Partner Visa Previous False Documents

A partner visa false documents history does not automatically stop a person from being granted a partner visa in Australia. What matters is when the false document or information was given, which application it was given in, whether an earlier visa was refused because of it, and whether the problem concerned identity. Those four facts decide whether public interest criterion 4020 is engaged, whether a non-grant period applies, and whether a waiver is available. Each of those facts can be checked before a partner visa false documents issue becomes a refusal.

This guide is for people planning or lodging a partner visa now who have a document problem in their past. Typical examples are a forged bank statement in an earlier student visa application, a fake qualification or employment reference in a skilled application, a bogus identity document, an earlier refusal for false documents, or a past visa cancelled for incorrect information. Many people in this position did not prepare the document themselves. It was supplied by an agent or a third party, sometimes without their knowledge. A partner visa false documents problem of that kind still has to be dealt with honestly and carefully.

The article applies to the onshore Subclass 820 partner visa and the offshore Subclass 309 partner visa. For the full framework of partner visas, including the two stages and the sponsor's role, see the firm's complete guide to partner visas in Australia. This article is narrower. It explains how the law treats partner visa false documents in a person's past, and how to prepare a new application so that the history is addressed before the Department of Home Affairs raises it.

Can you get a partner visa if you gave false documents in the past?

Yes. A person who gave false documents in an earlier application can still be granted a partner visa, but only if they satisfy public interest criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) for the new application, or if the parts of PIC 4020 that can be waived are waived, and only if their identity is accepted. A past false document is not a permanent ban. It is a legal issue that has to be identified, timed and explained.

The answer depends on the facts. In a partner visa false documents case, the Department will usually ask four questions.

• Which application was the false document given in? PIC 4020(1) looks at the current application and any visa held in the 12 months before the current application was made. A document given in an older application, for a visa no longer held, is outside that look-back unless it affects the current application in another way.
• Was a visa refused because of it? A refusal under PIC 4020 for a bogus document or false or misleading information creates a non-grant period of three years. A refusal because the person's identity was not accepted creates a non-grant period of ten years.
• Did the problem concern identity? Identity concerns cannot be waived. Every applicant must satisfy the Department of their identity.
• Is the new application completely honest about the past? A new false answer about the old problem creates a new PIC 4020 issue in the current application, which is often worse than the original one.

The rest of this guide explains each of these questions in turn. A partner visa false documents history is managed by understanding precisely which rule applies, not by hoping the Department will not notice. Couples starting this process can read the firm's guides to partner visa lawyers and a partner visa lawyer in Australia, which explain how a partner visa false documents assessment fits into the wider application.

What is PIC 4020, the integrity criterion?

PIC 4020 is the integrity public interest criterion in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994. It requires a visa applicant to satisfy the decision maker that they have not given a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular, that they have not been refused a visa for fraud or identity reasons within set periods, and that they are who they claim to be. It is a criterion for most non-humanitarian visas, including partner visas.

For the Subclass 820 visa, the Department's policy states that clause 820.226 requires the primary applicant to satisfy PIC 4020 and PIC 4021, the passport criterion. Offshore Subclass 309 applicants must also satisfy PIC 4020. Failure to satisfy PIC 4020 is a ground for refusal of the application. It is not, by itself, a ground for cancelling a visa already held. Cancellation is governed by separate provisions of the Migration Act, discussed later in this guide.

PIC 4020 has several parts. Each one matters in a partner visa false documents case for a different reason.

PIC 4020(1): bogus documents and false information

PIC 4020(1) 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 the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made. The document or information may have been given to the Minister, an officer, the Administrative Review Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.

PIC 4020(2): the three-year non-grant period

PIC 4020(2) requires the decision maker to be satisfied that neither the applicant nor a member of their family unit was refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) in the period starting three years before the current application was made and ending when the current application is decided.

PIC 4020(2A) and (2B): identity and the ten-year non-grant period

PIC 4020(2A) requires the applicant to satisfy the decision maker as to their identity. PIC 4020(2B) requires that neither the applicant nor a member of their family unit was refused a visa for failing the identity requirement in the period starting ten years before the current application and ending at the decision.

