Partner Visa Compelling Reasons and Length of Relationship

A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim is an argument that the length and depth of a couple's relationship, together with their wider circumstances, is a compelling reason not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria to an onshore Subclass 820 applicant who lodged without a substantive visa. It is one of the most common arguments put to the Department of Home Affairs. It is also one of the most commonly rejected when it is put badly.

The honest starting point is this. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument will rarely succeed on the length of the relationship alone. Department policy says so directly. But length is not irrelevant. In the right case, a relationship of many years, lived together, financially merged and woven into the Australian partner's family and community, is a powerful part of a wider compelling reasons case. The skill lies in knowing which case you have, and in proving it.

This article explains where the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship question arises, what the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Department's policy actually say, when a long relationship carries real weight and when it does not, how to prove the length of a relationship, and what Tribunal decisions show. For the full picture of the onshore pathway, start with the complete guide to partner visas in Australia and the Subclass 820 partner visa guide.

Can a Long Relationship Be a Compelling Reason for a Partner Visa?

Yes, but generally not on its own. The Department's policy for the Subclass 820 states that, as a general rule, the existence of a genuine spouse or de facto relationship, and the hardship of separation if the applicant had to leave and apply outside Australia, are not compelling reasons to avoid applying the Schedule 3 criteria. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim therefore needs more than a long relationship.

The policy explains why. A genuine relationship forms the basis of every partner visa application. Hardship caused by separation is common across the partner caseload, particularly offshore, where couples are often apart for long periods during processing. If a genuine relationship were enough, Schedule 3 would never apply to a partner applicant at all.

That does not make the length of the relationship worthless. The Schedule 3 policy says all the circumstances of the case must be considered, individually and cumulatively, in deciding whether compelling reasons exist. A long relationship is one of those circumstances. When it sits alongside other serious factors, it can change the weight of the whole case. The question is never "is our relationship long enough?" The question is "what does the length of our relationship, together with everything else, mean for the decision?"

This is the distinction most partner visa compelling reasons long relationship submissions miss. They describe how long the couple has been together and how much they love each other. They do not explain why those facts make it compelling, in the dictionary sense of brought about by moral necessity, to grant the visa despite the applicant's immigration history. The Schedule 3 partner visa waiver article sets out how the waiver works more generally, and the Schedule 3 waivers service page explains how My Migration Lawyers prepares these claims.

Where the Partner Visa Compelling Reasons Long Relationship Question Arises

The partner visa compelling reasons long relationship question arises only for an onshore Subclass 820 applicant who did not hold a substantive visa when the application was lodged. Subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii) of Schedule 2 requires that applicant to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not applying those criteria.

If you held a substantive visa, such as a visitor, student or work visa, on the day you lodged, Schedule 3 does not apply to you. Your relationship still has to be proved as genuine and continuing, but you do not need a compelling reasons argument. The Schedule 3 criteria article explains who is caught, and the Subclass 820 visa overview explains the onshore application itself.

People who are caught usually fall into one of these groups:

• Visa expired before lodgement. The applicant's visitor, student or work visa ended, and the partner application was lodged later.
• Refusal or cancellation. An earlier visa was refused or cancelled and the applicant remained in Australia. The partner visa after a visa refusal article explains the section 48 issues that often travel with this group.
• Bridging visa only. The applicant held only a bridging visa from an earlier application when the partner application was lodged.
• Long-term unlawful stay. The applicant has been in Australia without a visa for years, often while the relationship developed.

The last group is where the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument is most often raised, and where it is most often rejected. The reasons are explained below.

A separate barrier must be ruled out first. If the applicant's last visa carried condition 8503 or another no further stay condition, the Subclass 820 application may not be valid at all, and no partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument can be considered on an invalid application. The condition 8503 article explains the waiver that must come first. Visitors planning to lodge should also read the tourist visa to partner visa article and the onshore partner visa requirements guide before their visa expires, because lodging while still holding a substantive visa avoids Schedule 3 entirely.

