Partner Visa Conflicting Statements

Partner visa conflicting statements are differences between the accounts given by the applicant, the sponsor, witnesses or earlier visa applications about the same facts. Partner visa conflicting statements are one of the most common reasons a case officer decides that a relationship is not genuine, because a decision maker who cannot work out what actually happened cannot be satisfied that the relationship meets the legal test. Yet most conflicts have an ordinary explanation. What matters is how they are found, explained and supported.

This guide explains where partner visa conflicting statements come from, how the Department and the Administrative Review Tribunal treat them, when they become an integrity issue, and how to correct the record. For the wider partner visa process, read our complete guide to partner visas in Australia. If you have received a letter that raises inconsistencies, our partner visa lawyers can review it with you.

What are partner visa conflicting statements?

Partner visa conflicting statements are any two pieces of information in a partner visa matter that cannot both be true. They can appear between the applicant's and the sponsor's accounts, between a relationship statement and the online form, between the current application and an earlier visa application, between what the couple said at an interview and what they wrote, or between a witness's Form 888 statement and the couple's own account.

Not every difference is a conflict. Two people describing the same event in different words, or remembering different details of the same occasion, is normal. A conflict arises when the accounts are incompatible, for example where one partner says they began living together in one year and the other says a different year, or where an earlier visa application described the applicant as single at a time the relationship statement says the couple were already engaged.

Why partner visa conflicting statements matter

Partner visa conflicting statements matter because a partner visa depends on the decision maker being satisfied about the relationship. For a married couple, section 5F of the Migration Act 1958 requires a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others, a genuine and continuing relationship, and a couple who live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. Section 5CB contains equivalent requirements for unmarried couples. The decision maker must consider the financial aspects, the nature of the household, the social aspects and the nature of the commitment.

Every one of those matters depends on facts that the couple provide. When the facts conflict, the decision maker has to decide which account to accept, or whether to accept either. A decision maker who finds the couple's evidence unreliable may conclude that it is not satisfied that the relationship is genuine, even if there is other evidence pointing the other way. In that sense, partner visa conflicting statements do not just weaken one piece of evidence. They can undermine the whole application.

Credibility and the onus of proof

The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the decision maker that the criteria are met. A decision maker is not required to accept an account simply because it is given. Where the account is contradicted by other information, the decision maker may prefer the other information, or may decline to be satisfied at all. That is why partner visa conflicting statements are so dangerous: they give the decision maker a lawful basis to doubt the couple's evidence.

How decision makers weigh partner visa conflicting statements

Decision makers weigh partner visa conflicting statements by asking how significant each conflict is, whether it has been explained, and whether the rest of the evidence supports the relationship. A conflict about a minor detail, such as the name of a restaurant or the exact day of a family visit, carries little weight on its own. A conflict about a central fact, such as whether the couple were living together, whether one partner was married to someone else, or how the relationship began, can carry decisive weight.

The Department's policy requires the decision maker to consider all of the circumstances of the relationship, and not simply to count how many matters point one way or the other. That cuts both ways. A small number of serious partner visa conflicting statements can outweigh a large volume of photographs and messages. Equally, a few minor conflicts in an otherwise consistent and well documented application are unlikely to decide the outcome if they are explained.

Corroboration matters. Where one partner's account is supported by documents and the other's is not, a decision maker is likely to prefer the documented account. Where both accounts are supported by different documents, the decision maker will look for the explanation that makes sense of all of them. A couple who provide that explanation themselves, with evidence, make the decision maker's task easier and the outcome more predictable.

Partner visa conflicting statements about the four aspects of the relationship

Partner visa conflicting statements often affect one of the four aspects of the relationship, and the explanation should be framed with that aspect in mind.

Financial aspects

Conflicts about who pays the rent, whether the couple have a joint account, or how household costs are shared. The explanation should be supported by bank statements, transfer records and bills.

Nature of the household

Conflicts about where the couple live, when they moved in, who else lives with them and who does which household tasks. Leases, mail, bills and statements from others in the household help resolve them.

Social aspects

Conflicts about events the couple attended, who they socialise with and whether family and friends know them as a couple. Photographs, invitations, travel records and Form 888 statements help.

Nature of the commitment

Conflicts about future plans, such as where the couple intend to live, whether they plan children, or how they support each other. The explanation should show that the plans have been discussed and are shared, even if each partner described them differently.

Our guides to partner visa relationship evidence, preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and the 820 partner visa evidence checklist explain the evidence for each aspect.