PIC 4020(4): the waiver

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) in limited circumstances. The waiver does not extend to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). This distinction is the most important single point in any partner visa false documents assessment.

The firm's guide to why partner visas get refused and its article on the most common reasons Subclass 820 visas are refused place PIC 4020 alongside the other refusal grounds.

What counts as a bogus document?

A bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958. In relation to a person, it means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person, is counterfeit or has been altered by a person without authority to do so, or was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

The Department's policy gives practical examples under each limb. These examples match the kinds of partner visa false documents problems that people bring from their past.

• Not issued in respect of the person. An employment reference that was issued to a different person with a similar name, presented as the applicant's own.
• Counterfeit. A passport, birth certificate, marriage certificate, bank statement, academic transcript, police certificate or employment reference that, when checked with the issuing authority, does not exist.
• Altered without authority. A passport with a substituted photo, a licence with an amended birth date, or a genuine employment reference changed by someone else to show different dates.
• Obtained because of a false statement. A genuine passport obtained by fraud, an English test result achieved by an imposter, a skills assessment obtained through false claims, or an employment reference written by the employee and not endorsed by the employer.

The last limb is often misunderstood. A document can be a bogus document even if it was issued by a real authority, if it was obtained because of a false or misleading statement. The words "whether or not made knowingly" mean that the person who made the statement does not need to have known it was false for the document to fall within the definition.

The policy also states that there is no way to undo the giving of a bogus document. Providing the genuine document later does not change the fact that a bogus one was already given. That is why a partner visa false documents history cannot be cured simply by uploading correct documents now. It has to be assessed and explained.

False or misleading information in a material particular

Information is false or misleading in a material particular, for PIC 4020, if it was false or misleading when it was given and it is relevant to any criterion the decision maker may consider, whether or not the decision was actually made because of it. This definition is in PIC 4020(5).

False information is information that is contrary to fact. Misleading information gives a wrong impression, even if part of it is true. The Department's policy gives examples that often appear in a partner visa false documents history: a false employment reference supporting work experience claims, a student who claims full-time enrolment when enrolled part-time, a substitute person attending a medical examination, and an applicant who claims two years of employment when the employer confirms three months.

Omissions count as well. The policy gives the example of a partner visa applicant who does not notify the Department that their sponsor died after lodgement. A failure to declare a past refusal or a past conviction can be false or misleading information, because it is relevant to the character criterion or to other criteria.

The policy cites the Federal Court decision in Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 75, which described information as material if it might influence the conclusion the decision maker reaches. The test is not whether the outcome would have changed. It is whether the information could have mattered.

Does a false document from years ago still count?

Not directly under PIC 4020(1), unless it was given in relation to the current application or a visa held in the 12 months before the current application was made. This is the 12-month look-back, and it is the point most often misstated about partner visa false documents.

The Department's policy says that PIC 4020(1) has limited scope. If an earlier application was refused or withdrawn, the decision maker can only use the information in it if it reveals potential fraud in the current application, or in relation to the application for a visa held in the previous 12 months. The example the policy gives is how the applicant answers the question "Have you ever been refused a visa in any country?" in the current application.

So the old false document matters in three main ways.

• The visa obtained with it is still held, or was held in the last 12 months. This is the common onshore problem. A person who obtained a student visa with a forged bank statement, still holds that student visa, and then lodges a Subclass 820 application from it, is within the 12-month look-back. The false document was given in relation to a visa held in the 12 months before the partner application.
• A visa was refused under PIC 4020 because of it. The three-year or ten-year non-grant period then applies, regardless of the 12-month look-back.
• The current application answers questions about it falsely. A false answer about past refusals, past applications or immigration history is false information in the current application.

A partner visa false documents problem from many years ago, in an application for a visa that the person no longer holds and that was not refused under PIC 4020, may not engage PIC 4020(1) at all. It still has to be disclosed truthfully where the application or Form 80 asks about it, and it may still raise identity questions if the old documents gave a different name or date of birth. The firm's article on a partner visa after a visa refusal covers the broader effect of earlier refusals.

