Partner Visa Character Refusal: Your Options

What is a partner visa character refusal?

A partner visa character refusal is a decision by the Department of Home Affairs, or by the Minister, to refuse a Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309, Subclass 100 or Subclass 300 visa because the applicant does not meet the character requirements in Australian migration law. A partner visa character refusal is one of the most serious outcomes in the partner visa program. It can end the couple's plan to live together in Australia, cancel the applicant's bridging visa and, in some cases, lead to immigration detention.

Every partner visa subclass requires the applicant to satisfy public interest criterion 4001, which deals with character. Clause 820.223 requires it for the Subclass 820 visa, and the Subclass 801, Subclass 309, Subclass 100 and Subclass 300 criteria also require it. A partner visa character refusal happens when the decision maker is not satisfied of that criterion, or when a delegate exercises the separate power in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa because the applicant does not pass the character test. For a general explanation of how these visas work, see our complete partner visa guide.

This article is written for applicants and sponsors who have already received a partner visa character refusal, or who have received a notice saying that the Department is considering one. It explains which kind of decision has been made, the parts of the character test that most often arise, the ministerial direction that the decision maker must apply, the review rights that may be available and the evidence that can change the result. If your concern is how to prepare a partner visa before lodging it, including police certificates and disclosure of convictions, that is a separate topic. This guide deals with what happens once a decision has gone against you.

A partner visa character refusal is not the same as a refusal because the relationship was found not to be genuine, although both can appear in the same decision. If your decision also raises relationship issues, read our guides on why partner visas get refused and the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused. Our dedicated partner visa refusals page explains how My Migration Lawyers acts on refused applications.

Why a partner visa character refusal needs urgent attention

A partner visa character refusal needs urgent attention because the review time limit is short and strictly applied. It runs from the date the decision is notified, not from the date the applicant reads it. The Tribunal has no power to accept a late application. A person who waits until the end of the week to find a lawyer may lose the right to review altogether.

There is a second reason for urgency. A refusal under section 501 can have immediate effects on the applicant's other visas, including the bridging visa that allowed them to stay in Australia while the application was processed. Those consequences are explained later in this article. For now, the point is simple: when a partner visa character refusal arrives, the first task is to find out exactly what decision was made, under which provision, and when it was notified. Our article on urgent immigration lawyer advice sets out what to gather before you speak to a lawyer.

Section 501 or PIC 4001: which kind of partner visa character refusal have you received?

A partner visa character refusal is made either under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, or under section 65 because the applicant failed public interest criterion 4001 in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The refusal letter will state the provision. Reading that part of the letter correctly is the single most important step after a partner visa character refusal, because the review pathway, the procedure at review and the consequences for other visas all depend on it.

Refusal under section 501

Section 501(1) allows the Minister, or a delegate of the Minister, to refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that they pass the character test. Section 501(6) sets out the character test. The power is discretionary. Failing the character test does not automatically mean the visa must be refused. The decision maker must then decide whether to exercise the discretion, and in doing so must apply the current ministerial direction made under section 499.

Departmental policy requires an application from a person who may not pass the character test to be referred to a specialist area for assessment. If that area considers that the applicant does not pass the test, the application is passed to a delegate who exercises the section 501 power. In practice, this means a partner visa character refusal under section 501 is usually made by a delegate in a specialist character area, not by the case officer who processed the relationship side of the application.

Section 501(3) is a separate power. It allows the Minister, acting personally, to refuse a visa if the Minister reasonably suspects the person does not pass the character test and is satisfied that refusal is in the national interest. The rules of natural justice do not apply to a decision under section 501(3). Personal decisions of the Minister are discussed in the review section below.

Refusal under section 65 for failing PIC 4001

A partner visa character refusal can also be made under section 65, on the basis that the applicant does not satisfy public interest criterion 4001. In broad terms, PIC 4001 is satisfied if the applicant satisfies the Minister that they pass the character test, if the Minister is satisfied after appropriate inquiries that there is nothing to indicate the applicant would fail it, or if the Minister has considered refusing the visa under section 501 and has decided not to do so.

