Partner Visa Bridging Visa C

What is a bridging visa C partner visa?

A bridging visa C partner visa is the Subclass 030 Bridging C visa that the Department of Home Affairs grants to a person who lodges an onshore partner visa application when they do not hold a substantive visa. It keeps the applicant lawful in Australia while the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application is processed. The bridging visa C partner visa is different from the more common Bridging A visa because the person had no visitor, student, work or other substantive visa on the day they lodged.

That one fact changes almost everything about the application. It changes the work rights. It changes travel. It also means the Subclass 820 application is assessed against extra rules in Schedule 3 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which can lead to refusal even where the relationship is real and well evidenced. Many people only discover this after lodgement, when the grant notice names a Bridging C visa and they start asking why.

This guide explains the bridging visa C partner visa position from the beginning: why it is granted, what Schedule 3 requires, whether you can work, whether you can travel, how long it lasts, what happens after a refusal and how it compares with the Bridging A and Bridging E visas. If you are new to onshore partner visas, start with our overview of the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa and our complete guide to partner visas in Australia, then return here.

Why the bridging visa C partner visa position matters

The bridging visa C partner visa position matters because it is a signal, not just a label. A Bridging C visa tells you, and the case officer, that you were not holding a substantive visa when you applied. That is the trigger for the Schedule 3 criteria. It is also the reason the bridging visa usually arrives with a no work condition, and the reason you cannot obtain a Bridging B visa to travel.

People often focus on the work condition first, because it affects the household budget straight away. The bigger legal risk, however, is usually Schedule 3. A bridging visa C partner visa applicant who does not address Schedule 3 early can find that the case officer refuses the Subclass 820 visa without ever reaching the question of whether the relationship is genuine. Our general explainer on bridging visas in Australia, A, B, C and E sets out the wider system. This article stays on the partner visa Bridging C visa only.

Why do partner visa applicants get a Bridging C visa instead of a Bridging A visa?

Partner visa applicants get a Bridging C visa instead of a Bridging A visa because they did not hold a substantive visa when they lodged the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application. A Bridging A visa is only available to people who held a substantive visa at that moment. The bridging visa C partner visa rules fill the gap for applicants who were already on a bridging visa, or who had no visa at all, provided they have not held a Bridging E visa since their last substantive visa.

The rules are found in item 1303 of Schedule 1 and Part 030 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Under paragraph 1303(3)(d), a person can make a valid Bridging C application only if they were not the holder of a substantive visa when they made the substantive visa application, they do not hold a Bridging E visa, and they have not held a Bridging E visa since they last held a substantive visa. The Department's own policy notes that the person may be unlawful, or may hold another bridging visa, at the time of application.

The substantive visa test at the moment of lodgement

The substantive visa test asks a simple question: on the day and at the time you lodged, did you hold a visa other than a bridging visa, a criminal justice visa or an enforcement visa? Visitor, student, working holiday, temporary skilled, graduate and Subclass 300 visas are all substantive visas. If you held one of them, you would normally receive a Bridging A visa. Our guide to the Subclass 010 Bridging A visa and its work rights, conditions and travel explains that path.

If you did not hold one of them, the bridging visa C partner visa path applies instead. Subparagraph 1303(3)(d)(i) is the rule that pushes you out of the Bridging A visa and into the Bridging C visa. The Department's policy says that a person who held a substantive visa when they applied cannot make a valid Bridging C application at all and should be considered for a Bridging A visa.

Holding a bridging visa from an earlier application

The most common bridging visa C partner visa applicant is a person who already held a bridging visa from an earlier application when they lodged the partner visa. This often happens after a student, skilled or visitor visa refusal that is under review at the Administrative Review Tribunal. The person is lawful on a Bridging A or Bridging C visa linked to the earlier application. They then lodge a partner visa. Because a bridging visa is not a substantive visa, the new application attracts a Bridging C visa, not a Bridging A visa.