How the Department links your old records to a new application

The Department links a new application to old records through its client records, biometrics and the answers given in the new application. A partner visa false documents history is rarely hidden, because the Department's systems hold the earlier applications, the documents uploaded with them, any fraud records and the person's photographs and fingerprints.

The Department's policy lists triggers that may lead a decision maker to investigate further. In a partner visa false documents case, the relevant triggers include the following.

• An immigration history suggesting that false or misleading information or bogus documents were given in earlier applications.
• A previous application that was withdrawn after the applicant was asked to comment on the genuineness of a document.
• Claims in the new application that are inconsistent with earlier claims made by the applicant or the sponsor about immigration history.
• Assistance from a person known to the Department to be associated with fraudulent activity.
• An allegation received about the applicant's identity or claims.
• Repeated requests for extensions of time without an acceptable reason.

Where an application is withdrawn after a PIC 4020 natural justice letter, or where fraud is suspected, the policy requires the Department to record that in its systems. The stated purpose is to stop future applications from being auto-granted and to ensure that future decision makers apply an appropriate level of scrutiny. A person who withdrew an earlier application to avoid a refusal should assume the record exists.

Biometric matching is a separate link. The policy says decision makers are alerted when a facial image or fingerprint matches another client record with different biographical details. Where that happens, the decision maker is unlikely to be satisfied that the claimed identity is the true identity without further investigation. Where an earlier representative prepared the old application, the firm's article on whether to use a migration agent or lawyer for a partner visa explains the difference in roles, and its guide to what an immigration lawyer does explains when legal advice is needed on a partner visa false documents history. The firm's guide on how to complete Form 80 explains why names, dates of birth and immigration history must be consistent across every record.

The three-year and ten-year non-grant periods

A person refused a visa under PIC 4020(1) for a bogus document or false or misleading information is subject to a three-year non-grant period under PIC 4020(2). A person refused because their identity was not accepted under PIC 4020(2A) is subject to a ten-year non-grant period under PIC 4020(2B). These periods are the core of most partner visa false documents planning.

How the period is measured

The period does not run from the date of the old application. It is measured backwards from the new application and forwards to the decision. For the three-year period, the decision maker asks whether there was a PIC 4020(1) refusal in the period starting three years before the partner application was made and ending when the partner application is decided. The ten-year period works the same way.

The Department's policy gives a worked example. A partner visa application is lodged on 1 December 2021. A visitor visa application lodged separately is refused under PIC 4020(1) on 25 April 2021. The partner visa is assessed on 15 May 2022. The refusal falls inside the period starting on 1 December 2018 and ending on the decision date, so PIC 4020(2) is engaged and the decision maker must consider the waiver.

The policy also states that a refusal which happens after the partner application is lodged still counts, as long as it happens before the partner application is decided. A person who has another application pending while the partner application is processed needs to understand that risk.

Timing a new application

Because the period is counted back from the date the new application is made, the date of lodgement can matter in a partner visa false documents case. If the earlier PIC 4020(1) refusal was made more than three years before the partner application is lodged, PIC 4020(2) is not engaged by that refusal. If the partner application is lodged before the third anniversary of the refusal, it is.

This does not mean every couple should wait. Some couples cannot wait, because of visa expiry, the sponsor's circumstances, children or the relationship itself. Others may have a strong waiver case. But the date of the refusal decision, not the date of the old application, should be confirmed from the Department's records before any partner visa false documents strategy is settled.

Members of the family unit

The non-grant periods also apply where a member of the applicant's family unit was refused under PIC 4020 within the period. The policy explains that this refers to people who are members of the applicant's family unit when the application is considered, whether or not they are included in the application. A spouse or de facto partner is a member of the family unit. In a partner visa false documents case, the history of a dependent child or other family member included in the application should also be checked.