Compelling reasons are not the same as a genuine relationship

A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim and proof of a genuine relationship are two different tests. Every Subclass 820 applicant must prove that the relationship is genuine and continuing, under section 5F of the Act for spouses or section 5CB for de facto partners. Only an applicant caught by Schedule 3 must also show compelling reasons. Passing the first test does not pass the second.

The same evidence, however, often serves both. Years of joint finances, a shared home and a settled social life prove the relationship is genuine. They also show what refusal would destroy. The Subclass 820 vs Subclass 801 comparison explains how the relationship is tested again at the permanent stage. De facto couples should also read the de facto partner visa guide and the 12-month de facto requirement article, and same-sex couples can read about the LGBTI partner visa. The Subclass 820 visa service page explains how the firm runs onshore applications. Applicants who entered on a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa and married their sponsor are treated differently, because subclause 820.211(5) can relieve them of Schedule 3 altogether.

Criterion 3001: the 28-day rule

Criterion 3001 requires the application to be made within 28 days after the relevant day. For most people, the relevant day is the last day they held a substantive visa, or the day they last entered Australia unlawfully, whichever is later. The first of the 28 days is the day after that event. If you lodged on day 29 or later, you cannot satisfy criterion 3001, and the Subclass 820 can only be granted if criterion 3001 is waived for compelling reasons.

The Department's Schedule 3 policy notes that criterion 3001 does not stop a valid application from being made. It operates at the grant stage. That is why many applicants lodge, receive a bridging visa, and only discover the Schedule 3 problem when a request for information or a refusal arrives. The partner visa bridging visa position keeps you lawful while the application is processed, but it does not cure Schedule 3.

Criteria 3003 and 3004

Criterion 3004 applies to a person who ceased to hold a substantive visa on or after 1 September 1994, or who entered Australia unlawfully on or after that date and has not since been granted a substantive visa. Criterion 3003 is its companion for people whose status dates from before that date. Each contains six requirements in paragraphs (c) to (h), and all of them must be met:

• (c) the applicant became a person without a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control;
• (d) there are compelling reasons for granting the visa;
• (e) the applicant has substantially complied with the conditions of their last visa, including any later bridging visa;
• (f) the applicant would have been entitled to the visa had they applied immediately before becoming unlawful;
• (g) the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the visa to be granted; and
• (h) the last visa or entry permit was not subject to a pre-1 September 1994 no further stay condition.

Most long-term unlawful applicants cannot meet paragraph (c), because overstaying is usually within the person's control. That is why the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument is almost always directed at waiving the criteria entirely under subparagraph 820.211(2)(d)(ii), rather than at satisfying them.

Compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision

The Department's Schedule 3 policy, reflecting the Full Federal Court decision in Waensila v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 32, states that compelling reasons for not applying the Schedule 3 criteria can arise at any time up until the time of decision. Decision makers must consider submissions about compelling reasons that developed after the application was lodged.

This matters greatly for a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim. A relationship that was two years old at lodgement may be five or six years old by the time a decision is made. Processing takes time, as the Subclass 820 processing time article explains. Children may be born, property may be bought, a partner's health may change. The evidence should be updated before the decision, not left as it stood on the day of lodgement.

What Department Policy Says About Long Relationships and Separation Hardship

Department policy is direct: a long-term relationship, by itself, is not treated as a compelling reason to waive Schedule 3, and the policy uses a long-term relationship as its own example of a case that may fail. Anyone preparing a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument must start from that text, not from what they hope it says.

The policy example of a case that may not be compelling

The Subclass 820 policy gives this example of where compelling reasons may not exist: an applicant who has remained unlawful for a number of years, made little or no effort to become lawful, and claims compelling circumstances on the basis of a long-term relationship with their sponsoring partner and the hardship of separation if they had to apply outside Australia.