Many applicants in this position believe they are "lawful, so it does not matter". It does matter. Being lawful on a bridging visa is not the same as holding a substantive visa, and the partner visa rules look at the substantive visa question. If your earlier visa was refused and you are weighing your options, our article on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal explains how the two applications interact.

Lodging after your visa has already ended

The second group is people who lodge after their substantive visa has expired and who are unlawful when they apply. Provided they have not been granted a Bridging E visa since their last substantive visa ended, lodging a valid onshore partner visa application can give them a Bridging C visa. The Bridging C visa then makes them lawful again from grant.

This is a significant protection, but it comes with a cost. The person was not holding a substantive visa at lodgement, so Schedule 3 applies to the Subclass 820 application. The time since the last substantive visa ended, the reasons they became unlawful and their compliance with past visa conditions will all be examined. Our guide to Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful covers the unlawful group in more depth. People who lodged from a visitor visa that later ended should also read our article on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia.

Why a Bridging E visa changes the picture

A person who has held a Bridging E visa since their last substantive visa cannot make a valid bridging visa C partner visa application. This is the rule in subparagraphs 1303(3)(d)(ii) and (iii) and in clause 030.211. It catches people who, for example, contacted the Department while unlawful and were granted a Bridging E visa to arrange their departure or to wait for a decision, and who only then lodged a partner visa.

For that group, the bridging visa that follows the partner visa application is normally another Bridging E visa, with its own conditions. The difference is not cosmetic. Bridging E visas can carry reporting and other conditions, and the route to work rights is different. If you are unsure which bridging visa you have held, check every grant notice in your ImmiAccount before you lodge anything. Our step-by-step guide to creating an ImmiAccount explains where those notices are kept.

Was the wrong bridging visa granted? Checking your bridging visa C partner visa grant notice

The bridging visa class on your grant notice should match your visa status at lodgement, and if it does not, the error can cause serious problems later. The Department's own Bridging C visa instruction warns that an incorrect bridging visa grant can have adverse consequences for the holder. It gives a worked example of a person who should have received a Bridging C visa but was wrongly granted a Bridging A visa.

In that example, the person left Australia without a Bridging B visa, so the Bridging A visa ceased. They came back on a temporary visa and tried to apply for a replacement Bridging A visa. At that point, it was discovered that they had never been eligible for a Bridging A visa, because they did not hold a substantive visa when they lodged. They also could not get a replacement Bridging C visa, because they had never been granted one for that application. The policy says the only remaining option to stay lawful was a Bridging E visa.

What to check on the grant notice

For a bridging visa C partner visa applicant, the grant notice should identify the visa as a Subclass 030 Bridging C visa. It should name the linked Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application, show the date of grant and list any conditions. For most partner applicants on a Bridging C visa, condition 8101 will appear. Under Department policy, the notice should also explain when the visa comes into effect and the events that make it cease, including leaving Australia.

If you held only a bridging visa when you lodged but the notice says Bridging A visa, do not treat that as good news. It may be an error, and an error in your favour today can strand you tomorrow. Raise it before you rely on it, and before you make any travel plans. Keep a copy of the notice with your partner visa document checklist records so the history is clear later.

Schedule 3: the real problem behind most bridging visa C partner visa cases

Schedule 3 is the main legal risk in most bridging visa C partner visa cases, because any applicant who did not hold a substantive visa at lodgement must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 unless the decision maker is satisfied there are compelling reasons not to apply them. This is set out in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2. The Bridging C visa itself is not the problem. It is evidence of the status that triggers the problem.

Schedule 3 exists to encourage people to apply for a further visa before their current substantive visa ends. The Department's policy describes its purpose as discouraging people from staying beyond their visa and preventing people from gaining an advantage by remaining unlawfully. It also accepts that some people end up without a substantive visa through circumstances outside their control, and that there are cases where there are compelling reasons to grant the visa anyway.

Criterion 3001: the time limit

Criterion 3001 requires the partner visa application to be made within a short, strict period after the applicant last held a substantive visa, or after they last entered Australia unlawfully. The Department's policy explains that the time is counted in calendar days, starting the day after the last day the visa was held, with an extension only where the final day falls on a weekend or a public or bank holiday in a relevant place.