Where partner visa conflicting statements come from

Partner visa conflicting statements come from a small number of sources. Knowing them helps couples check their own applications before lodgement.

The applicant and the sponsor

The applicant and the sponsor each answer questions about the same relationship. The applicant completes the visa application and the sponsor completes the sponsorship form. Both may provide statements. If they did not prepare their answers together, their dates, addresses and descriptions may differ.

The relationship statement and the online forms

The relationship statement is often written separately from the online forms. Dates in the statement may be approximate, while the forms require exact dates. A statement that says the couple met "in early spring" and a form that gives a specific date in winter are a common example of partner visa conflicting statements.

Earlier visa applications

Earlier visa applications are one of the most serious sources of conflict. The Department holds every earlier application made by the applicant and the sponsor. A visitor visa application may have described the applicant's marital status, employment, ties to the home country and purpose of travel. A student visa application may have described intentions after study. An earlier partner visa application, or an earlier sponsorship, may have described a different relationship. Where any of these conflict with the current application, the Department will notice.

Interviews

Interviews, whether together or separate, produce a recorded account. Answers given under pressure, through an interpreter, or without preparation can conflict with the written statements. Separate interviews are designed in part to test whether the partners' accounts match.

Witnesses

Form 888 statements and other witness statements describe the relationship from the outside. A witness who places the couple at an event in a year that does not fit the couple's timeline creates a conflict.

Documents

Documents themselves can conflict with statements. A lease in one partner's name only, at an address the couple say they shared, or bank statements showing an address different from the one in the form, are common examples.

The cost of ignoring partner visa conflicting statements

Ignoring partner visa conflicting statements rarely makes them go away. The Department's systems link the applicant's and sponsor's records, and case officers are trained to compare applications. A conflict that the couple hope will not be noticed is usually noticed, either at the first stage, at the permanent stage, or when one of the partners later applies for another visa or for citizenship.

The cost of an unexplained conflict grows with time. At the first stage, it may lead to a request for more information. If unanswered or poorly answered, it may lead to refusal. At review, it may be the central issue at the hearing. After grant, it may lead to a notice of intention to consider cancellation. At each stage, the couple have less control over how the conflict is understood. Dealing with partner visa conflicting statements at the earliest point is almost always the safest course, even where the explanation is uncomfortable.

The most common partner visa conflicting statements

Certain partner visa conflicting statements appear again and again in refused applications.

When and how the couple met

Different dates, places or circumstances for the first meeting. Sometimes one partner describes an online contact as the first meeting and the other describes the first face to face meeting. Both are true, but they need to be reconciled.

When the relationship began

Different dates for when the couple became a couple. People often date the relationship from different events, such as a first date, a first kiss, a conversation about commitment or moving in together.

Living arrangements

Different addresses, different dates for moving in, or different accounts of who else lived in the household.

Previous relationships

Different accounts of when an earlier relationship ended, or an earlier relationship that one partner did not mention. This is one of the most serious kinds of partner visa conflicting statements, because it goes to whether the current relationship is exclusive.

Marital status in earlier applications

An earlier visa application that described the applicant as single, married to someone else or separated, at a time that does not fit the current account.

How the couple were introduced

An introduction through a family member, friend, community network or agency that was described differently by each partner, or not mentioned at all.

Knowledge of each other's lives

Different answers about each other's families, work, daily routines, health and plans. A decision maker may treat a lack of knowledge, or conflicting knowledge, as evidence that the couple do not share a life.

Innocent explanations for partner visa conflicting statements

Most partner visa conflicting statements have an innocent explanation. Decision makers know this, and the Tribunal regularly accepts explanations that are credible and supported. The explanation must, however, be specific to the conflict. A general statement that the couple were confused will rarely be enough.

Memory and approximate dates

People remember events, not dates. A couple asked when they first met, years later, will often give different answers. One partner may remember the season, the other a festival or holiday. The answer is to anchor each date to a record, such as a ticket, a message, a photograph with metadata or a booking confirmation, and explain how the date was worked out.

Different calendars and date formats

Some couples use a lunar or religious calendar for important events, or are used to a date format in which the day and month are reversed. A date recorded in one system and converted to another can appear to conflict. The explanation should show both dates and the conversion.

Translation and interpreting

Where documents were translated or an interview was interpreted, meaning can be lost. A word for "engaged" in one language may correspond to a family agreement rather than a formal engagement. A word for "living together" may mean living in the same family home rather than as a couple. Where a conflict arose through translation or interpreting, the explanation should identify the words used and what was meant.

