule 3 criterion.
• The specific concerns. A genuineness refusal does not usually say only "not genuine". It usually lists concerns: little evidence of shared finances, inconsistent dates, no evidence of living together for a period, or few people who know about the relationship.
• The evidence the delegate relied on. This may include information from earlier visa applications, interview answers, or information from third parties.

Our guides to why partner visas get refused and the most common reasons Subclass 820 partner visas are refused explain the typical findings. The decision record tells you which of them applies to your case.

Asking for the Department's file

The applicant can ask for a copy of the written material the Department gave to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's practice direction for migration reviews refers to requests under section 362A of the Migration Act 1958 and says they should be made as soon as practicable after the review starts. It also says that a late request, or the Department not responding, will not on its own be a sufficient reason to adjourn a hearing.

The file matters because partner visa ART evidence must be consistent with what the Department already holds. If the applicant said one thing in a Form 80, an earlier visa application or an interview, the Tribunal will compare it with what is said on review. Seeing the file lets the couple identify any inconsistency and explain it honestly, rather than be surprised by it.

How partner visa ART evidence answers each refusal reason

Partner visa ART evidence must be built around the refusal reasons, not around a general checklist. The list below shows how the main refusal grounds translate into evidence on review.

• Relationship not genuine and continuing: updated evidence across all four assessed aspects of the relationship, a detailed relationship statement, Form 888 statements and consistent oral evidence.
• De facto relationship less than 12 months: records that fix the start of the de facto relationship and show its continuity, or evidence of an applicable exception.
• Marriage not valid or not proved: the marriage certificate and evidence that the marriage is valid for Australian law, or a marriage that has since taken place.
• Police certificate not provided: a current police certificate from each required country.
• Health requirement not met or not completed: evidence that the required health examinations have been completed.
• Sponsorship not approved or not provided: the sponsorship, and evidence that no sponsorship limitation applies.
• False or misleading information: an honest explanation, documents showing the true position, and submissions on the integrity criterion.
• Schedule 3 criteria not met: evidence relevant to the Schedule 3 criteria and any compelling reasons.

The rest of this guide works through each of these in turn. Where the refusal turns on several reasons, the partner visa ART evidence must address every one. Winning on genuineness does not help if a police certificate is still missing.

The four aspects of the relationship on review

Where the refusal is about whether the relationship is genuine and continuing, the Tribunal looks at the same four aspects of the relationship that the Department considers: the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. For a married couple these are set out in regulation 1.15A of the Migration Regulations 1994, read with section 5F of the Migration Act 1958. For a de facto couple they are in regulation 1.09A, read with section 5CB of the Act.

These are four aspects of one relationship. They are not four separate tests, and no single aspect decides the case. A couple who keep separate bank accounts can still show strong household, social and commitment evidence. Partner visa ART evidence should therefore address all four, and give the most attention to the aspects the delegate found weak.

Financial aspects

The financial aspects concern how the couple share financial responsibility. Useful partner visa ART evidence includes joint bank accounts and their statements, joint loans or leases, property owned together, shared bills, money transfers between the partners, insurance or superannuation nominations, and evidence of who pays which household costs. Statements should cover a period, not just a single month, so the Tribunal can see a pattern.

If the couple keep their money separate, the evidence should show how they share costs in practice and the relationship statement should explain why they organise their finances that way. Cabezas (Migration) [2024] AATA 2792, a Subclass 820 matter, reported issues including a genuine and continuing relationship, financial documents and joint care for children.

Nature of the household

The nature of the household concerns living arrangements, care of children and how domestic tasks are shared. Evidence includes leases or mortgage documents in both names, mail and official records at the same address, bills, and statements about who does what at home. In LE (Migration) [2018] AATA 3675, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were a genuine spousal relationship, a joint household, tenancy agreements provided and the sharing of day to day expenses.