Many bridging visa C partner visa applicants fail criterion 3001 simply because their last substantive visa ended long ago. That is common where a person has been on a bridging visa linked to a review for a long time. The bridging visa years do not reset the clock. The relevant day is the last day a substantive visa was held. Our article on the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver for applicants without a substantive visa explains why criterion 3001 is so often the deciding issue.

Criteria 3003 and 3004: circumstances beyond your control

Criterion 3004 applies to a person who ceased to hold a substantive visa, or entered Australia unlawfully, on or after 1 September 1994. Criterion 3003 deals with older, pre-1994 situations. Where criterion 3004 applies, the applicant must satisfy six separate requirements, in paragraphs 3004(c) to (h). In plain terms, the decision maker must be satisfied that:

• the applicant became a person without a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control;
• there are compelling reasons for granting the visa;
• the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last substantive visa and any later bridging visa;
• the applicant would have been entitled to the visa if they had applied immediately before becoming unlawful or without a substantive visa;
• the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the visa to be granted; and
• an old pre-1994 no further stay condition does not apply.

The third point is the one bridging visa C partner visa holders often overlook. Compliance with a later bridging visa counts. A person who works in breach of condition 8101 on their Bridging C visa is adding a compliance problem to a Schedule 3 assessment that is already difficult.

The compelling reasons waiver in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii)

The Subclass 820 criteria allow the decision maker not to apply criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 where there are compelling reasons for not applying them. This is the waiver. It is not automatic, and it is not satisfied by the relationship alone. The Full Federal Court in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32 held that the decision maker must consider all of the applicant's circumstances known up to the time of decision, not just those that existed at lodgement.

That ruling is important for every bridging visa C partner visa applicant. Circumstances that arise while the application is being processed, such as the birth of a child or a serious change in the sponsor's health, can be put forward as compelling reasons. Our service page on Schedule 3 waivers for partner visas explains how My Migration Lawyers prepares these submissions.

The Subclass 300 exception

Some applicants who do not hold a substantive visa are not required to meet Schedule 3 at all. Subclause 820.211(5) covers a person who last entered Australia on a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa, married the person they came to marry, and then ceased to hold a substantive visa. That exception depends on a marriage to the original sponsor, so it cannot be satisfied on the basis of a de facto relationship. If you entered on a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa, check whether this exception applies before assuming Schedule 3 is a problem.

What counts as compelling reasons for a bridging visa C partner visa applicant?

Compelling reasons for a bridging visa C partner visa applicant are circumstances, assessed case by case, that justify not applying the Schedule 3 criteria, and Department policy says that a genuine relationship and the hardship of separation are generally not enough on their own. The Regulations do not define the circumstances. Policy guides the Department, but the Administrative Review Tribunal also considers the whole picture on review.

The Department's Subclass 820 policy explains why the relationship alone is usually not enough. A genuine spouse or de facto relationship is the basis of every partner visa, and separation while an offshore application is processed is common across the caseload. Policy therefore looks for something more. It also says that the waiver is not meant to give an unfair advantage to people who fail to comply with visa conditions, who deliberately manipulate their circumstances, or who can leave Australia and apply for a partner visa outside Australia.

Factors the Department considers

The Department's Subclass 820 policy lists matters that decision makers should take into account when deciding whether compelling reasons exist. They include, but are not limited to:

• any history of non-compliance with visa conditions;
• the length of time the applicant has been unlawful in Australia;
• the reasons the applicant became unlawful;
• the reasons the applicant did not seek to become lawful sooner;
• the current family composition, including any dependent children; and
• the steps, if any, the applicant has taken to become lawful other than applying for the partner visa.

Each factor needs evidence, not just assertion. If you are unsure how strong your position is, a second opinion from an immigration lawyer before the Department asks questions can help. A bridging visa C partner visa applicant who says they did not know their visa had ended should expect the decision maker to test that claim against the visa grant notice and the Department's records. The policy accepts that circumstances beyond the applicant's control, such as severe illness or incapacity that prevented them becoming lawful, can support a waiver.