Applicants who were under 18

PIC 4020(2AA) and (2BA) provide that the non-grant periods do not apply if the person was under 18 when the refused application was made. The policy explains that this is intended to prevent children from being disadvantaged by the actions of their parents or guardians. The person must still satisfy the rest of PIC 4020.

Review does not stop the period

The Department's policy states that if a PIC 4020 refusal is taken to the Administrative Review Tribunal, the non-grant period remains in effect until the Tribunal decides. A person with a pending review of an old refusal should take that into account before lodging a partner application. The firm's guide to what to expect at an ART review explains the review process generally.

The PIC 4020(4) waiver for partner visas

PIC 4020(4) allows the decision maker to waive PIC 4020(1) and PIC 4020(2) if satisfied that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen, justify the grant of the visa. In a partner visa false documents case, the second limb is usually the relevant one, because the sponsor is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.

Whose interests count

The interests of the applicant are not relevant to the waiver. The Department's policy says so expressly. Compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect only the applicant do not count unless they also affect an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. In a partner visa false documents case, the focus is therefore on the sponsor, any Australian children and other Australian family members.

Factors the Department considers

The policy states that, in the partner visa context, the nature and extent of the bonds between partners in a genuine relationship, and the consequences of the partners separating, are likely to differ from one relationship to another. It lists factors that may be relevant, including the following.

• An Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen child under 18 in Australia who would be adversely affected if the waiver is not exercised, and whether the applicant is part of that child's immediate family.
• Significant health or welfare issues affecting an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, including whether there are other carers in Australia and whether the illness is permanent and requires ongoing care.
• Continuing separation of immediate family members because the Australian partner cannot live in the applicant's country or a third country, including whether that country is a war zone.

Existing circumstances, not promises

The policy says the circumstances must already exist. They cannot be something that may happen in the future. They must be persuasive enough to lead the decision maker to consider whether the criteria should be waived. At that point, the decision maker may weigh the nature of the fraud, the applicant's immigration history and the importance of the integrity of the visa system.

An apology is not a waiver ground

The policy gives an example of a misapplication of the waiver: waiving PIC 4020 because the applicant apologises for the earlier bogus documents. An apology does not relate to the current application and is not a compassionate or compelling circumstance affecting an Australian. Candour matters in a partner visa false documents case, but the waiver submission must be built on the sponsor's and family's real circumstances.

The decision maker must consider the waiver

The policy states that the decision maker must actively consider the waiver whenever a refusal under PIC 4020(1) or (2) is being considered, even if the applicant has not asked for it. The decision maker must consider all the information provided with the application. In practice, an applicant who expects a partner visa false documents issue should put the waiver material in front of the decision maker from the start, rather than waiting for a natural justice letter.

The firm's articles on partner visa lawyers in Australia, fees and how to choose and urgent immigration lawyer advice explain how to obtain advice on a partner visa false documents waiver before lodgement or when a letter arrives.

A waiver applies only to the application in which it is granted. If a waiver is granted and the person later applies for another visa within the non-grant period, PIC 4020 must be satisfied again for that visa.

Identity problems that cannot be waived

There is no waiver for the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). If the Department is not satisfied that a partner visa applicant is who they claim to be, the visa cannot be granted, however strong the relationship and however compelling the sponsor's circumstances. This is the hardest category of partner visa false documents history, and it should be assessed before any other step is taken.

The three pillars of identity

The Department's policy describes three pillars of identity: biometrics, documents and life story. Biometrics include facial images, fingerprints and, in some cases, DNA used to confirm family relationships. Documents include passports, national identity cards, birth certificates and other records that contain biographic details. Life story includes family composition, education, employment, countries of residence and travel, and the person's social footprint.

The policy states that there is no benefit of the doubt in relation to identity, and that the onus is on the applicant. Where doubt exists, the visa should not be granted. But the policy also says decision makers must explore other avenues to resolve uncertainty, and that where a person cannot obtain identity documents, more weight may be placed on the other pillars and on the credibility of the life story.

Common identity triggers in a partner visa false documents history

• An earlier application in a different name, with a different date of birth or with a different nationality.
• A passport or birth certificate previously found to be counterfeit or altered.
• A biometric match to another client record.
• Multiple birth certificates or identity documents with inconsistent details.
• Documents from a country where civil registration is decentralised or where late registration is common.