Where the couple have lived apart for part of the relationship, the evidence must explain why and show that the separation was temporary. Work, study, family obligations and travel restrictions are common reasons. The point is to prove that the couple do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

Social aspects

The social aspects concern whether the relationship is known and recognised by others. Evidence includes joint invitations, photographs with friends and family over time, joint travel, membership of clubs or communities as a couple, and social media history. Form 888 statements are especially important here, because they come from people who see the couple in daily life. Kim (Migration) [2023] AATA 3579, a Subclass 820 matter, reported issues including limited evidence regarding the household, social recognition of the relationship and support statements from family.

Nature of the commitment

The nature of the commitment concerns the couple's knowledge of each other, the length of the relationship, how they stayed in contact when apart, their plans for the future and whether they see the relationship as long term. Evidence includes call and message logs, travel to see each other, wills, nominations, plans for children, and the relationship statement itself. Oral evidence at a hearing is often the strongest proof of commitment, because the Tribunal can hear how the couple describe their life together.

For a detailed list of documents under each aspect, see our guides to partner visa relationship evidence, preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and the 820 partner visa evidence checklist.

What Tribunal decisions show about evidence given on review

The Tribunal's published decisions show the same pattern again and again: partner visa refusals are often set aside because the Tribunal had more, better or more consistent evidence than the delegate. The following decisions are drawn from Tribunal remittals and are described only by the issue each turned on. My Migration Lawyers was not involved in these matters.

• Jagdeep Kaur (Migration) [2021] AATA 475, a Subclass 309 matter: the reported issues were a genuine spousal relationship and significantly more evidence received from the parties.
• Jeong (Migration) [2020] AATA 1820, a Subclass 820 matter: the parties were validly married, substantial corroborative evidence was provided, the relationship was genuine and continuing, and a witness was found truthful and credible.
• Vu (Migration) [2023] AATA 2881, a Subclass 820 matter: limited documentary evidence had been provided to the Department, and extensive documentary evidence and submissions were provided to the Tribunal.
• Bell (Migration) [2023] AATA 3086, a Subclass 309 matter: extensive additional evidence was provided to the Tribunal, in a relationship disrupted by COVID travel restrictions.
• Tran (Migration) [2023] AATA 3870, a Subclass 820 matter: the reported issues included the four aspects of the relationship and limited evidence at the time of application.
• Tang (Migration) [2023] AATA 1244, a Subclass 820 matter: the reported issues included evidence of events after the date of the visa application.

These decisions do not mean that more paper always wins. They show that the Tribunal gives real weight to partner visa ART evidence that fills the gaps the delegate identified, that is corroborated by independent documents, and that is consistent with what the couple say in person.

Each case turns on its own facts. A remittal in one matter is not a prediction for another. What the cases do show is that the evidence a couple prepares for review deserves as much care as the original application, and often more.

Partner visa ART evidence for a de facto relationship under 12 months

Where the Department refused a de facto partner visa because the relationship had not existed for at least 12 months before the application, the partner visa ART evidence must focus on dates. The question is when the de facto relationship began, not when the couple met or first dated.

Useful evidence fixes the start of living together or of the shared life, and then shows that it continued. Leases, bond records, rental ledgers, utility accounts, bank statements showing the same address, and official mail all carry dates. The relationship statement should give a clear and honest timeline that matches those documents. Form 888 statements should describe when the witnesses first knew the couple as a couple.

Where the couple cannot show 12 months, the partner visa ART evidence may need to address an exception instead, such as registration of the relationship under a prescribed Australian state or territory law, or compelling and compassionate circumstances. These exceptions turn on specific facts and must be put carefully. In Varhelyi (Migration) [2024] AATA 320, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were a relationship of 12 months before the application was made, international travel and work, considerable documentary evidence and supporting statements, and a child who was a member of the family unit.

For the rule itself and its exceptions, see our guides to the de facto partner visa and the 12-month rule and whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship for a Subclass 820 visa. Same-sex couples are assessed in exactly the same way, as our page on LGBTI and same-sex partner visas explains.