A misunderstood question

Visa forms ask precise questions. "When did you begin living together?" may be answered with the date the couple started staying together on weekends, or the date a lease was signed. "Have you ever been in a relationship?" may be understood to mean a formal marriage only. Where a question was misunderstood, the explanation should say what the person understood the question to mean and why.

Someone else completed the form

Earlier visa applications are often completed by a relative, an employer, a travel agent or a friend. The applicant may not have read every answer. This does not remove the applicant's responsibility for the information, but it can explain how an inaccurate answer came to be given. The explanation should say who completed the form and what the applicant knew.

Different perspectives

Two people can describe the same relationship differently because they experienced it differently. One partner may date the relationship from the first date, the other from the first serious conversation. Differences of perspective are not lies. A clear explanation, with reference to the events each partner had in mind, usually resolves them.

Partner visa conflicting statements about how the couple were introduced

Partner visa conflicting statements about how the couple were introduced are common where a family member, a friend, a community or religious network, or a commercial introduction service played a part. One partner may describe the meeting as a chance encounter, while the other mentions the introduction. Sometimes neither mentions it, and the Department learns of it from another source.

There is nothing wrong with an introduction. Many genuine relationships begin that way, and the Department's policy recognises that an arranged or introduced marriage does not of itself affect whether the marriage is recognised. The problem arises when the introduction is concealed or described inconsistently, because a decision maker may then wonder what else has been left out. The relationship statement should describe the introduction plainly: who introduced the couple, how, when, and what happened next. Where an agency was involved, the statement should say so.

Partner visa conflicting statements involving family members

Family members can also be a source of partner visa conflicting statements. Relatives may provide Form 888 statements or other letters, may be named in the forms, and in some cases may be contacted. Where a parent describes the couple's wedding differently from the couple, or a sibling gives a different account of where the couple live, the conflict will be noticed.

The couple cannot control what relatives say, but they can make sure relatives who provide statements describe only what they know, and they can address any differences openly. Where a relative opposes the relationship and has given the Department adverse information, that information may need to be answered directly, with evidence about the relative's motives and the true position.

When partner visa conflicting statements become an integrity issue

Partner visa conflicting statements become an integrity issue where the Department considers that information given was false or misleading in a material particular, or that a document was bogus. That engages public interest criterion 4020, which applies to partner visas.

Public interest criterion 4020 requires that there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the current application or a visa held in the 12 months before the application was made. Under the Department's policy, a refusal on this basis can mean that a further visa cannot be granted for a period of three years. Where identity is not established, the period is ten years. There is a power to waive some of these requirements in compelling circumstances, but there is no waiver for the identity requirements.

What "material particular" means

Information is false or misleading in a material particular when it is relevant to the decision, not merely incorrect in some trivial respect. A wrong middle name in an old form may not be material. A false answer about marital status, previous relationships or earlier refusals usually will be. Many partner visa conflicting statements are not material, and part of the response is often to show that.

Information given in earlier applications

Public interest criterion 4020 can reach information given in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the current application was made. An inconsistency between the partner visa and a visitor visa held within that period can therefore become an integrity issue in the partner visa. Inconsistencies with older applications can still affect credibility, even if they do not engage public interest criterion 4020.

How the Department raises partner visa conflicting statements

The Department raises partner visa conflicting statements in several ways. It may request more information under section 56 of the Migration Act 1958. It may invite the couple to an interview. It may send a natural justice letter under section 57 inviting comment on adverse information. Our guides to responding to a section 56 request for more information and to the section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa explain these letters.

Couples should not assume that every inconsistency will be put to them before a decision is made. The section 57 obligation is limited, and in general it does not extend to information the applicant gave for the purpose of the application itself. A conflict between the applicant's own relationship statement and the applicant's own online form, for example, may be relied on without a separate letter. That is a strong reason to find and explain partner visa conflicting statements before lodgement.

How to respond to partner visa conflicting statements

A response to partner visa conflicting statements should identify each conflict, explain it honestly, and support the explanation with evidence. The response is the couple's opportunity to show that their account is reliable.

Identify every conflict precisely

The first step is to know exactly what the Department has. Where a letter refers to an earlier application, interview or third party information, the couple should identify precisely what was said, when and by whom. Where the couple do not hold copies of earlier applications, a request for access to the Department's records may be needed. Responding to a conflict without knowing exactly what the record says is a common mistake.