Read that sentence carefully. It describes the most common partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim almost word for word. The policy treats that claim, standing alone, as one the decision maker may reject. A submission that simply says "we have been together for six years and separation would be devastating" is walking straight into the example.

What the waiver is meant to do

The policy states that the intent of the waiver is only to allow people with genuinely compelling circumstances to regularise their status. It is not intended to give, or appear to give, an unfair advantage to people who fail to comply with visa conditions, who deliberately manipulate their circumstances to create compelling reasons, or who can leave Australia and apply for a partner visa outside Australia.

The policy also says the waiver should not be applied where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to leave and apply offshore. This is why the practical difficulty of relocating offshore, discussed later, sits at the centre of a well-built partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case.

The factors decision makers weigh

The policy lists matters that delegates should consider when assessing whether circumstances are compelling. The list is not exhaustive. It includes:

• 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;
• current family composition, including any dependent children; and
• any steps the applicant has taken to become lawful, other than applying for the Subclass 820 and Subclass 801.

The length of the relationship is not on that list as a separate factor. It enters through "current family composition" and through the overall assessment of all the circumstances. The length of unlawful stay, by contrast, is listed expressly. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim must therefore deal with the immigration history honestly. Length of relationship and length of unlawful stay are often the same years, and the decision maker will see both.

The Australian citizen child exception is separate

The policy states that where there is an Australian citizen child with a demonstrable link to the applicant, a decision may be made to waive Schedule 3 in the best interests of the child. That is a distinct ground with its own evidence, and it is covered separately in the firm's articles on children and Schedule 3. This article deals with the length of the relationship as a factor. Where a long relationship has produced children, both factors are present and both should be argued, but they should not be confused.

When a Long Relationship Carries Real Weight in a Partner Visa Compelling Reasons Claim

A long relationship carries real weight when its length has produced a life that cannot easily be moved: years of living together, shared property and finances, deep integration into the Australian partner's family and community, and other serious factors that make separation or relocation genuinely harmful. In that kind of case, a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument is not about love. It is about the consequences of refusal.

The Schedule 3 policy says that considering the likely consequences of not granting the visa may assist in deciding whether circumstances are compelling. That is the lens through which the length of a relationship should be presented. The longer and more settled the relationship, the more serious the consequences of forcing it apart or forcing it offshore can be.

Years of cohabitation and a shared household

The strongest evidence of length is years of living together under one roof. Under regulation 1.15A for married couples and regulation 1.09A for de facto couples, the nature of the commitment is assessed having regard to the duration of the relationship and the length of time the parties have lived together, among other matters. A relationship of six or eight years in which the couple has lived together for most of that time is different in kind from a relationship of the same length conducted mostly at a distance.

Long cohabitation tends to bring with it the things that make relocation difficult: a shared home, a shared routine, shared responsibilities for the household, pets and extended family. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim should show these as facts, with documents, rather than describing them in general terms. The partner visa relationship evidence guide explains the evidence that usually supports the nature of the household.

Shared assets and financial interdependence

A long relationship often produces financial ties that cannot be undone quickly. Joint ownership of a home, a mortgage in both names, a jointly run business, shared superannuation nominations, wills that benefit each other, and joint debts are all relevant. They show both the depth of the commitment and the practical cost of separation or relocation.

In a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case, financial ties do two jobs. They prove the relationship is long and genuine. They also show what would be lost if the applicant had to leave. A couple who would need to sell a home, close a business or abandon a lease to relocate together faces a consequence that is concrete and measurable. The partner visa document checklist and the Subclass 820 evidence checklist list the financial records that usually matter.

Integration into the Australian partner's life

Over many years, an applicant may become part of the Australian partner's family, workplace, faith community, sporting club or neighbourhood. They may care for the partner's parents, help raise the partner's children from an earlier relationship, or be known to the partner's friends as a permanent part of the household. That integration is part of what a long relationship means in practice.