In practice, PIC 4001 refusals in partner visa matters often arise because the Department could not complete its character checks. The most common example is an applicant who did not provide a required police certificate, or provided a document that the Department did not accept as a police certificate. In that situation the decision maker may say that it cannot be satisfied of PIC 4001, and refuse the application under section 65 without making any finding that the person is of bad character.

Why the difference matters after a partner visa character refusal

The difference matters because a section 65 refusal for PIC 4001 is generally reviewed in the Tribunal as an ordinary migration decision under Part 5 of the Migration Act, while a delegate's section 501 decision is reviewed under section 500, with its own expedited procedure and stricter rules on evidence. The consequences for other visas also differ. A section 501 refusal brings in the consequences in section 501F and section 501E, which are discussed later. A PIC 4001 refusal does not.

A person who has received a partner visa character refusal under section 65 should not assume that the case is weak. Many of these refusals turn on a missing or defective document rather than on any serious conduct, and the problem can sometimes be fixed at review. Equally, a person who has received a section 501 refusal should not assume that review is pointless. The Tribunal makes the decision again on the material before it, applying the same ministerial direction, and it can reach a different view.

Which parts of the character test lead to a partner visa character refusal?

The character test in section 501(6) of the Migration Act lists the circumstances in which a person does not pass. A person who falls within any one of those circumstances fails the test, even if they fall outside all the others. In partner visa matters, a partner visa character refusal most often involves the substantial criminal record limb, the association limb, the criminal and general conduct limb, or the future risk limb.

Substantial criminal record

A person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, as defined in section 501(7). The definition includes a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months or more, or to two or more terms of imprisonment that total 12 months or more. It also includes a person sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life, and certain persons who were acquitted because of unsoundness of mind, or found unfit to plead, and were detained as a result.

Two points are commonly misunderstood. First, a suspended sentence is still a term of imprisonment for this purpose. A person who never spent a day in custody can still have a substantial criminal record. Second, convictions from overseas count in the same way as convictions in Australia. A partner visa character refusal can be based entirely on an old sentence imposed in another country.

A substantial criminal record is an objective test. If the sentence meets the definition, the person fails the character test, and the argument then moves to the discretion. That is why the evidence about the offence, the person's rehabilitation and the family's circumstances is so important in these matters.

Association with criminal groups or persons

Under section 501(6)(b), a person fails the character test if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is a member of a group or organisation, or has had or has an association with a group, organisation or person, and that group, organisation or person has been or is involved in criminal conduct. This limb does not require the applicant to have been convicted of anything. A partner visa character refusal on this limb often depends on police intelligence or information that the applicant has never seen in full, which makes a careful response to the notice of intention critical.

Past and present criminal and general conduct

Under section 501(6)(c), a person fails the character test if, having regard to their past and present criminal conduct, or their past and present general conduct, or both, the person is not of good character. This limb can apply to a person with no substantial criminal record. It allows the decision maker to look at a pattern of conduct, including charges that did not lead to convictions, breaches of court orders and conduct in the person's dealings with authorities. The decision maker must look at the whole of the person's conduct, including evidence of change over time, not just the worst events.

Risk of future conduct

Section 501(6)(d) covers a person in respect of whom there is a risk that, if they were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, they would engage in criminal conduct, harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person, vilify a segment of the Australian community, incite discord, or represent a danger to the Australian community or a segment of it. In partner visa matters, this limb can arise where there are apprehended violence orders or family violence allegations, including allegations made by a former partner.

Is family violence a separate ground for a partner visa character refusal?

No. Family violence is not a separate limb of the character test in section 501(6) as at the date of writing. However, family violence is central to many partner visa character refusal decisions in two ways. Conduct involving family violence can bring a person within the substantial criminal record, general conduct or future risk limbs. Once the test is failed, the current ministerial direction treats family violence as a primary consideration and describes it as conduct so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient. Applicants who have been the victim of family violence, rather than the person accused of it, should read about the separate family violence provisions for partner visas.

How is a partner visa character refusal decision made?