Explain each conflict honestly

Each conflict should be explained separately. The explanation should say what the correct fact is, why the earlier or other statement was different, and how the couple know which is right. Where an earlier statement was simply wrong, the explanation should say so plainly. Decision makers are more likely to accept an honest admission of an error than an elaborate attempt to show that two incompatible statements were both true.

Support the explanation with evidence

An explanation carries more weight when it is supported by documents. A date can be anchored to a ticket, a message or a booking. An address can be supported by a lease, bills or bank statements. A previous relationship's end can be supported by a divorce order, a separation record or evidence of separate addresses.

Statements from each partner

Where both partners are involved in a conflict, each should provide their own statement in their own words. Identical statements from both partners can look rehearsed. Statements that agree on the facts but describe them in different words are more convincing.

Do not change the story to fit

The worst response to partner visa conflicting statements is to change the account to match whichever version the Department seems to prefer. A new account that conflicts with both earlier versions creates a third inconsistency. Every statement must be true. If the honest answer is that a detail cannot now be remembered, that is the answer to give.

Correcting partner visa conflicting statements before the Department asks

If a couple discover after lodgement that their application contains an error, they should correct it in writing as soon as possible, with an explanation. Correcting an error voluntarily is far better than having it discovered. Changes in circumstances after lodgement, such as a new address, are notified to the Department using Form 1022. A correction of an incorrect answer should be made by a clear written notice identifying the error and the correct information.

Partner visa conflicting statements about character, health and family

Partner visa conflicting statements are not limited to the relationship. The forms ask about character, health, previous visa refusals and family members, and the answers must match the documents and the Department's records. A character answer that says there are no convictions, followed by a police certificate that shows one, is a serious conflict. So is a health answer that omits a condition later revealed in a medical examination.

Family details also cause conflicts. The forms ask for the names, dates of birth and locations of parents, siblings and children. Where the applicant lists different family members in different applications, or a child appears in one application and not another, the Department will ask why. Every member of the family unit must be declared, including children who are not applying.

The answer is to disclose fully and consistently. Where a conviction, a health condition or a family matter is uncomfortable, it should still be disclosed, with an explanation and supporting documents. A matter that would not have prevented grant can become a serious problem if it is concealed and later discovered. Our Form 80 guide explains the detailed personal history form that often brings these conflicts to light.

Partner visa conflicting statements in interviews

Interviews are where many partner visa conflicting statements first appear. Each partner may be asked the same questions separately, and the answers compared. Preparation matters, but preparation is not rehearsal. It means each partner reviewing the relationship statement, the forms and the key documents so that their memory of dates and events is refreshed.

During an interview, a person should answer only what they know. "I do not know" or "I do not remember exactly" is better than a guess that conflicts with the record. If a question is unclear, the person should ask for it to be repeated or explained. Where an interpreter is used, the person should say if they do not understand the interpreter. After the interview, if a person realises an answer was wrong, it should be corrected in writing promptly.

Partner visa conflicting statements involving earlier visa applications

Partner visa conflicting statements involving earlier visa applications deserve particular care, because the earlier application was a formal statement to the Department and it cannot be changed. The partner visa application must deal with it.

The most common example is a visitor visa application. A visitor visa application may have described the applicant as single, as employed in the home country, or as visiting for tourism, when the applicant was in fact already in a relationship with the sponsor and intended to see them. Where the visitor visa was granted on that basis and the applicant then applied for a partner visa in Australia, the Department will compare the two. Our guide to moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa in Australia explains why this comparison matters.

The response depends on the facts. If the visitor visa answers were accurate when given, because the relationship developed only later, the timeline should show that clearly. If the answers were not accurate, the partner visa application should acknowledge the inaccuracy and explain it. Pretending it did not happen is not an option, because the Department already holds the earlier application.

Where condition 8503 or an earlier refusal is also involved, the earlier visa history affects validity as well as credibility. Our guides on applying for a partner visa after a visa refusal and on the no further stay condition 8503 explain those issues.

Partner visa conflicting statements about previous relationships

Partner visa conflicting statements about previous relationships are among the most damaging, because they go directly to whether the current relationship is exclusive. A decision maker who finds that one partner was still in another relationship when the current relationship began, and that this was not disclosed, may doubt every other part of the account.

The forms ask about previous relationships, marriages and children. Every previous relationship that falls within the question should be disclosed. Where an earlier marriage ended by divorce, the divorce order should be provided. Where an earlier relationship ended without formalities, the evidence should show when the partners began living separately. Where the current relationship began before an earlier one had fully ended, the statement should say so and explain it. A short overlap that is honestly explained is far less damaging than one that is discovered.