Integration is relevant to a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim because it widens the circle of people affected by refusal. The Schedule 3 policy recognises that compelling reasons may arise from the circumstances of another person. The Australian partner, and the people who depend on the couple, are those other people. Their evidence, given in Form 888 statements, is often what turns a description of a long relationship into proof of a life that would be broken by refusal. In many files, this is the most persuasive part of the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case.

Length combined with other serious factors

Length of relationship is most persuasive when it is combined with other factors. In practice, the factors that most often combine with a long relationship include:

• Age. An older couple, or an older Australian partner, may face real difficulty relocating to another country after many years together, particularly where the partner has spent their whole life in Australia.
• Health. Where the Australian partner has a serious medical condition and relies on the applicant, a long relationship shows that the reliance is established and real, not created for the application.
• Children. Children born of the relationship, or the partner's children who have grown up with the applicant, change the assessment. That ground is addressed in its own right in the firm's articles on children and Schedule 3.
• The Australian partner's ties. A partner with work, property, ageing parents or children in Australia may be unable to relocate without serious loss. The longer the relationship, the more those ties usually belong to both of them.
• Circumstances beyond the applicant's control. Where the applicant became unlawful because of illness, incorrect advice or similar factors, a long relationship strengthens rather than undermines the claim.

These factors should be argued together. The Schedule 3 policy requires decision makers to consider all the circumstances, individually and cumulatively. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship submission that lists each factor separately, without explaining how they combine, leaves the most important work undone.

The consequences of refusal for both partners

A well-prepared submission spells out what would actually happen if the visa were refused. Would the applicant have to leave Australia? Would the Australian partner follow, or stay? What would happen to their home, their work, their dependants? How long might they be apart while an offshore application is processed?

This is where length of relationship becomes concrete. A couple who have built a life over many years have more to lose, and the decision maker can see it. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument framed around consequences, supported by documents, speaks directly to the policy test. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument framed around feelings does not.

When a Long Relationship Does Not Help a Partner Visa Compelling Reasons Claim

A long relationship does not help, and may even hurt, when the length of the relationship is mostly the length of an unlawful stay, when the applicant made little or no effort to become lawful, when the evidence of the relationship has gaps or inconsistencies, or when the couple could reasonably relocate offshore and apply from there. Knowing these weaknesses early is the difference between a credible partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim and a doomed one.

Length built during a long unlawful stay

Where a relationship began and grew while the applicant was already unlawful, the length of the relationship and the length of unlawful stay are the same years. The policy expressly lists the length of unlawful stay as a factor. A decision maker may see the long relationship not as a reason to grant, but as the product of years of non-compliance.

That does not end the claim, but it changes how it must be presented. The submission must explain why the applicant became unlawful, why they did not regularise sooner, and what they did to try. It must be candid. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument that ignores the immigration history invites the decision maker to fill the gap with the worst assumption.

Little or no effort to regularise status

The policy example refers to an applicant who made little or no effort to become lawful. Steps taken to regularise status, other than the partner visa application itself, are one of the listed factors. Where the applicant was in contact with the Department, sought advice, held bridging visas, complied with reporting conditions or attempted other applications, that history should be documented.

My Migration Lawyers obtains the applicant's visa and immigration history itself, through VEVO and Department and Tribunal records, so the client is not asked to produce old notices they do not have. The history is then presented accurately in the submission. Where the record shows long periods of no contact with the Department, the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument must be built on other factors.

Gaps and inconsistencies in the relationship evidence

A relationship cannot be proved long by assertion. If the evidence shows the couple living at different addresses for long periods, separate finances throughout, or a relationship history that changes between documents, the length claimed will be doubted. The relationship statement, Form 888 statements and documents must tell the same story.

Inconsistency is especially damaging where the Department suspects the relationship was entered into for a migration outcome. The integrity of the evidence, including the accuracy of the information in the application, is examined under public interest criterion 4020. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim that rests on an inflated start date or exaggerated cohabitation can do more harm than no claim at all. The why partner visas get refused article explains how credibility problems lead to refusal.