Partner visa ART evidence where the marriage was not proved

Where the refusal turned on whether the couple were validly married, the partner visa ART evidence must prove the marriage and its validity for Australian law. That usually means the marriage certificate, a certified English translation if it is not in English, and evidence that any earlier marriage of either party ended before this one.

Some refusals arise because the marriage happened after the application or after the refusal. The Tribunal's remittals include several matters where a marriage certificate was provided on review. In Sage (Migration) [2019] AATA 4230, a Subclass 300 matter, the sponsor and applicant married after the Prospective Marriage visa refusal, the Tribunal was notified of the marriage before the review was determined, and the marriage certificate was provided. In Khawari (Migration) [2023] AATA 933, also a Subclass 300 matter, the reported issues were that the applicant and sponsor were validly married, the marriage certificate was provided, and the applicant was to be assessed for a spouse visa rather than a prospective marriage visa. In McKenzie (Migration) [2024] AATA 914, the date on the notice of intended marriage had passed before the delegate's decision and an updated notice was provided to the Tribunal.

Where the authenticity of a marriage document is questioned, the partner visa ART evidence may need to go further. In Faruque (Migration) [2024] AATA 3889, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issues were that the applicant was said to have submitted a bogus document, independent information about the marriage registration process was considered, and the Tribunal found the marriage certificate was not a bogus document. Evidence about how documents are issued in the country concerned can be decisive in that kind of case.

For the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa, the intention to marry and the timing of the wedding are central. For the offshore Subclass 309 partner visa and the onshore Subclass 820 partner visa, proof of a valid marriage supports the spouse definition.

Police certificates and character: the most fixable partner visa ART evidence

A large number of partner visa refusals are not about the relationship at all. They are about a police certificate that was requested and not received. In these cases the partner visa ART evidence can be short: a current police certificate from each country the Department required, together with any Australian Federal Police certificate.

The Tribunal's remittals show this repeatedly:

• Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827, Subclass 820: a National Police Clearance from the AFP and a records check reply from the Korean National Police Agency were provided.
• Goh (Migration) [2022] AATA 4903, Subclass 820: a police certificate of good conduct issued by the government of Malaysia was provided, and PIC 4001 was in issue.
• Takemanu (Migration) [2023] AATA 936, Subclass 820: the Tribunal received a national police clearance certificate from Papua New Guinea.
• Collier (Migration) [2023] AATA 1840, Subclass 820: an Australian National Police Certificate and a Canadian National Criminal Records certificate were provided upon review.
• Harper (Migration) [2019] AATA 3001, Subclass 820: a police certificate was provided.
• Fouracres (Migration) [2024] AATA 61, Subclass 820: an AFP certificate expired before the visa was finalised, a new certificate was provided to the Tribunal, and the decision was made without a hearing being necessary.
• Lou (Migration) [2019] AATA 4665, Subclass 820: an authorised criminal clearance certificate was not provided to the delegate, and a Canadian police certificate was provided to the Tribunal.

Three practical points follow. First, police certificates take time to obtain from some countries, so the request should be made as soon as the review is lodged. Second, the certificate must be the right one, issued by the right authority, and current when the Tribunal decides. Third, if a certificate discloses a conviction, the partner visa ART evidence must deal with character properly, not just supply the document. A record that raises the character test under section 501 is a different and more serious issue. Our page on visa cancellations and character matters explains the wider framework.

Requesting a decision without a hearing

The Tribunal's practice direction for migration reviews allows an applicant to ask for an expedited decision where they can provide evidence that objectively demonstrates the criterion or criteria are now met, such as a police certificate. The request must include written submissions explaining how the evidence satisfies the relevant criteria without a hearing. Where the only refusal reason was a missing document, this can be the most efficient form of partner visa ART evidence. Whether it is appropriate depends on whether any other criterion is in doubt.

Health requirement refusals on review

Where the visa was refused because the health requirement was not met, or because the applicant did not complete the required medical examinations, the partner visa ART evidence must show that the health criteria are now satisfied or that the required process has been completed.