A partner visa character refusal under section 501(1) is usually preceded by a written notice inviting the applicant to comment. This is often called a notice of intention to consider refusal. It sets out the information the delegate is relying on and gives the applicant a period of time to respond. Natural justice applies to a delegate's decision under section 501(1). It does not apply to a personal decision of the Minister under section 501(3).

The response to that notice is often the most important document in the whole case. Whatever is put to the delegate at this stage forms part of the record. If the matter later goes to the Tribunal, the material provided to the delegate becomes the starting point for the review. A short, unsupported response that simply says the applicant is a good person and loves their partner gives the delegate nothing to weigh against the conduct.

The Department may also ask the applicant to complete a Form 1563 Statement of Character, or ask for further police certificates or court documents. Requests of that kind should be treated with the same care as a request under section 56, which our guide on responding to a section 56 request for more information explains. Where the Department proposes to rely on adverse information outside the character process, it will usually write under section 57. Our article on responding to a section 57 natural justice letter covers that process.

If you have received a notice of intention but not yet a decision, the steps described in the evidence section of this article apply even more strongly. A well prepared response at this stage can prevent a partner visa character refusal from being made at all. Applicants who lodged their own application and now face character questions can read about hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application. A lawyer is appointed by lodging Form 956 with the Department.

Ministerial Direction No. 110: what must the decision maker consider in a partner visa character refusal?

A delegate or Tribunal member deciding whether to make a partner visa character refusal under section 501 must apply the ministerial direction in force under section 499 of the Migration Act. Since 21 June 2024, that has been Direction No. 110, titled "Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA". It replaced Direction No. 99. Direction No. 110 applies to decisions under section 501(1), and it applies to the Administrative Review Tribunal as well as to delegates.

A ministerial direction is not law in the same way as the Act. It is a binding instruction from the Minister about how a discretion must be exercised. A decision maker who fails to apply the direction, or who misreads it, may make an error that can be corrected at review. That is why every response to a proposed partner visa character refusal, and every Tribunal submission, should be built around the structure of the direction.

Ministerial directions are replaced from time to time. The direction that applies is the one in force when the decision is made, including when the Tribunal makes its decision. Any person dealing with a partner visa character refusal should check which direction applies at the date of their decision, and should not rely on an older summary.

The principles in Direction No. 110

Direction No. 110 begins with a set of principles. They include that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority, that non-citizens who engage in serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of a visa, and that the Australian community may expect refusal even where there is no measurable risk of physical harm. Importantly for partner visa applicants, the direction states that Australia has a low tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants and by people who have contributed to the Australian community only for a short period. It also states that a higher level of tolerance may be afforded to people who have lived in Australia for a long time, particularly from a young age.

This creates a real difficulty for many applicants. A person applying for a Subclass 309 visa from overseas, or a person who arrived recently on a temporary visa, is at the less protected end of those principles. The case for a favourable decision must therefore rest heavily on the primary considerations that favour the applicant, especially the interests of the Australian partner and any children.

Primary consideration: protection of the Australian community

The first primary consideration is the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. The direction says this consideration is generally to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations. The decision maker must consider the nature and seriousness of the conduct and the risk to the Australian community if the person were allowed to remain or enter.

The direction treats violent and sexual crimes, crimes of violence against women or children regardless of the sentence imposed, and acts of family violence regardless of whether there was a conviction, as very serious. When assessing risk, the decision maker must consider the nature of the harm that would result if the person reoffended and the likelihood of further offending. On likelihood, the direction refers to evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to the time spent in the community since the most recent offence. This is where most of the evidence in a partner visa character refusal matter does its work.

Primary consideration: family violence

The second primary consideration is whether the conduct involved family violence. The direction defines family violence broadly, as violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes them to be fearful. Its examples include assault, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, damaging property, unreasonably denying financial autonomy and preventing a family member from keeping connections with family and friends.

When family violence is involved, the decision maker must consider its frequency and any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated acts, and whether the person reoffended after being warned by a court or authority. The decision maker must also consider rehabilitation since the last known act, including the extent to which the person accepts responsibility, understands the impact of their behaviour on the victim and on children who witnessed it, and has addressed the factors that contributed to it. In a partner visa character refusal matter where the current Australian partner was the person affected, the evidence must deal honestly with that history. A statement from the partner that simply says the violence did not happen, when there is a conviction, will rarely help.