Where offshore application is reasonable

Policy says the waiver should not be applied where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to leave Australia and apply offshore. That test applies to every partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim, however long the relationship. If a couple has no children, no dependent relatives, no serious health issues, no property and no ties that would be harmed, and the Australian partner could travel to visit during processing, a decision maker may find offshore application reasonable regardless of how long the relationship has lasted.

In that situation, the honest advice may be that the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument is weak, and that other options should be considered, including whether an offshore Subclass 309 partner visa is the safer pathway. Departure has its own risks, including exclusion periods and the bridging visa consequences explained in the Bridging visa A guide and Bridging visa B guide. That decision should never be made without advice on the applicant's full history.

Where the relationship has ended or changed

A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim depends on the relationship continuing. If the relationship breaks down during processing, the basis for the claim changes, and the applicant must tell the Department of the change. The Subclass 820 relationship breakdown article explains the options. Where the relationship ended because of family violence committed by the sponsoring partner, the family violence provisions in Division 1.5 of the Regulations may provide a separate pathway.

Status while the claim is decided

While a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim is being decided, the applicant usually holds a Bridging visa C or Bridging visa E, because they did not hold a substantive visa when they lodged. Those bridging visas can carry a no work condition and do not allow travel. The Subclass 820 work rights article explains the work position. Applicants facing compliance action, or whose bridging visa is at risk of cancellation, should read the urgent advice guide and the visa cancellations page, and should seek advice before any interview with the Department.

The Difficulty of Relocating Offshore After a Long Relationship

The difficulty of relocating offshore is central to a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim, because policy says the waiver should not be applied where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to apply from outside Australia. The longer and more settled the relationship, the more practical barriers usually stand in the way of relocation, and those barriers must be shown with evidence.

There are two distinct questions. The first is whether the applicant could leave alone and apply offshore while the Australian partner stays in Australia. The second is whether the couple could relocate together to the applicant's home country, or elsewhere, while the application is processed. A strong submission answers both.

Separation while an offshore application is processed

The policy accepts that hardship from separation is common across the partner caseload. So the question is not whether separation would be hard, but whether something about this couple makes it more than ordinary hardship. Length of relationship can help here when it is tied to dependency. After many years together, an Australian partner may rely on the applicant for care, transport, household management or emotional support in ways that are documented and real.

Evidence of that reliance might include medical records about the Australian partner, letters from treating practitioners, records of carer arrangements, and Form 888 statements from family who see the couple's daily life. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim that shows the Australian partner would struggle to manage alone during processing is answering the policy test directly.

Relocating together

Many couples are told they can simply move overseas together while the offshore application is processed. After a long relationship, that may not be realistic. The Australian partner may have a career, property, children, grandchildren or ageing parents in Australia. They may not speak the language of the applicant's country, may not be able to work there lawfully, or may have health needs that could not be met there.

Each of these points should be supported. Employment records, property documents, evidence of caring responsibilities and information about the Australian partner's health are all relevant. The length of the relationship explains why these ties have become joint ties. A couple who have been together for many years have built their life in Australia together, and the cost of uprooting it is part of the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case.

What Sandhu shows about relocation

The Tribunal decision in Sandhu (Migration) [2018] AATA 1483, a Subclass 820 matter, was reported on these issues: whether compelling reasons exist for not applying Schedule 3 criteria, the length of the relationship, and the difficulty of relocating offshore while the application is processed. The Tribunal remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. A remittal is not a grant. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaced it on 14 October 2024.

What the decision illustrates is the pairing. Length of relationship and the difficulty of relocating offshore were considered together. That is how a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument should be built: length as the foundation, and the practical consequences of relocation as the reason it matters.