In Rous (Migration) [2020] AATA 1877, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were the health criterion and documentation of the specified medical examination provided to the Tribunal. In Freeland (Migration) [2024] AATA 1083, also a Subclass 820 matter, evidence of the required examination was provided to the Tribunal and the decision was made without a hearing being necessary. Chase (Migration) [2023] AATA 410 and Biskaps (Migration) [2023] AATA 2972 report similar issues, with a cleared health examination or medical assessment provided on review.

Where the health refusal follows an adverse opinion from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, the issue is more complex. In 1923768 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3910, a Subclass 309 matter, the requirements in PIC 4007 had not been met, a further Medical Officer of the Commonwealth opinion was provided, and the visa applicant then satisfied the health criteria. Evidence in that kind of matter may include specialist reports and submissions about the waiver, and it must be prepared with care. The Tribunal generally cannot substitute its own medical opinion for that of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth on the questions the law reserves to that officer.

Sponsorship evidence on review

Some refusals occur because the sponsorship was never lodged or approved, or because a sponsorship limitation applied. The partner visa ART evidence must then deal with the sponsor, not only the applicant.

In Martine (Migration) [2023] AATA 690, a Subclass 309 matter, the applicant had failed to provide the sponsorship form 40SP, then provided the completed form, and the Tribunal found the applicant was now sponsored. In Manalo (Migration) [2024] AATA 1927, a Subclass 820 matter, the sponsorship form and other requested material had not been provided to the Department, with COVID restrictions and access issues, and the Tribunal considered prehearing, oral and witness evidence.

Sponsorship limitations are different. They limit who can sponsor, for example where the sponsor has sponsored earlier partners or was themselves granted a partner visa within a set period. The partner visa ART evidence in a limitation case must address the specific limitation and any compelling circumstances that may allow it to be waived. In Aryani (Migration) [2022] AATA 4906, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issues were sponsorship limitations, a valid marriage, a current genuine spousal relationship and evidence of long-term commitment to a spousal relationship. See our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations and our guide to when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa.

False or misleading information and the integrity criterion

Where the Department refused the visa under PIC 4020 because it found that false or misleading information or a bogus document was given, the partner visa ART evidence must address honesty directly. This is one of the most serious refusal grounds, because a finding under PIC 4020 can affect later applications.

The evidence should show what the true position is, explain how the incorrect information came to be given, and identify any documents that support the explanation. In Pham (Migration) [2021] AATA 4350, a Subclass 820 matter, the issue was false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application, where the applicant had answered "married" but was separated at the time and later divorced, and the reported issues included a credible witness and evidence. In Chea (Migration) [2021] AATA 2824, a Subclass 309 matter, the applicant met PIC 4020(2A), identity documents and evidence were provided, and the Tribunal was satisfied as to the applicant's identity.

Partner visa ART evidence in an integrity matter must never add a new inaccuracy. Every statement on review must be true and complete. Where a previous form contained an error, our guides to completing Form 80 without errors and Form 1022 change of circumstances explain how information is given and updated.

Schedule 3 refusals and partner visa ART evidence

Where an onshore Subclass 820 application was refused because the applicant did not hold a substantive visa when applying and the Schedule 3 criteria were not met, the partner visa ART evidence must address those criteria. That may include evidence about the applicant's visa history, the circumstances in which they became unlawful, and any compelling reasons for not applying the criteria.

Compelling reasons in a partner case often relate to the relationship itself, the Australian partner, children of the relationship, and the hardship that would follow if the applicant had to leave Australia to apply. The evidence should be specific and documented. In Thota (Migration) [2020] AATA 4222, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were the Schedule 3 criteria, an application lodged outside the relevant timeframe, compelling reasons for a waiver, and oral evidence from the sponsor's son and daughter-in-law.

The legal analysis of Schedule 3 is technical, and the point in time at which particular matters are assessed should be confirmed on the facts of each case before the partner visa ART evidence is finalised. Our guides to Schedule 3 criteria for a partner visa and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver explain the criteria, and our Schedule 3 waiver service explains how My Migration Lawyers assists. Where condition 8503 was relevant before lodgement, see our guide on applying for a Subclass 820 visa with a no further stay condition.