Australian citizen children

Department policy states that where there is an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant, a decision may be made to waive the Schedule 3 criteria in the best interests of the child. This is one of the most significant factors in the bridging visa C partner visa context. It does not guarantee a waiver. It does mean the child's relationship with the applicant, the child's needs and the practical effect of the applicant leaving Australia must be presented clearly and with documents.

This applies equally to same-sex couples, whose position is explained on our LGBTI partner visa page. Evidence of the parent and child relationship, the child's schooling and health needs, and the role each parent plays in daily care are usually central. Our guide to partner visa relationship evidence explains how household and family evidence is organised, and our article on preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains the four assessed aspects of the relationship: financial aspects, the nature of the household, social aspects and the nature of the commitment.

Why the partner visa relationship evidence still matters

Even where Schedule 3 is the main battleground, the relationship must still be proven. A bridging visa C partner visa applicant who wins the Schedule 3 argument but has thin relationship evidence can still be refused. The single relationship statement should explain the history of the relationship in the applicant's own words. Our guide to the partner visa relationship statement shows how to set it out.

Supporting witnesses usually give Form 888 statements. A Form 888 is a supporting witness statement from an Australian citizen or permanent resident who knows the couple. It is not a statutory declaration. Our guide to Form 888 for partner visas explains who can make one and what it should cover. For de facto couples, the de facto partner visa 12 month rule and its exceptions also needs attention. Our article on whether you really need 12 months of de facto relationship for a Subclass 820 visa explains the exceptions.

Tribunal decisions on Schedule 3 and the bridging visa C partner visa

Tribunal decisions show that Schedule 3 and the waiver question are frequently decided on review, and several Subclass 820 matters raising exactly these issues have been remitted to the Department for reconsideration. Remittal means the Tribunal sent the application back to the Department to be decided again on the basis of the Tribunal's findings. It does not mean the visa was granted.

The following decisions, all Subclass 820 matters, were remitted to the Department. Each is described only by the issues reported for it:

• 1814075 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3700: the application was made outside the Schedule 3 time limit after the last substantive visa; the applicant had two periods of unlawful residence and bridging visas; the length of the relationship was considered.
• Hunt (Migration) [2021] AATA 1479: a long-term genuine relationship; the applicant was not the holder of a substantive visa at the time of application; an Australian citizen daughter.
• Sandhu (Migration) [2018] AATA 1483: whether compelling reasons existed for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria; the length of the relationship; the difficulty of relocating offshore while an application is processed.
• BIEN (Migration) [2020] AATA 2713: the application was made outside the Schedule 3 time limit; compelling reasons for granting the visa; the best interests of Australian citizen children.
• Verma (Migration) [2020] AATA 4542: no substantive visa at the time of application; compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3; family health issues and bereavement.
• Li (Migration) [2020] AATA 5418: the application was made outside the Schedule 3 time limit; compelling reasons for not applying the criteria; possible manipulation of visa history.

These were decided by the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which the Administrative Review Tribunal replaced on 14 October 2024. They are not a prediction of any other result. They show the kinds of issues that a bridging visa C partner visa applicant must be ready to argue, including the applicant's own visa history. Our guide on when you need a visa appeal lawyer explains how review work is approached, and our summary of why partner visas get refused shows where Schedule 3 sits among other refusal grounds. Our article on what to expect in an ART review after a visa refusal explains the review process.

Can you work on a bridging visa C partner visa?

No. A bridging visa C partner visa holder usually cannot work at first, because condition 8101 is mandatory on a Bridging C visa granted with a partner visa application unless one of the specific exceptions applies. Work is only allowed after the person applies for, and is granted, a further Bridging C visa without condition 8101 on the basis of a compelling need to work.