Primary consideration: strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

The third primary consideration is the strength, nature and duration of the person's ties to Australia. For refusal decisions, the direction requires the decision maker to consider the impact of the decision on the person's immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people with an indefinite right to remain. In a partner visa character refusal, this is where the Australian partner's position is considered, along with any Australian children and other close family.

The direction gives less weight to time in Australia where offending began soon after arrival, and more weight to time spent contributing positively to the community. Evidence of employment, study, volunteering, caring responsibilities and community involvement therefore matters, but it must be documented. A general statement that the applicant is hard working will carry little weight.

Primary consideration: best interests of minor children in Australia

The fourth primary consideration is the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. The direction lists the factors the decision maker must consider, including the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the applicant, the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive parental role until the child turns 18, the impact of the applicant's past and likely future conduct on the child, the likely effect of separation, whether other people already fulfil a parental role, and any known views of the child according to the child's age and maturity. The decision maker must also consider evidence that the child has been exposed to family violence or abuse by the applicant.

The best interests of children are a primary consideration, but they are not decisive on their own. They can be outweighed by the protection of the Australian community. That is why evidence about the children must be specific: who cares for them, what role the applicant plays, what professional reports say about the effect of separation, and what arrangements would realistically exist if the applicant had to leave.

Primary consideration: expectations of the Australian community

The fifth primary consideration is the expectations of the Australian community. The direction states that the community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws, and that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct, the community as a norm expects the Government not to allow that person to enter or remain. The direction lists particular expectations about family violence and other specific kinds of conduct, and says these expectations apply regardless of whether the person poses a measurable risk of physical harm.

This consideration usually weighs against the applicant in a partner visa character refusal. It cannot be argued away. The answer is to show, through the other considerations, why the overall balance should still favour the grant of the visa.

Other considerations and how they are weighed

Direction No. 110 also lists other considerations, including the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments the person would face if removed to their home country in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards, taking into account age, health, language and cultural barriers and available support, and the impact on Australian business interests. The direction states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations, and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh the others.

The practical lesson is that a partner visa character refusal is decided by weighing, not by a checklist. A strong family case does not automatically defeat serious offending. Equally, serious offending in the past does not automatically defeat a strong case of rehabilitation and family hardship. The quality and detail of the evidence on each consideration usually decides where the balance falls.

Can a partner visa character refusal be reviewed?

Yes, in most cases. A partner visa character refusal made by a delegate of the Minister can usually be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal, which replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. A decision made by the Minister personally cannot be reviewed by the Tribunal. Who may apply, how and within what time depends on the kind of decision and where the applicant was when it was made. Our guides on partner visa refusal appeal options and what to expect at an ART review explain the general process.

Delegate decisions made while the applicant is in Australia

Section 500(1)(b) of the Migration Act allows an application to the Tribunal for review of a delegate's decision under section 501. Section 500(3) limits this to people who would have been entitled to review under Part 5 if the decision had been made on another ground. In practice, where a Subclass 820 application was made in Australia and the partner visa character refusal was made while the applicant was in the migration zone, the applicant can usually apply for review themselves. Information about the onshore visa is on our Subclass 820 visa page.

Offshore Subclass 309 and Subclass 300 refusals

Where the applicant is outside Australia and the visa cannot be granted in Australia, the position is different. Because a criterion for these visas is sponsorship by an Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, it is the sponsor in Australia, not the applicant, who is entitled to apply for review. This applies to a partner visa character refusal of a Subclass 309 visa or a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa. Sponsors are often unaware that the review right belongs to them, and lose it by waiting for the overseas partner to act.

Personal decisions of the Minister

The Tribunal cannot review a decision made by the Minister personally under section 501. The Minister may also, in limited circumstances, set aside a Tribunal decision. A person affected by a personal decision of the Minister may have the option of judicial review in the courts, which is limited to legal error and does not involve a fresh assessment of the merits. Our judicial review page explains what that involves.