How to Prove the Length of Your Relationship

You prove the length of your relationship with continuous evidence across the four aspects of the relationship over the whole period, organised into a clear timeline, explained in one relationship statement and confirmed by Form 888 statements from people who have known you as a couple for years. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim is only as strong as the evidence of length behind it.

The four aspects of the relationship assessed under regulation 1.15A for spouses and regulation 1.09A for de facto partners are the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment. For a long relationship, the aim is to show each of those aspects at different points in time, not just at the date of lodgement. The guide to preparing evidence of a genuine relationship explains the four aspects in detail.

Build a continuous timeline

Start with a timeline. It should record when and how the couple met, when the relationship became committed, when they began living together, each change of address, any marriage or registration of the relationship, major purchases, the birth of any children, significant illnesses, and the key points in the applicant's immigration history.

A timeline does three things for a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim. It makes the length of the relationship easy to see. It exposes gaps before the decision maker finds them. And it allows the evidence to be indexed so that each period is supported by documents. A relationship of seven years should have evidence from each of those seven years, not a large bundle from the last six months.

Evidence across the four aspects, year by year

For each period on the timeline, gather evidence across the four aspects of the relationship:

• Financial aspects. Joint bank accounts and statements from different years, a joint lease or mortgage, shared bills, insurance policies naming both partners, superannuation nominations, wills and evidence of money paid between the partners.
• Nature of the household. Leases and utility accounts at each shared address, correspondence to both partners at the same address, and evidence of how household responsibilities are shared.
• Social aspects. Photographs across the years with dates and context, invitations addressed to the couple, joint travel, membership of clubs or communities, and evidence that family and friends know them as a couple.
• Nature of the commitment. Evidence of the duration of the relationship and of living together, support during illness or hardship, knowledge of each other's circumstances, and plans for the long term.

Not every couple has every document for every year, and a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim does not require perfection. The task is to show continuity across the whole period with what genuinely exists. The Form 1022 change of circumstances article explains how to notify the Department when circumstances change during processing, which keeps the record of the relationship accurate.

The relationship statement

There is one relationship statement. It is the couple's own account of the history of the relationship, set out in their own words, and reviewed and corrected by them before it is lodged. In a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case, it should follow the timeline and explain how the relationship developed over the years, how the couple came to live together, how their finances and household merged, and what their life in Australia now involves.

The relationship statement should also address the immigration history honestly, because the decision maker will read the two together. The partner visa relationship statement guide explains how the statement is structured. The four aspects of the relationship are aspects to be addressed within the evidence. They are not separate statements.

Form 888 statements from long-term witnesses

Form 888 statements are written statements from Australian citizens or permanent residents who know the couple and can confirm the relationship. For a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim, the most valuable witnesses are those who have known the couple for the longest time and who can speak to specific events across the years.

A witness who has visited the couple's home regularly for six years, attended their wedding, helped them move house and seen the applicant care for the Australian partner during an illness gives far stronger evidence than a witness who met them recently. Each Form 888 statement should explain how and when the witness met the couple, how often they see them, and what they have observed over time. The Form 888 partner visa guide and the Form 888 examples article explain what makes these statements useful.

The Tribunal decision in Thota (Migration) [2020] AATA 4222, a Subclass 820 matter, was reported on Schedule 3, an application lodged outside the relevant timeframe, compelling reasons for waiver, and the oral evidence of the sponsor's son and daughter-in-law. It illustrates that evidence from family members who know the couple's life can form part of the material considered on compelling reasons.

Explaining gaps honestly

Long relationships often have gaps: a period of living apart for work, a time when one partner cared for a parent overseas, a short separation that was later resolved. Gaps should be explained, not hidden. An explained gap, supported by evidence of continued contact and commitment, rarely damages a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim. An unexplained gap that the decision maker finds for themselves often does.

Keeping the application complete during processing

A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim is decided on the whole file. Requests for the Form 80 personal particulars form, health examinations and police certificates must be answered on time, through the applicant's ImmiAccount, which the ImmiAccount guide explains. Where a representative is appointed, the Department communicates through them, as the Form 956 and 956A article explains. The longer processing runs, as the article on how long the onshore partner visa takes shows, the more important it is to keep adding fresh evidence of the relationship to the file.