The policy recognises that a person who previously used a false identity may later satisfy the identity requirement by providing genuine evidence of their true identity. It gives an example of an applicant who admits to a false identity and provides genuine documents showing who he really is. That applicant may satisfy PIC 4020(2A), but may then fail PIC 4020(1) because the earlier identity document was bogus, which brings the waiver back into play.

The passport requirement is related but separate. PIC 4021 requires a passport that meets the regulations, subject to limited exceptions, and the identity concerns behind a bogus passport usually have to be resolved before it can be met. The firm's page on the partner visa refusal service explains how identity refusals are reviewed.

When an agent or someone else supplied the false document

An applicant is responsible for the documents and information given in their application, even if an agent, a sponsor, a family member or another third party supplied them. The Department's policy says that it is not necessary to show the applicant knew about the false document. It is enough that the applicant was aware the application was being lodged, even if they did not know its specific content. Documents uploaded through ImmiAccount are treated as given by the applicant.

That is why "my agent did it" does not, on its own, answer a partner visa false documents concern. But it is not the end of the matter either.

Purposeful falsity and innocent mistakes

The Full Federal Court in Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42 held that a refusal under PIC 4020 requires the document or information to have the quality of purposeful falsity, whether or not the applicant personally knew of it. The Department's policy describes purposeful falsity in plain English as being intentionally untrue or incorrect. A visa cannot be refused under PIC 4020 if the applicant can explain an innocent mistake.

The policy gives examples where there is no purposeful falsity: a typographical error that is not repeated, a "no" answer to a character question where the conviction was disclosed elsewhere in the same application with a police certificate, and a document prepared according to the customs of the applicant's country without any intent to deceive. A forged bank statement or a fake degree certificate is different. Someone intended it to deceive, even if the applicant did not. In that kind of partner visa false documents case, the argument usually moves from "there was no falsity" to the waiver.

The policy also asks decision makers to take a family violence-informed approach where an application containing false information or a bogus document also contains claims of family violence. Circumstances such as coercion by a former partner may explain how a document came to be given. The firm's page on family violence and partner visas explains the separate family violence provisions. In a partner visa false documents case with that background, the context should be explained with evidence.

Documents given by the sponsor

The policy treats documents provided by a sponsor differently. A document that relates only to the sponsor, such as the sponsor's own police certificate, is generally not taken to be given by the applicant unless the applicant did more than allow the sponsor to provide documents. Where a sponsor's police check is bogus, the policy suggests the sponsorship may instead be refused for failure to provide a genuine police check. The sponsor's history can therefore affect a partner application through a different route. The firm's pages on partner visa sponsorship limitations and when a sponsor cannot sponsor a partner visa explain the sponsor's side.

For guidance on the role of representatives generally, see the firm's articles on appointing a migration representative with Form 956 and migration agents and immigration lawyers.

Tribunal decisions on bogus documents and identity in partner visa matters

The Administrative Review Tribunal, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it, has considered partner visa matters involving earlier false documents, bogus documents and identity. The decisions below are matters the Tribunal remitted. Each is described only by the issues recorded. They illustrate the kinds of facts that arise in a partner visa false documents case. They are not a prediction of any outcome.

• Khakpour (Migration) [2023] AATA 4366 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were a Federal Court remittal, misleading information in a previous visa application, a bogus degree certificate and transcripts, and compassionate or compelling circumstances.
• CHEN (Migration) [2022] AATA 3269 was a Subclass 309 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were a bogus marriage certificate, false information about marital status, compassionate or compelling circumstances, and mental health issues.
• Rezai (Migration) [2020] AATA 5489 was a Subclass 309 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were a bogus document, no valid identity documents, and satisfaction of the applicant's identity.
• 1826951 (Migration) [2020] AATA 1854 was a Subclass 309 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were bogus documents, burnt identity documents, and a Taskera left in another country.
• 2305833 (MIGRATION) [2026] ARTA 1686 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were identity details, bogus documents, multiple birth certificates, and Nigeria's decentralised civil registration system.
• Li (Migration) [2020] AATA 5418 was a Subclass 820 matter that the Tribunal remitted. The issues recorded were compelling reasons for not applying criteria and possible manipulation of visa history.