The review deadline for a partner visa character refusal

The time limit to apply to the Tribunal for review of a partner visa character refusal is short and strictly applied. It runs from the date the person is notified of the decision, which may be earlier than the date they actually read it, particularly where the decision is sent by email. The Tribunal cannot extend the time. The period that applies depends on the kind of decision and the person's location, and it is shorter for section 501 decisions involving a person in Australia than for many ordinary migration decisions. Anyone holding a partner visa character refusal should read the review information at the end of the decision letter on the day it arrives and get advice immediately.

How review of a section 501 decision differs

Review of a delegate's section 501 decision involving a person in Australia follows an expedited procedure in section 500 of the Migration Act. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the written notice of the decision and the documents given to the person with it. The Department must give the Tribunal the documents relevant to the decision within a set time. If the Tribunal does not make a decision within the period fixed by section 500(6L), it is taken to have affirmed the decision under review. There are also restrictions in section 500 on the Tribunal considering information or documents that were not provided to the delegate, unless they are given to the Minister within a set time before the hearing.

Those rules mean there is very little time to prepare. Evidence that should have been gathered months earlier must be gathered in days. A partner visa character refusal review usually requires the applicant to give evidence at a hearing, and the Minister is usually represented by lawyers who will test that evidence. Our visa appeal lawyer article explains what a lawyer does at this stage, and our visa refusals page sets out how My Migration Lawyers approaches reviews.

Review of a PIC 4001 refusal

A partner visa character refusal made under section 65 for failure to satisfy PIC 4001 is generally a reviewable migration decision under Part 5 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal reconsiders the application on the evidence before it at the time of its decision. Where the problem was a missing or defective police certificate, providing a proper certificate at review can be enough to resolve the issue.

Which partner visa character refusal matters has the Tribunal sent back to the Department?

The Tribunal has sent a number of partner visa refusals involving character and police certificates back to the Department for reconsideration. These decisions are examples of the issue only. Each depended on its own facts, and none of them predicts the result in another matter.

In Kim (Migration) [2020] AATA 2827, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issue was that an Australian national police clearance and a records check reply from an overseas national police agency were provided. In Lee (Migration) [2022] AATA 4648, also a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issue concerned the character test, a statement from an appropriate authority and a certificate of good conduct issued by an overseas government mission. In Goh (Migration) [2022] AATA 4903, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issue was that a police certificate of good conduct issued by an overseas government was provided in relation to PIC 4001.

In Takemanu (Migration) [2023] AATA 936, a Subclass 820 matter, the reported issue was that the Tribunal received an overseas national police clearance certificate. In Pongsumran (Migration) [2023] AATA 3664, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issue was a criminal history statement and a statement from the applicant's home country provided to the Tribunal. Each of these matters was remitted.

A related but different issue arises when it is the sponsor, not the applicant, who has the criminal record. In Naureen (Migration) [2024] ARTA 468, a Subclass 309 matter, the reported issue was whether it was reasonable to approve sponsorship where the sponsor had a significant criminal record, the time that had passed since the sponsor's last imprisonment, and limited time spent together because of travel restrictions. That matter was also remitted. Sponsor criminal records are dealt with under the sponsorship rules rather than as a partner visa character refusal of the applicant. Our page on partner visa sponsorship limitations and our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain those rules.

What evidence can change the outcome of a partner visa character refusal?

The evidence that most often changes the outcome of a partner visa character refusal is evidence that speaks directly to the considerations in the ministerial direction: the seriousness of the conduct, the risk of further offending, rehabilitation, family violence history, ties to Australia, the best interests of children and the hardship the family would suffer. Evidence that does not connect to those considerations, however sincere, usually carries little weight.

Court documents and sentencing remarks

Court documents are the foundation of any response to a partner visa character refusal. They include the charge sheet, the statement of facts, the court outcome, the sentencing remarks and any later appeal decision. Sentencing remarks matter because they record the judge's own assessment of the seriousness of the offence, the person's role, their remorse, their prospects of rehabilitation and any mitigating circumstances.