When the relationship ended or the sponsor died during the process

Not every partner visa review is about a continuing relationship. Where the relationship ended after lodgement, the applicant may still be able to rely on the family violence provisions in Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations 1994, or on provisions that apply where the sponsor has died. The partner visa ART evidence in these cases is different. It must show that the relationship was genuine before it ended and, for family violence, it must meet the evidentiary requirements of Division 1.5.

In 2308732 (Migration) [2024] AATA 3652, a Subclass 820 matter remitted from the Federal Court, the reported issues were that the relationship had ceased, a claim of family violence, adverse information that was given no weight, and statements by specified practitioners. In 1822149 (Migration) [2023] AATA 2591, the reported issues were a relationship that ceased with a judicially determined claim of family violence, a genuine relationship before it ceased, documentation and supporting statements, and coercive control and violence. In Phung (Migration) [2023] AATA 3642, the issue was a genuine relationship before the sponsor's death, with supporting statements.

These matters require sensitive handling and careful evidence. See our pages on family violence partner visas and what happens to a Subclass 820 application if the relationship breaks down.

Information the Department or the Tribunal relies on against you

Partner visa ART evidence is not only about what the couple provides. It also responds to adverse information. During the original application, the Department may have sent a request for more information or a natural justice letter. Our guides to responding to a section 56 request for more information and to the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explain those steps.

On review, the Tribunal may also ask for information, and where it holds information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the refusal, it will generally give the applicant particulars of that information and an invitation to comment on it. A response to such an invitation is itself partner visa ART evidence, and it must be complete, accurate and on time. A failure to respond can allow the Tribunal to decide without the applicant's comment.

The relationship statement on review

There is one relationship statement. On review, the couple can update it or provide a further statement that responds to the refusal. The relationship statement is the couple's own evidence, written in their own words, and it must be true. A lawyer can explain what the law requires the statement to cover and can review it for clarity and consistency, but the account belongs to the couple and must be corrected by them.

For partner visa ART evidence, the relationship statement should do four things:

• Tell the history in order. How the couple met, when the relationship became committed, when they began living together or married, and the main events since.
• Respond to the refusal. Where the delegate found an inconsistency or a gap, the statement should explain it honestly and point to the documents that support the explanation.
• Cover all four assessed aspects. The statement should describe how the couple share finances, run the household, are known socially and see their future together.
• Bring the story up to date. Events since the application and since the refusal are relevant. A couple who have since moved in together, bought property, had a child or married should say so.

The statement should be specific. Dates, places and names carry weight. General phrases such as "we love each other very much" add little. Our guide on how to write a partner visa relationship statement gives examples of the detail that helps.

Form 888 statements and other witness evidence

Form 888 statements are supporting statements from Australian citizens or permanent residents who know the couple. They are not statutory declarations. In partner visa ART evidence they are often the clearest proof of the social aspects of the relationship, because they come from people who have seen the relationship from outside.

Good Form 888 statements on review:

• come from people who genuinely know the couple, such as friends, colleagues, neighbours, community members and family;
• describe specific events the witness attended or saw, with approximate dates;
• explain how long and in what capacity the witness has known the couple as a couple;
• are written in the witness's own words, not copied from a template; and
• are consistent with the relationship statement and the documents.

The Tribunal's remittals often refer to supporting statements and credible witnesses. In 1700986 (Migration) [2018] AATA 5050, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were a genuine de facto relationship, a shared life together, and supporting statements from family and friends. In Gillard (Migration) [2019] AATA 2934, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issues included concern about the reliability of certain evidence, a language barrier, an arranged marriage, and relatives' evidence that was found credible.

Witnesses may also be asked to give oral evidence. A witness who has made a Form 888 statement should be available and should be told that they may be contacted. The Tribunal may test what a witness says. A witness must give their own honest account and must never be coached on what to say. Our guides on who can make a Form 888 and what it should say and on Form 888 example answers and common mistakes explain more.