The legal rule is clause 030.614 of Schedule 2. It says condition 8101 must be imposed where clauses 030.611, 030.612 and 030.613 do not apply. Clause 030.611 covers a person who has already shown a compelling need to work. Clause 030.612 deals with certain protection visa applicants at judicial review. Clause 030.613 lists certain skilled and parent visa applications. Partner visas are not in that list. The Department's policy adds that if the condition is not recorded in its systems, it still applies, because mandatory conditions attach by law.

How the bridging visa C partner visa differs from the Bridging A position

This is where many applicants are misled by general online information. A Bridging A visa linked to a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application is granted with nil conditions under a legislative instrument made for clause 010.611. Our guide to working while waiting for your Subclass 820 visa explains that Bridging A position. The bridging visa C partner visa position is different. The Department's Subclass 820 policy describes the nil conditions instrument only for Bridging A and Bridging B visas. It does not extend to Bridging C visas.

So when friends say "partner visa bridging visas have full work rights", they are usually describing a Bridging A visa. A bridging visa C partner visa holder who relies on that general statement and starts work is likely to be in breach of condition 8101.

Applying for permission to work under subclause 030.212(3)

A bridging visa C partner visa holder seeks work rights by applying for a further Bridging C visa without condition 8101, using Form 1005 or the online Form 1005 in ImmiAccount. Subclause 030.212(3) allows that further visa to be granted if the person holds a Bridging C visa linked to the substantive application, that visa is subject to condition 8101, and the decision maker is satisfied the person has a compelling need to work.

If the further visa is granted, clause 030.611 provides that it is granted with nil conditions in the ordinary partner case. The new Bridging C visa replaces the old one. Under subparagraph 030.511(1)(b)(iv), the earlier Bridging C visa ceases when the new one is granted for the same application. The new visa remains linked to the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application.

What financial hardship means

For a bridging visa C partner visa holder, a compelling need to work means financial hardship under paragraph 1.08(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. Financial hardship is not defined in the legislation, so it carries its ordinary meaning. Department policy says a person can be taken to be in financial hardship where the cost of reasonable living expenses exceeds their ability to pay for them.

Policy directs the decision maker to consider whether the claimed expenses are reasonable, how the person has supported themselves until now and whether that support will continue, whether there are other possible means of support, whether the person would otherwise become an unreasonable charge on public funds or charitable institutions, and how long the substantive application is likely to take. Policy also says the likely outcome of the partner visa application is not relevant to financial hardship.

Why the sponsor's income matters

For a bridging visa C partner visa applicant, the sponsor is usually the first "other possible means of support" the decision maker will look at. Policy expressly mentions the sponsor as a possible source of support. If the sponsor earns enough to cover the household's reasonable expenses, the decision maker may not be satisfied that the applicant is in financial hardship.

This creates a tension that needs careful handling. The partner visa application relies on financial interdependence and shared expenses. The work application asks whether the applicant can pay their reasonable expenses. The evidence must be consistent across both. A Form 1005 that presents the couple as financially separate can contradict the evidence lodged for the relationship. Your personal details must also be consistent with earlier forms, so our guide to completing Form 80 without errors is worth reading. Where circumstances change, our guide to Form 1022 for a change of circumstances explains when the Department must be told.

What happens if permission to work is refused

If the decision maker is not satisfied of a compelling need to work, the application is assessed against subclause 030.212(2A), the replacement Bridging C visa criterion. If granted on that basis, the new Bridging C visa still carries condition 8101 under clause 030.614. In practice, the bridging visa C partner visa holder remains lawful but still cannot work. A refusal of a Bridging C visa is reviewable by the Administrative Review Tribunal as a Part 5-reviewable decision, and the notice must explain review rights.

Working before permission is granted

Working while condition 8101 applies is a breach of a visa condition. It can expose the bridging visa to cancellation. In a bridging visa C partner visa case it also feeds directly into Schedule 3, because paragraph 3004(e) asks whether the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, including any later bridging visa. A breach on the Bridging C visa can weaken the very waiver argument the applicant depends on. Our visa cancellations page explains how cancellation risks are handled. If a cancellation notice has already arrived, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to prepare.