The Department's description of an offence is sometimes broader or more serious than what the court actually found. Accurate court records allow the decision maker to assess the conduct as it really was. Where the conviction was overseas, certified copies of the court record and an accredited English translation should be obtained as early as possible, because overseas courts can take a long time to respond.

Rehabilitation and genuine remorse

Rehabilitation is assessed at the time of the decision, so evidence of it must be current. Useful evidence includes completion of courses or programs related to the offending, such as behaviour change, anger management or drug and alcohol programs, compliance with parole or community orders, stable employment, and the length of time since the last offence without further offending. The decision maker will look for change, not promises.

Remorse is assessed on what the person says and does. A statement that accepts responsibility, explains what led to the conduct without excusing it, shows understanding of the harm caused and sets out what has changed is far more persuasive than a statement that blames the victim, the police or bad luck. A common mistake in a partner visa character refusal matter is a statement that minimises the offence. It usually does more harm than leaving the subject alone.

Expert reports

Expert reports from qualified psychologists or psychiatrists can address the risk of reoffending, the factors behind the conduct and the treatment the person has received. Where children are involved, a report can address the likely effect of separation on them. An expert report is only as good as the information the expert is given. The expert must have the full court material, including the parts that are unfavourable, or the report may be given little weight when the gaps are exposed.

Character references

Character references should come from people who know about the conduct and can speak about the person's change since. A reference that does not mention the offence, or that appears unaware of it, is usually given little weight. The best references explain who the referee is, how long and how well they have known the applicant, that they know of the offending, and what they have personally seen since. Employers, community leaders, program facilitators and family members can all provide useful references.

The Australian partner's and children's evidence

The Australian partner is often the most important witness in a partner visa character refusal matter. Their evidence should explain the relationship, their knowledge of the offending, the role the applicant plays in the household and the practical and emotional effect of refusal. Where there are children, it should explain the applicant's parenting role in concrete terms. Evidence from schools, doctors and counsellors can support this. Evidence of the hardship of relocating overseas, such as the partner's employment, health care, other children from earlier relationships and family obligations in Australia, is relevant to the ties and best interests considerations.

The general rules for relationship evidence still apply. Our articles on proving that your relationship is genuine and on what happens if the relationship breaks down explain how the relationship itself is assessed.

Impediments overseas

The direction requires the decision maker to consider impediments the applicant would face if removed to their home country. Relevant evidence includes the applicant's age and health, language and cultural barriers, the absence of family or support overseas, and the availability of medical care. This consideration rarely decides a partner visa character refusal on its own, but it adds weight to the overall balance.

What other consequences follow a partner visa character refusal?

A partner visa character refusal under section 501 can have consequences well beyond the refused application. It can cancel other visas the person holds, place them at risk of immigration detention and restrict future visa applications. These consequences are one reason a section 501 decision must be treated as an emergency.

Cancellation of other visas, including bridging visas

Under section 501F of the Migration Act, when a person is refused a visa under section 501, other visas they hold may be cancelled and other visa applications they have made may be taken to be refused, subject to limited exceptions. For an onshore Subclass 820 applicant, this commonly means that the Bridging visa A granted with the partner visa application is cancelled at the same time. Any Bridging visa B is also affected. Our overview of bridging visas in Australia explains how bridging visas normally work.

Risk of immigration detention

A person in Australia who no longer holds a visa is an unlawful non-citizen. The Migration Act requires an officer who knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone is an unlawful non-citizen to detain that person. A partner visa character refusal that cancels the person's bridging visa can therefore lead quickly to detention. A person in this situation needs advice about their status on the same day. Our visa cancellations page explains how My Migration Lawyers acts where a visa has been cancelled.

Future visa applications

Section 501E restricts a person who has been refused a visa under section 501 from making further visa applications while in Australia, other than for certain visas. A section 501 refusal is also relevant to special return criteria for later visas. This is why a person should not assume they can simply lodge a new application after a partner visa character refusal. The options for applying again after any refusal are explained in our guide to a partner visa after a visa refusal. For applicants left without a substantive visa, the Schedule 3 waiver rules can also become relevant.

What should you do immediately after a partner visa character refusal?