The sponsor's statements

The sponsor's statements are part of the evidence, and conflicts between the sponsor and the applicant are treated in the same way as conflicts within the applicant's own account. The sponsor completes a sponsorship form, may provide a statement, and may be interviewed. The sponsor's own earlier visa applications, earlier sponsorships and earlier relationships are also on the Department's record.

A sponsor who was previously sponsored as a partner, or who has sponsored a partner before, should expect the Department to compare the relationship histories carefully. The partner visa sponsorship limitations page explains the separate rules that apply, and our article on when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa sets out the common situations.

Partner visa conflicting statements at ART review

If a partner visa is refused because of partner visa conflicting statements, the refusal can usually be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The application for review must generally be made within 28 days after the day the person is notified of the decision, and that time limit cannot be extended. Our partner visa refusals page and our guide to partner visa refused appeal options explain the process, and our guide to what to expect at ART review explains the hearing.

The ART decides the matter afresh. It considers the evidence before it at the time of its decision, and it usually hears oral evidence from the applicant, the sponsor and sometimes witnesses. The Tribunal will test the couple's account, including the conflicts that led to refusal. A hearing is an opportunity to explain those conflicts in person, with documents that support the explanation. It is also a risk, because new conflicts can arise at the hearing if the couple are not prepared.

Preparation for a hearing where partner visa conflicting statements are in issue should include a careful review of the Department's file, a written submission addressing each conflict, updated statements from each partner, supporting documents, and preparation of witnesses. Our guide to finding a visa appeal lawyer explains what representation at review involves.

What Tribunal decisions show about partner visa conflicting statements

Published Tribunal decisions show that partner visa conflicting statements can be overcome where the explanation is credible and the wider evidence supports the relationship. The decisions below were remitted, which means the Tribunal sent the matter back to the Department for reconsideration. A remittal is not a visa grant, and each decision turned on its own facts and evidence.

• Yeung (Migration) [2020] AATA 4137. A Subclass 820 matter following a Federal Circuit Court remittal, involving incorrect information in the visa application and in Department interviews, and an introduction through an agency that had not been disclosed.
• Truong (Migration) [2024] AATA 680. A Subclass 820 matter involving alleged false or misleading information in a previous visitor visa application about marital status, where the parties were separated but still living together.
• 1620095 (Migration) [2019] AATA 400. A Subclass 309 matter involving false information and inconsistent information submitted, where the Tribunal was satisfied of the applicant's identity and assessed the genuine and continuing relationship.
• Raymont (Migration) [2020] AATA 5584. A Subclass 309 matter in which the applicant's inaccurate knowledge of the sponsor was considered alongside visits to each other's countries and methods of communication.
• Mohammad (Migration) [2023] AATA 4620. A Subclass 309 matter in which the parties gave consistent evidence reflecting a sound knowledge of each other's families and health conditions.

These decisions show both sides of the issue. Conflicts in the record can be explained, and consistent evidence at hearing carries real weight.

Preparing a written explanation of partner visa conflicting statements

A written explanation of partner visa conflicting statements works best when it is organised and specific. A useful structure is to deal with each conflict under its own heading, and under each heading to set out:

• the two or more statements that conflict, quoted accurately with their source and date;
• the correct fact;
• why the other statement was different;
• the documents that support the correct fact; and
• where relevant, why the conflict is not material to the visa criteria.

Each partner should then confirm, in their own statement and in their own words, the facts that relate to them. Witnesses who need to correct a date or detail can provide a further Form 888 statement. Supporting documents should be labelled so they can be matched to the conflict they address.

A clear explanation of this kind helps a decision maker to see that the couple have nothing to hide, that the conflicts have ordinary causes, and that the relationship evidence as a whole is reliable. The same document can later be used at review if the matter goes to the Tribunal. Whether the application is for the onshore Subclass 820 visa or the offshore Subclass 309 visa, the approach is the same.

Preventing partner visa conflicting statements before lodgement

The best way to deal with partner visa conflicting statements is to prevent them. Before lodgement, the couple should:

• build a single timeline of the relationship with exact dates, anchored to documents;
• list every address each partner has lived at, with dates;
• list every earlier visa application and sponsorship for both partners, and what each said about relationships and marital status;
• prepare the online forms and the sponsorship form together, using the same timeline;
• write the relationship statement after the timeline is settled, and check every date against it;
• give witnesses the key dates so their Form 888 statements do not guess, while making sure each witness describes only what they personally know; and
• read the whole application together before submission, looking for any fact stated two different ways.