Read together, the recorded issues show the themes that recur in a partner visa false documents matter: a previous application, a specific bogus document, the applicant's identity, and compassionate or compelling circumstances. Each decision turns on its own facts. The firm's articles on partner visa refusal appeal options and when you need a visa appeal lawyer explain how Tribunal review works.

What must be disclosed in the new partner visa application

Every question in the new partner visa application, and in Form 80 if it is requested, must be answered truthfully, including questions about past visa applications, refusals, cancellations and identity details. Honest disclosure is the foundation of any partner visa false documents strategy, because a false answer now creates a fresh PIC 4020 problem in the current application, inside the 12-month look-back by definition.

The application and Form 80 ask about previous names, dates of birth, passports, previous Australian visa applications, visa refusals and cancellations, and immigration history. The Department already holds most of the answers. A partner visa false documents history that is concealed in the new application turns an old issue, which may be outside PIC 4020(1), into a current issue that is squarely within it.

Disclosure should be accurate and complete, but it does not need to be dramatic. The answer to each question should be correct. Where a question asks for details, the details should match the Department's records. Where an explanation is needed, it should be given in a separate written statement, supported by documents, rather than squeezed into a form field.

Common disclosure errors in a partner visa false documents case include the following.

• Answering "no" to a question about previous refusals because the refusal was "only a student visa" or was made many years ago.
• Using a different spelling of a name, or a different date of birth, from the one used in the earlier application, without explaining why.
• Leaving out a period spent in Australia on a visa that was later cancelled.
• Omitting an application that was withdrawn, on the assumption that a withdrawn application does not count.
• Relying on an earlier representative's description of what happened without checking the Department's records.

The firm's guides to the partner visa document checklist, the Subclass 820 application process and the Subclass 820 partner visa explain the rest of the application.

Correcting earlier incorrect answers: Form 1023

Form 1023 is the Department's form for notifying incorrect answers given in a visa application, on a passenger card or in response to a notice from the Department. Section 105 of the Migration Act deals with particulars of incorrect answers. A person who becomes aware that an answer they gave was incorrect should consider notifying the Department of the correct answer.

The form itself warns that if a person does not comply with the requirement to advise the Department of incorrect information and give correct answers, their visa is liable to be cancelled. It also warns that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. Form 1023 is different from Form 1022, which notifies a change of circumstances after the application. The firm's article on Form 1022 change of circumstances explains that form.

Whether, when and how to lodge Form 1023 in a partner visa false documents case is a legal judgment. It depends on which visa is currently held, which application the incorrect answer was given in, whether a partner application is pending and what the correction will reveal. A correction should be accurate, should be supported by documents where possible, and should be prepared with the effect on the current visa and on PIC 4020 for the partner application both in view.

Cancellation risk for a visa you hold now

A visa obtained with a false document or incorrect information may be liable to cancellation under section 109 of the Migration Act, separately from any partner application. Section 109 allows the Minister to cancel a visa where the holder did not comply with the obligations in the Act to give correct information and not to give bogus documents, subject to a notice and response process. A partner visa false documents problem can therefore affect the visa the person is relying on to stay in Australia.

This risk is most acute for onshore applicants. A person in Australia on a student or skilled visa that was obtained with a false document, who lodges a Subclass 820 application, may draw the Department's attention to that visa. If the visa is cancelled, the person may face consequences for future applications made in Australia. The rules on applying after a cancellation are technical and should be checked for the specific cancellation power used. The firm's page on visa cancellations explains the cancellation process and responses.