The first thing to do after a partner visa character refusal is to identify the date the decision was notified and the review deadline, and to get legal advice that day. Everything else depends on preserving the right to review.

First, keep the decision letter and every document attached to it. For a section 501 decision involving a person in Australia, the Tribunal application must be accompanied by a copy of the notice of decision and the documents given with it.

Second, identify the provision used. Find whether the refusal was made under section 501 or under section 65 for PIC 4001, and whether the decision was made by a delegate or by the Minister personally. This decides whether review is available and who must apply.

Third, check your visa status. If you were in Australia on a bridging visa, find out whether it has been cancelled. Do not travel. Do not assume you are still lawful.

Fourth, start gathering court documents, sentencing remarks, police certificates and program certificates straight away. Overseas records can take weeks.

Fifth, tell your Australian partner and any other key witnesses that they will be needed. In an offshore matter, the sponsor must act, because the review right is theirs.

Sixth, do not lodge a new application, make contact with the Department or send unprepared material to the Tribunal without advice. Our guide to getting a second opinion from an immigration lawyer explains how to have an existing decision or strategy reviewed, and our article on booking an immigration lawyer consultation explains what happens in a first meeting.

Common mistakes after a partner visa character refusal

The most common mistake after a partner visa character refusal is waiting. People wait for the overseas partner to act, wait to collect evidence before lodging the review, or wait to see if the Department will change its mind. None of these is safe, because the review time limit continues to run.

The second common mistake is treating the matter as a relationship case. The relationship may be completely genuine. A partner visa character refusal is about the applicant's conduct and the weighing exercise in the ministerial direction, and the evidence must be built around that.

The third mistake is minimising the offending. Decision makers read many statements that describe convictions as misunderstandings. They usually give those statements little weight, and they may treat them as evidence that the person has not accepted responsibility.

The fourth mistake is providing incomplete or inaccurate information. Failing to disclose a conviction, or giving an inaccurate account of it, can lead to a separate refusal under PIC 4020 for false or misleading information, which has its own consequences. Accurate disclosure, including in Form 80 and any Form 1022 notification of changed circumstances, is essential.

The fifth mistake is assuming nothing can be done. Many people who receive a partner visa character refusal still have a real case at review. The outcome depends on the evidence and how it is presented against the direction.

How My Migration Lawyers acts on partner visa character refusals

My Migration Lawyers acts for applicants and Australian sponsors in partner visa character refusal matters, including section 501 refusals, PIC 4001 refusals and responses to notices of intention to consider refusal. These are complex matters, and the firm regularly handles cases of this exact type for Subclass 820, Subclass 801, Subclass 309 and Subclass 300 applicants. Our partner visa lawyers work under the supervision of Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer.

When a partner visa character refusal arrives, My Migration Lawyers first confirms the provision used, the person who made the decision, the date of notification and the deadline, and lodges the review application with the Tribunal in time with the documents the law requires. Where the visa applicant is in Australia, the firm checks their visa status and advises on the risk of detention immediately.

The firm then obtains the Department's file and every relevant court record, analyses the decision against each consideration in the ministerial direction, and identifies where the delegate's reasoning was incomplete or wrong. It prepares the applicant's own statement in the form the law requires, coordinates evidence from the Australian partner, children's professionals, employers and referees, and briefs qualified experts where a report will assist. It prepares written submissions structured around the direction and represents the applicant or sponsor at the Tribunal hearing. Where the decision was made by the Minister personally, the firm advises on whether judicial review is available.

My Migration Lawyers does not promise outcomes in any partner visa character refusal. What the firm offers is careful, early and complete preparation by lawyers who understand how these decisions are made. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers, our partner visa lawyer overview, our guide to when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa and our article on how to choose the best partner visa lawyer in Australia. Clients who already have a representative can read about changing immigration lawyer.

The firm acts for clients across Australia, including through its partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. Readers comparing firms in their city can see our guides to choosing a partner visa lawyer in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta.

If you have received a partner visa character refusal, or a notice that one is being considered, act now while your review rights are still open. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers and send us the decision as soon as you have it. You can also call My Migration Lawyers on 1300 040 300.