Consistency: the hidden test in all partner visa ART evidence

Consistency is often what decides credibility. The Tribunal will compare the relationship statement, the Form 888 statements, the documents, the original application, any interview answers, earlier visa applications and what the couple say at a hearing. Where they agree, the evidence supports itself. Where they conflict, the Tribunal may doubt all of it.

In Hoang (Migration) [2021] AATA 2853, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issues were a genuine and continuing relationship, a valid marriage, and detailed and consistent evidence of the financial, household and social aspects of the relationship and the nature of the commitment. In Mohammad (Migration) [2023] AATA 4620, a Subclass 309 matter, the parties gave consistent evidence that reflected a sound knowledge of each other's family and health conditions. By contrast, 1707512 (Migration) [2018] AATA 5003 reported issues including the applicant's conflicting evidence about the relationship, adverse information and sham marriage claims.

Before partner visa ART evidence is lodged, every new statement should be checked against what is already on file. Dates of meeting, moving in, marriage, travel and separations should be the same everywhere. Where an earlier document was wrong, the new evidence should say so plainly and explain why. An honest correction is far better than a silent contradiction that the Tribunal finds for itself.

Documents: quality, translation and organisation

The quality of partner visa ART evidence matters as much as the quantity. A Tribunal member reviewing a file needs to find the important evidence quickly and understand what it proves.

Practical rules for documents on review:

• Use originals or clear copies. Bank statements and records should show names, dates and addresses clearly.
• Translate documents not in English. Documents in another language should be accompanied by an English translation, and a certified translation is usually expected for formal documents such as certificates.
• Cover a period, not a moment. A run of bank statements, bills or messages over the relationship carries more weight than a single example.
• Select, do not dump. Hundreds of near-identical photographs or message screenshots add bulk without adding proof. A representative selection across the whole relationship, with dates, is more persuasive.
• Index and label. Group documents under the four assessed aspects and under each refusal reason, and give each document a number so submissions can refer to it.
• Explain gaps. Where a type of document does not exist, the statement or submissions should say why.

Our partner visa document checklist lists the common categories of documents. On review, those documents should be updated to the present and arranged to answer the refusal.

Written submissions that connect the evidence to the law

Written submissions are the part of partner visa ART evidence that tells the Tribunal what the evidence means in law. They are not evidence of facts themselves. They identify each criterion in issue, summarise the evidence that addresses it, refer to the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, and explain why the delegate's concerns no longer stand.

Good submissions are short enough to read, precise about the criteria, and organised around the refusal reasons. They refer to documents by number, point out where new evidence fills a gap the delegate identified, and deal openly with any weakness. Where Tribunal decisions are relevant, they are cited accurately for the point they decide. Submissions that simply repeat that the relationship is genuine, without linking that claim to the evidence, add little.

Timing: a plan for building the evidence

The deadline to apply for review of a partner visa refusal is short and strictly applied, and the Tribunal cannot extend it. The first step is always to lodge the review in time. The partner visa ART evidence is then built after lodgement, on a planned timetable.

A practical sequence is:

• Lodge the review application within time.
• Request the Department's file.
• Analyse the decision record and identify each criterion in issue.
• Request police certificates and book any health examinations that may be needed.
• Gather updated documents across the four aspects.
• Prepare the updated relationship statement and arrange Form 888 statements.
• Prepare written submissions.
• Lodge the evidence with the Tribunal in good time, and keep it updated if circumstances change.

Evidence that arrives at the last moment gives the Tribunal little time to read it and may not be given the attention it deserves. The Tribunal also expects documents to be provided in accordance with its directions. Couples should not wait for a hearing date before starting.

While the review is pending, an onshore applicant may continue to hold a bridging visa connected with the original application. Our guides to Bridging Visa A, working while waiting for a Subclass 820 visa and bridging visas in Australia explain the position.