Where a past visa was already cancelled for incorrect information or bogus documents, the cancellation itself must be disclosed in the partner application, and its effect on the right to apply onshore must be checked. A person who becomes unlawful after a cancellation may need to address the Schedule 3 criteria. The firm's articles on Schedule 3 criteria when you are unlawful and the Schedule 3 partner visa waiver, and its Schedule 3 waiver service page, explain that pathway. Bridging visa questions are covered in the guides to bridging visas in Australia and the Bridging visa A.

The Department's guidance on providing accurate information also states that giving false documents or information can lead to refusal, cancellation, restrictions on future applications and prosecution. Where criminal exposure is a real possibility, that should be considered before any statement is made.

Getting your old Department records before you apply

Before a partner visa false documents strategy is settled, the person's own records should be obtained from the Department. Memory is not reliable, earlier representatives may not have kept copies, and the precise dates of refusals and withdrawals matter for the non-grant periods.

The Department accepts requests for access to a person's own documents through an online form. Its website states that photo identification must be provided, and that a request for another person's documents must include evidence of that person's consent. Requests can also be made by email or post. A request should be clear and specific about which applications and documents are sought.

The records usually needed in a partner visa false documents case are the following.

• Copies of earlier visa applications, including the forms and the documents uploaded.
• Any natural justice letters and responses, and any refusal decision records.
• Any cancellation notices and decision records.
• Any Tribunal decisions on review.
• The client record details, such as names, dates of birth and passports held on file.

A refusal decision record under PIC 4020 should state which limb of the bogus document definition was applied or which criterion the false information was material to, the waiver assessment, and any non-grant period. Reading that record is the starting point for any partner visa false documents assessment. The firm's guide on how to create an ImmiAccount explains the online system used to lodge applications and documents.

Preparing a partner visa application with a false documents history

A partner visa false documents application is prepared in a set order: obtain the records, identify which PIC 4020 limb could be engaged, check the timing, gather genuine documents, prepare a candid explanation, and assemble the waiver material. Each step depends on the one before it.

Genuine documents only

Every document in the new application must be genuine. Identity documents, civil documents, financial records and relationship evidence should be original records from the issuing body, with certified translations where needed. Where the earlier problem concerned a particular type of document, such as a marriage certificate or a degree, the genuine version, or an official statement that none exists, should be obtained from the issuing authority. The relationship evidence must meet the usual standard. The firm's guides to partner visa relationship evidence, preparing evidence of a genuine relationship and the 820 partner visa evidence checklist explain that standard.

A candid explanation

The explanation should state what document or information was given, in which application, by whom, what the person knew at the time, what happened afterwards, and what the person has done since. It must be the applicant's own account, reviewed and corrected by the applicant. It should not minimise what happened, and it should not accept more than the facts support. Where the applicant did not know of the false document, the explanation should say so, and supporting evidence such as communications with the earlier agent should be included where they exist.

Waiver material

Where PIC 4020(1) or (2) may be engaged, the application should include material on the compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the Australian sponsor and any Australian children or family. That material may include supporting statements, evidence of care responsibilities, medical evidence about an Australian family member, and evidence of why the sponsor cannot live in the applicant's country. The relationship statement and Form 888 statements from people who know the couple remain important. The firm's guides to the partner visa relationship statement and what a Form 888 should say explain those documents.

Offshore or onshore

The choice between an onshore Subclass 820 application and an offshore Subclass 309 application can matter in a partner visa false documents case, because of the visa currently held, the 12-month look-back, cancellation risk and Schedule 3. The firm's articles on the Subclass 820 onshore partner visa and on moving from a tourist visa to a partner visa explain the onshore options. Couples who are engaged but not yet married may consider the Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa, which is also subject to PIC 4020.

Natural justice letters about past documents

If the Department considers refusing a partner visa under PIC 4020, it must first give the applicant particulars of the adverse information and an opportunity to comment under section 57 of the Migration Act. The Department's policy states that a section 56 request for information cannot be used for this purpose, and that using one instead of a section 57 letter may lead to jurisdictional error.

A natural justice letter in a partner visa false documents case should identify the document or information, explain which application it relates to, quote the bogus document definition and the limb relied on, or identify the criterion the false information is material to, and invite comment on the waiver. The response should address each issue, explain any innocent mistake with evidence, and present the waiver circumstances fully.