Medicare and other services for bridging visa C partner visa holders

Medicare eligibility for a bridging visa C partner visa holder is decided by Services Australia, not by the Department of Home Affairs, and it depends on the person's circumstances. Bridging visa holders who have applied for a permanent visa can be eligible in some situations, but the rules are separate from the migration rules and they change. Check eligibility directly with Services Australia before relying on it, and keep the bridging visa grant notice ready to show.

The same caution applies to driver licence conversions, bank accounts and enrolment in education. Each body has its own rules for bridging visa holders. A VEVO check will show the Bridging C visa and its conditions, including condition 8101 if it applies. Our Subclass 820 visa guide to requirements and documents lists the identity records you will usually be asked for. Employers and service providers often read VEVO without understanding the difference between a Bridging A and a Bridging C visa, so a short, accurate explanation of your position can save time.

Can you travel overseas on a bridging visa C partner visa?

No. A bridging visa C partner visa does not allow travel, because a Bridging C visa ceases when the holder leaves Australia under subsection 82(8) of the Migration Act 1958, and it does not allow the holder to travel to or re-enter Australia. Department policy says this directly: the Bridging C visa lets the holder remain lawfully in Australia, but it does not allow them to enter Australia if they leave.

Why there is no Bridging B visa option

A Bridging B visa is the travel bridging visa, and it can only be granted to a person who holds a Bridging A or Bridging B visa. A bridging visa C partner visa holder does not meet that requirement. So the usual travel advice for onshore partner applicants, "apply for a Bridging B visa before you go", does not work for a Bridging C visa holder. Our guide to the Subclass 020 Bridging B visa sets out who can use it.

The practical result is that a bridging visa C partner visa holder who must travel for a family emergency faces a hard choice. They can stay. Or they can leave, accept that the Bridging C visa ceases, and try to return on a separate visa. Nothing in this article suggests the second option is safe. It must be planned with legal advice before any ticket is booked.

Returning after a Bridging C visa has ceased

Department policy recognises a "replacement" Bridging C visa under subclause 030.212(2A). It is available where the person does not hold a substantive visa, the partner visa application is still not finally determined, and they were previously granted a Bridging C visa for that application. Policy gives the example of a person whose Bridging C visa ceased because they left Australia, who then returned on an Electronic Travel Authority and needs a further Bridging C visa once that visa ceases.

There are serious traps in that path. A person cannot satisfy the replacement criterion while they still hold the substantive visa they used to re-enter. They must also obtain that entry visa in the first place, which is not assured. For these reasons, the bridging visa C partner visa travel question should always be answered before departure, not after.

How long does a bridging visa C partner visa last?

A bridging visa C partner visa lasts until an event set out in the Migration Act 1958 or Division 030.5 of Schedule 2 causes it to cease, because Bridging C visa cessation is event driven, not date driven. There is no fixed expiry date. The visa ends when something happens, such as the grant of the partner visa, a refusal followed by the prescribed period, departure from Australia or cancellation.

One Bridging C visa for two applications

An onshore partner applicant applies for the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas at the same time and on the same form. Department policy says only one Bridging C visa is granted for both applications. Our article comparing the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 visas explains why the two are linked.

When the Subclass 820 visa is granted, the Bridging C visa stops being in effect because another visa has come into effect. However, the person still holds the Bridging C visa, because its visa period continues until the Subclass 801 application is decided. Policy explains that if the Subclass 820 visa is later cancelled (other than on character grounds under sections 501, 501A or 501B), the Bridging C visa can come back into effect while the Subclass 801 application is pending.

When the bridging visa C partner visa is out of effect

A Bridging C visa can be held but out of effect. Under subsection 82(3), it stops being in effect if another visa, other than a special purpose or maritime crew visa, comes into effect. Under subsection 68(4), it can come back into effect later if the person no longer holds a substantive visa in effect and the Bridging C visa is the most beneficial bridging visa they hold. This matters where a bridging visa C partner visa holder is later granted a different temporary visa during processing.

What happens to a bridging visa C partner visa after a refusal?