Where the Australian partner has sponsored before, the sponsorship limitations may also need to be addressed, as the sponsorship limitations page explains. That is a separate requirement from Schedule 3, and it does not change the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship analysis, but both must be resolved before the visa can be granted.

What Tribunal Decisions Show About Length of Relationship and Compelling Reasons

Tribunal decisions show that the length of a relationship has been considered as part of the compelling reasons assessment for onshore Subclass 820 applicants, usually alongside other factors such as children, illness, the impact of separation and the difficulty of relocating offshore. The following decisions are drawn from cases in which the Tribunal set aside the refusal and remitted the matter, which means it sent the application back to the Department to reconsider. A remittal is not a grant.

Each decision is described only by the issues on which it was reported. None of them is a template for a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim, but together they show the issues the Tribunal examined:

• Sandhu (Migration) [2018] AATA 1483 (Subclass 820): whether compelling reasons exist for not applying Schedule 3 criteria; length of relationship; difficulty of relocating offshore while the application is processed.
• Naidu (Migration) [2023] AATA 1830 (Subclass 820): a Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal; compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria; a child born of the relationship; a long-standing relationship.
• Nguyen (Migration) [2021] AATA 2603 (Subclass 820): the applicant ceased to hold a substantive visa more than 28 days before lodging the visa application; a long-standing partner relationship.
• D'Angeli (Migration) [2019] AATA 3676 (Subclass 820): compelling reasons to waive Schedule 3 criteria; whether the relationship was for the purpose of gaining a migration outcome; the impact of separation on the Australian spouse.
• Hassan (Migration) [2021] AATA 2159 (Subclass 820): a court remittal; the applicant was not the holder of a substantive visa at the time of application; the sponsor has significant illnesses; compelling reasons exist.
• Thota (Migration) [2020] AATA 4222 (Subclass 820): Schedule 3 criteria; application lodged outside the relevant timeframe; compelling reasons for waiver; oral evidence of the sponsor's son and daughter-in-law.
• Li (Migration) [2020] AATA 5418 (Subclass 820): application made more than 28 days after the last substantive visa was held; compelling reasons for not applying the criteria; possible manipulation of visa history.
• Lee (Migration) [2023] AATA 3123 (Subclass 820): genuine and continuing relationship; long-term cohabitation; joint bank account; joint responsibility for home, garden, pets and extended family.

These decisions were made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before the ART commenced. They show the kinds of issues examined. They do not establish that a long relationship will be accepted as compelling in any later case, and the Department's policy that a relationship and separation hardship are generally not enough on their own remains in place.

Three lessons stand out for a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim. First, length appears alongside other factors, such as a child in Naidu, the sponsor's illnesses in Hassan and the difficulty of relocation in Sandhu. Second, the impact on the Australian partner, considered in D'Angeli, is part of the assessment. Third, the applicant's visa history is scrutinised, as Li shows. Lee is not a Schedule 3 decision, but it illustrates the kind of long-term cohabitation evidence, from joint accounts to shared responsibility for extended family, that proves the length of a relationship.

Raising a Partner Visa Compelling Reasons Long Relationship Claim After a Refusal

You can still raise or strengthen a partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim after the Department proposes to refuse, or after refusal, because compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision and the ART reviews the decision afresh. But the windows are short and strictly applied.

Responding to a section 57 letter or request for information

Before refusing, the Department will often send a natural justice letter under section 57 of the Migration Act 1958, or a request for more information. That is the moment to put the full partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case, with updated evidence. The section 57 natural justice letter article and the section 56 request article explain how to respond. A thin response at this stage is one of the most common reasons these matters end in refusal.