The firm's articles on responding to a section 57 natural justice letter for a partner visa and responding to a section 56 request explain these letters. Withdrawing an application in response to a PIC 4020 letter is recorded by the Department and does not remove the history.

If a partner visa is refused because of past false documents

If a partner visa is refused under PIC 4020, review may be available at the Administrative Review Tribunal. Review deadlines are short and strictly applied, so advice should be obtained immediately after the refusal. At the Tribunal, the applicant can give new evidence about the earlier document, the question of purposeful falsity, identity and the waiver circumstances.

The firm's pages on visa refusals and ART review and judicial review describe its review work. Where an application was prepared elsewhere and a partner visa false documents issue was not addressed, a second opinion from an immigration lawyer can identify the gaps, and the article on hiring an immigration lawyer after lodging your own application explains how that works. People weighing legal help can also read the firm's comparison of a partner visa lawyer and doing it yourself and its guide on when you need an immigration lawyer for a partner visa.

Partner visa false documents advice across Australia

Partner visa false documents questions arise for couples in every state and territory, and the firm's partner visa work is national, with consultations held by video. The firm acts for clients in New South Wales through its pages for partner visa lawyers in Sydney, partner visa lawyers in Parramatta, immigration lawyers in Sydney and immigration lawyers in Parramatta. Clients in Victoria read about partner visa lawyers in Melbourne and immigration lawyers in Melbourne.

In Queensland, the firm's pages cover partner visa lawyers in Brisbane, immigration lawyers in Brisbane, partner visa lawyers on the Gold Coast and immigration lawyers on the Gold Coast. Clients in Western Australia read about partner visa lawyers in Perth and immigration lawyers in Perth, and clients in South Australia read about partner visa lawyers in Adelaide and immigration lawyers in Adelaide.

The firm also acts for clients in the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania, through its pages for partner visa lawyers in Canberra, immigration lawyers in Canberra, partner visa lawyers in Hobart and immigration lawyers in Hobart. Couples comparing options can read the guides on how to choose a partner visa lawyer in Australia and booking an immigration lawyer consultation.

How My Migration Lawyers helps with partner visa false documents

My Migration Lawyers acts in many partner visa matters where the applicant has a document problem in their past, including complex cases involving forged financial records, bogus qualifications and references, earlier PIC 4020 refusals, identity discrepancies across applications, documents supplied by an earlier agent, and visas cancelled for incorrect information. The firm deals with complex matters of this type and is capable of handling them from the first assessment through to any review.

The firm's work on a partner visa false documents matter is directed at presenting the client's true history, and their own evidence, in the form the law requires.

• Obtaining the records. The firm helps the client request their own Department records, then reads the earlier applications, natural justice letters and decision records to establish exactly what was given, when and with what result.
• Identifying the rule engaged. The firm assesses whether PIC 4020(1), the three-year period in PIC 4020(2), or the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B) are engaged, and whether the visa currently held carries a cancellation risk.
• Advising on timing and pathway. The firm advises on when to lodge, measured against the date of any earlier refusal, and whether an onshore or offshore application is more appropriate.
• Preparing disclosure and corrections. The firm advises on how each question in the application and Form 80 must be answered, and on whether Form 1023 should be lodged and in what terms.
• Presenting the explanation and the waiver. The client's explanation is the client's own account, reviewed and corrected by the client. The firm advises on the matters it must address and prepares the legal submissions on purposeful falsity and on the compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the Australian sponsor and family.
• Responding to the Department and the Tribunal. Where a natural justice letter or refusal follows, the firm prepares the response, the Tribunal application and the submissions.

The firm's partner visa practice is described on the partner visa lawyers page, and its Principal Lawyer, Weiwei Zhang, oversees that practice. More about the firm is on the about page.

If you have a false document, an earlier refusal or an identity problem in your visa history and want to apply for a partner visa, book a consultation to have your partner visa false documents history assessed before you lodge. You can also call 1300 040 300.