After a partner visa refusal, a bridging visa C partner visa normally continues for a short fixed period after the refusal decision and then ceases, unless a valid review application is lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal within the review period. Where review is lodged in time, the Bridging C visa continues during the review and ceases a short fixed period after the Tribunal decides it, unless the Tribunal remits the application.

The review deadline for partner visa refusals is short and strictly applied. It runs from the date set out in the refusal notice, not from the date you open the email. Our pages on partner visa refusals, partner visa appeal options after a refusal and why Subclass 820 visas are refused explain the steps. Our broader visa refusals page covers refusals across all visa types.

Refusal of the Subclass 820 visa but not the Subclass 801 visa

Department policy explains that because the Bridging C visa is linked to both applications, if the Subclass 801 application is not refused at the same time as the Subclass 820 application, the Bridging C visa remains in effect until both are finalised. In the ordinary onshore case, the two decisions are made together and the cessation period starts from that refusal.

If the Tribunal remits the application

If the Tribunal remits the partner visa application to the Department for reconsideration, the Bridging C visa does not cease because of the Tribunal decision. It continues until another cessation event occurs. The partner visa application is then decided again by the Department. A remittal on Schedule 3 often means the Department must reconsider the waiver in light of the Tribunal's findings.

Judicial review needs a separate Bridging C visa

A bridging visa C partner visa granted for the partner visa application does not continue for judicial review. A person who seeks judicial review in the courts must make a separate Bridging C visa application under subclause 030.212(5), and they must have held a Bridging C visa when they lodged the court application, within the statutory time limit. Policy says a person who has only applied for an extension of time cannot be granted a Bridging C visa, but may be eligible for a Bridging E visa. Our judicial review page explains when court review may be available.

No Bridging C visa for ministerial intervention

Department policy is clear that the Bridging C visa provisions do not cover people who seek ministerial intervention after a refusal has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Those people may be able to obtain a Bridging E visa. This is one of the points where bridging visa C partner visa planning has to look several steps ahead, so that the person does not move into a Bridging E visa without understanding the effect on any future application.

Bridging visa C partner visa compared with Bridging A and Bridging E visas

The Bridging C visa sits between the Bridging A visa and the Bridging E visa, and the main differences are eligibility at lodgement, work rights, travel and the Schedule 3 consequences for the partner visa. In short, a Bridging A visa follows lodgement while holding a substantive visa, a Bridging C visa follows lodgement without one and without a Bridging E visa since the last substantive visa, and a Bridging E visa follows where the person has held a Bridging E visa or does not qualify for the others.

Eligibility

A Bridging A visa requires a substantive visa at lodgement. A bridging visa C partner visa requires no substantive visa at lodgement and no Bridging E visa since the last substantive visa. A Bridging E visa is the fallback for people who are unlawful or about to become unlawful and who cannot get a Bridging A or Bridging C visa.

Work

A partner Bridging A visa normally has nil conditions. A bridging visa C partner visa normally carries condition 8101 until a compelling need to work is shown. A Bridging E visa may carry work restrictions and other conditions depending on the grounds on which it was granted.

Travel

A Bridging A visa holder can apply for a Bridging B visa to travel. A Bridging C visa holder cannot. A Bridging E visa ceases on departure and also offers no return travel facility.

Schedule 3

A Bridging A visa holder normally has no Schedule 3 issue for the Subclass 820 application, because they held a substantive visa at lodgement. A bridging visa C partner visa holder, and a Bridging E visa holder who lodged without a substantive visa, must deal with Schedule 3 unless an exception applies. Our article on the no further stay condition 8503 and the Subclass 820 visa covers a different barrier that can arise alongside these issues.

Bridging visa C partner visa: three hypothetical scenarios

These hypothetical scenarios are illustrations only. They are not real client stories, and they are not predictions about any case.