ART review

If the Subclass 820 is refused, the applicant may apply to the ART for merits review. The deadline is short, runs from notification of the decision and is strictly applied. The Tribunal cannot extend it. The refusal letter states the deadline, and it should be read on the day it arrives. An applicant must be physically present in Australia when applying for review of a Subclass 820 refusal.

On review, the Tribunal considers compelling reasons as they exist at the time of its decision. A relationship that has continued through processing and review will usually be longer, and better evidenced, than it was at lodgement. The partner visa refusal appeal options article, the ART review guide and the partner visa refusals page explain the process. Where the Tribunal affirms a refusal and an error of law is identified, the judicial review page explains the court pathway.

Common refusal grounds for onshore applicants are explained in the Subclass 820 refusal reasons article, and the visa refusals service page and the visa appeal lawyer guide explain how review matters are run. A partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claim at the Tribunal should include fresh evidence covering the period since the Department's decision, because the relationship has continued and the Tribunal looks at the circumstances as they are when it decides.

If you lodged yourself and are now facing a request, a section 57 letter or a refusal, the article on hiring a lawyer after lodgement explains how a lawyer can step in, and the second opinion guide explains what a review of an existing file involves. Couples weighing whether to run the matter themselves can read the partner visa lawyer vs DIY comparison, the guide to choosing a partner visa lawyer and the article on when to use an immigration lawyer for a partner visa. Those who already have a representative but are concerned about how the Schedule 3 issue is being handled can read about changing immigration lawyer.

How My Migration Lawyers Helps With Partner Visa Compelling Reasons Long Relationship Claims

My Migration Lawyers prepares partner visa compelling reasons long relationship claims by first testing whether the length of the relationship is genuinely a strength in the client's case, then building the evidence and submission around the consequences of refusal rather than the relationship alone. The firm deals with complex Schedule 3 matters, acts in many onshore Subclass 820 matters where the applicant lodged without a substantive visa, and is capable of handling cases where the immigration history is difficult.

In practice, the firm's approach follows these steps:

• Obtain the immigration history. The firm obtains the applicant's visa and immigration history itself, through VEVO and Department and Tribunal records, to establish when the last substantive visa ended, how long the applicant has been unlawful and what contact they have had with the Department.
• Assess the Schedule 3 position honestly. The firm advises whether criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004 apply, whether any can be met, and whether the length of the relationship helps or hurts given the immigration history. Where the partner visa compelling reasons long relationship argument is weak, the firm says so and explains the alternatives.
• Map the relationship over time. The firm builds a timeline of the relationship and identifies the evidence across the four aspects of the relationship for each period, and any gaps that need explanation.
• Identify the combined factors. The firm identifies every factor that combines with the length of the relationship, such as the Australian partner's health, age, ties to Australia, dependants and the practical barriers to relocating offshore.
• Prepare the evidence. The firm reviews the one relationship statement, prepared from the client's own account and corrected by the client, and guides the Form 888 statements from long-term witnesses who can speak to the relationship across the years.
• Write the compelling reasons submission. The firm prepares a submission addressed to the policy test, explaining the consequences of refusal for both partners and why it is not reasonable to expect offshore application.
• Update before decision and act on refusal. Because compelling reasons are assessed at the time of decision, the firm updates the evidence while the application is pending, responds to any section 57 letter, and acts promptly on ART review if a refusal issues.

Matters are supervised by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. No outcome can be promised in any migration matter. What a careful assessment can do is tell you, before you commit, whether your partner visa compelling reasons long relationship case is strong, what it needs, and where the risks lie.

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. Consultations are held by video, so location is no barrier. You can learn more about My Migration Lawyers and its partner visa lawyers, or read what to expect from a consultation.

If you lodged an onshore partner visa without a substantive visa, have received a request or a section 57 letter about Schedule 3, or are relying on the length of your relationship and are unsure whether it is enough, speak to a lawyer before you respond.

Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers to have your partner visa compelling reasons long relationship position assessed. You can also call 1300 040 300.