Our guides to the partner visa relationship statement, Form 888 for partner visas, Form 888 example answers and common mistakes, partner visa relationship evidence and the partner visa document checklist explain each document. The Form 80 guide is also important, because Form 80 asks for detailed personal history that must match the application.

Partner visa conflicting statements at the permanent stage

The partner visa process has two stages. The permanent Subclass 801 or Subclass 100 visa is assessed later, on whether the relationship is continuing. Our guide to Subclass 820 and Subclass 801 explains the relationship between the stages. At the permanent stage, the Department compares the new evidence with the evidence given at the first stage. New partner visa conflicting statements can arise if addresses, dates or events are described differently the second time. The couple should keep their own copy of the first stage application and use it when preparing the second.

Partner visa conflicting statements discovered after grant

Partner visa conflicting statements do not always come to light before a decision. Information found after a visa is granted to have been incorrect can lead to cancellation. Under the Migration Act 1958, a visa holder who did not comply with the obligation to give correct information in the application can receive a notice inviting comment on a possible cancellation under section 109. Our visa cancellations page explains how cancellation works and the strict response times involved.

This risk is another reason to deal with partner visa conflicting statements early. A conflict explained in the application is part of the record the Department relied on when it granted the visa. A conflict discovered later, after the Department relied on the incorrect information, is far more dangerous. Couples moving from the temporary to the permanent stage should also keep in mind that the permanent visa assessment is another point at which the full record is reviewed.

Getting advice on partner visa conflicting statements

Advice on partner visa conflicting statements is most valuable before lodgement, and essential once the Department has raised a concern. An initial immigration lawyer consultation can identify the conflicts in a draft or lodged application and the best way to deal with them. Where the couple have prepared their own response to a letter, a second opinion from an immigration lawyer can check it before it is sent. Where a response deadline is close, our guide to urgent immigration lawyer advice explains what to have ready.

Couples weighing whether to act themselves may find our articles comparing a partner visa lawyer with doing it yourself, explaining when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa, and setting out the difference between a migration agent and an immigration lawyer helpful. Our articles on why partner visas get refused and the most common Subclass 820 refusal reasons show how inconsistencies feature in refusals. Where the Tribunal has already affirmed a refusal and its decision may contain a legal error, judicial review may be available, and our visa refusals page explains the wider options.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with partner visa conflicting statements

My Migration Lawyers acts in partner visa matters where partner visa conflicting statements are in issue, whether before lodgement, in response to a request or natural justice letter, or at review. The firm deals with complex partner visa cases and acts in many matters of this exact type, including conflicts with earlier visitor and student visa applications, undisclosed previous relationships, inconsistent interview answers and conflicting witness statements. It is capable of handling these matters from the first review of the record to a Tribunal hearing.

The work in a partner visa conflicting statements matter usually includes:

• Obtaining the record. Identifying what the Department holds, including earlier applications and interview records, so that every conflict is known precisely.
• Mapping the conflicts. Comparing every statement, form and document and listing each conflict, its source and its likely significance.
• Assessing the integrity risk. Advising whether any conflict could be treated as false or misleading in a material particular, and how to address public interest criterion 4020.
• The couple's explanation. Taking instructions from each partner and presenting their own explanation of each conflict in the form the law requires. Each partner's statement remains their own account, which they review and correct before it is provided.
• Supporting evidence. Identifying the documents that anchor the correct facts.
• Responses and submissions. Preparing responses to section 56 requests and section 57 letters, and written submissions at review.
• Hearing preparation. Preparing the couple and witnesses to give accurate, consistent evidence at an interview or Tribunal hearing.

The firm is led by Weiwei Zhang, Principal Lawyer. You can read more about My Migration Lawyers and our work as immigration lawyers in Australia. We act for couples throughout Australia, including through our partner visa lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta, and our immigration lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, the Gold Coast, Canberra, Hobart and Parramatta. If you lodged your own application and have since found an inconsistency, our guide to hiring an immigration lawyer after lodgement explains how the firm steps in.

The firm's approach to partner visa conflicting statements is practical and honest. It does not try to make an inconsistency disappear. It establishes what actually happened, presents that account clearly with the evidence that supports it, and explains why any earlier statement was different. That approach protects the current application and the couple's credibility in every application that follows, including the permanent stage and, later, citizenship.

Partner visa conflicting statements are easier to explain early than late. Book a consultation with My Migration Lawyers online, or call 1300 040 300.