Who gives partner visa ART evidence: onshore and offshore reviews

For an onshore Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 refusal, the review application is made by the visa applicant. For an offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 100 refusal, or a Subclass 300 refusal, the review is generally made by the Australian sponsor. Either way, the partner visa ART evidence comes from both partners, because the relationship is the subject of the review.

In an offshore review, the applicant may give evidence from overseas, and the evidence about time spent apart, communication and visits becomes more important. In Hussain (Migration) [2022] AATA 256, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issues were a genuine spousal relationship, a valid marriage in the home country, and limited evidence of the financial, household and social aspects while the parties lived in different countries. In Dang (Migration) [2018] AATA 5086, also a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issue was evidence of a spousal relationship despite geographical separation.

Common mistakes in partner visa ART evidence

The same mistakes appear in many unsuccessful reviews:

• Resubmitting the original application. If the Department found it insufficient, the same bundle will rarely persuade the Tribunal.
• Ignoring a refusal reason. Every criterion in issue must be addressed, including technical ones such as police certificates.
• Inconsistent dates. New statements that conflict with earlier forms damage credibility.
• Template Form 888 statements. Identical wording across several witnesses suggests the statements were not written by the witnesses.
• No update. Evidence that stops at the date of the original application misses the chance to show the relationship as it is now.
• Overstating facts. Any exaggeration, once noticed, can undermine true evidence.
• Leaving it late. Police certificates and translations take time, and rushed evidence is usually weaker.

Where an application was lodged without legal help, a fresh review of the whole file often reveals issues the couple did not know about. Our guides on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application, getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer and a partner visa lawyer compared with doing it yourself explain when help is worthwhile.

What happens after the Tribunal decides

If the Tribunal is satisfied on the criteria in issue, it will usually set aside the refusal and remit the application to the Department with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria the Tribunal decided. The Department then considers any remaining criteria, such as health or character checks that have not been finalised, before deciding whether to grant the visa. Partner visa ART evidence that resolves every refusal reason makes that final step simpler.

If the Tribunal affirms the refusal, further options are limited. Judicial review is available only for legal error, not to reargue the facts, and it does not usually allow new evidence. See our page on judicial review and our guide to applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal. Because the review is usually the last opportunity to put new evidence forward, the partner visa ART evidence should be complete the first time.

Partner visa ART evidence across Australia

My Migration Lawyers prepares partner visa ART evidence for couples throughout Australia and for Australian sponsors whose partners are overseas. Consultations are by video, so location does not limit who we can assist. We act for couples in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart, the Gold Coast and Parramatta. See our pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart, the Gold Coast and Parramatta.

How My Migration Lawyers prepares partner visa ART evidence

My Migration Lawyers prepares partner visa ART evidence for couples whose partner visa has been refused, and we regularly act in Tribunal reviews of Subclass 820, Subclass 309 and Subclass 300 refusals. Many of these matters are complex: inconsistent earlier evidence, a long period apart, a missing police certificate from a difficult jurisdiction, a Schedule 3 issue, an integrity finding, or a relationship that has changed since lodgement. We are experienced in handling cases of this kind and we approach each one carefully.

On a review, our work typically includes:

• lodging the review application within time and confirming who must apply;
• requesting the Department's file and reading the decision record against it;
• identifying every criterion in issue and the point in time at which each must be met;
• advising the couple on the documents that will address each refusal reason, and checking the documents they provide;
• reviewing the couple's relationship statement for completeness and consistency with the file, so that it presents their own account clearly;
• explaining to witnesses what a Form 888 statement must cover, without shaping what they say;
• arranging police certificates, health examinations and translations where needed;
• preparing written submissions that connect the partner visa ART evidence to the law; and
• responding to any invitation to comment from the Tribunal.

The Principal Lawyer, Weiwei Zhang, oversees the firm's partner visa review work. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, our partner visa lawyers and our partner visa refusals service.

If your partner visa has been refused and you need partner visa ART evidence prepared properly, act now while the review period is still open. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers, or call 1300 040 300.