Scenario one: lodging while a student visa refusal is under review

A person's student visa extension is refused and they apply to the Tribunal. They are lawful on a Bridging A visa linked to the student application. During the review, they begin a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen and later lodge a Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 application. Because they held only a bridging visa at lodgement, they are granted a bridging visa C partner visa with condition 8101. Their last substantive visa ended before the student refusal, so criterion 3001 cannot be met. The Subclass 820 application will turn on whether there are compelling reasons not to apply Schedule 3.

Scenario two: an overstay discovered late

A person's visitor visa ends while they are caring for a sick relative. They do not contact the Department and they never hold a Bridging E visa. Later, they marry their Australian partner and lodge a partner visa. They receive a bridging visa C partner visa and become lawful again. Their application must address why they did not become lawful sooner, the reasons the visa ended and their compliance history, with medical and other documents.

Scenario three: the travel emergency

A bridging visa C partner visa holder learns that a parent overseas is seriously ill. They assume they can apply for a Bridging B visa, as their friend did. They cannot. If they leave, their Bridging C visa ceases. Any return depends on a separate visa, and a replacement Bridging C visa can only be sought once that entry visa has ceased. Advice before booking is the only safe course.

Common bridging visa C partner visa mistakes

The most common bridging visa C partner visa mistakes are assuming you can work, assuming you can travel, assuming the relationship alone will satisfy Schedule 3 and assuming time on a bridging visa counts as time on a substantive visa. Each mistake is avoidable with early advice.

Other frequent errors include not checking whether a Bridging E visa has been held since the last substantive visa, not checking the class of bridging visa on the grant notice, presenting financial evidence in a work application that conflicts with the relationship evidence, and leaving the Schedule 3 submission until a section 56 request for more information or a section 57 natural justice letter arrives. By then, the time to respond is short.

A further mistake is overlooking sponsor issues. A sponsor who is subject to a sponsorship limitation can create a separate barrier. Our guide on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa and our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations explain those rules. If the relationship has ended, read our article on what happens if the relationship breaks down during a Subclass 820 application, and if family violence is involved, our family violence partner visa page.

How My Migration Lawyers handles bridging visa C partner visa cases

My Migration Lawyers acts in many matters of this type and is capable of handling complex bridging visa C partner visa cases, including applications where Schedule 3, a long period without a substantive visa or an earlier refusal is the central issue. We cannot promise any result, because each case depends on its facts and on the decision maker. What we can do is make sure the case is presented completely, in the form the law requires, using the client's own account and evidence.

What we do on a bridging visa C partner visa matter

Our work on these matters usually follows these steps.

First, we map the full visa history. We identify the last substantive visa, the date it ended, every bridging visa held since then and whether a Bridging E visa was ever granted. That tells us whether the bridging visa C partner visa grant was correct and which Schedule 3 criteria apply.

Second, we assess Schedule 3 criterion by criterion. We look at criterion 3001 and each limb of criterion 3004, and identify which can be met and which require the compelling reasons waiver in subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii).

Third, we prepare the Schedule 3 submission. It sets out the applicant's circumstances, the reasons they did not hold a substantive visa, their compliance history, any Australian citizen children and any changes since lodgement, with supporting documents.

Fourth, where the household needs it, we prepare the request for permission to work, using Form 1005, so that the financial hardship evidence is consistent with the relationship evidence already lodged.

Fifth, we plan status. That includes travel decisions, what happens on refusal, Tribunal review timing and the effect of any future bridging visa on later options.

Who leads this work

This work is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers and our partner visa lawyers service. We act for clients across Australia, including through our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta pages. Consultations are held by video.

If you already lodged your own application and now realise you hold a Bridging C visa, it is not too late to get help. Our article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own visa application explains how that works, and our guide to Form 956 and 956A explains how a representative is appointed.

Book a consultation about your bridging visa C partner visa

If you hold a Bridging C visa with a partner visa application, or you are about to lodge without a substantive visa, the time to plan is now, before a request from the Department, a refusal or a travel need forces the issue. Bring your grant notices, your visa history and any letters from the Department. We will review your bridging visa C partner visa position, the Schedule 3 risk and your work and travel options.

Book a Consultation

You can also call 1300 040 300.